|
|
Post by rural on May 9, 2008 22:05:17 GMT -6
Hmmm, fine line. One argument may be that they were truthful with the information in regard to the circumstances at the time. Circumstances changed with the jury award. If that same set of FAQ were written up after the jury award, they would contain different answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 9, 2008 22:17:13 GMT -6
Hmmm, fine line. One argument may be that they were truthful with the information in regard to the circumstances at the time. Circumstances changed with the jury award. If that same set of FAQ were written up after the jury award, they would contain different answers. I think this motion to dismiss is ridiculous because of the FAQ prior to the referendum of 06 sent home via "backpack" to the reasonable/non-reasonable voters in district 204. It clearly states that the district is seeking funds to build a high school on the BB parcel. Obviously, the district spent $$ to send this out to residents/parents in 204. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 22:18:37 GMT -6
Hmmm, fine line. One argument may be that they were truthful with the information in regard to the circumstances at the time. Circumstances changed with the jury award. If that same set of FAQ were written up after the jury award, they would contain different answers. I was using the term "lying" because it was easier. Either way though, if NSFOC argues they had intent and the SB argues they didn't intend to lie but that circumstances changed, wouldn't that become a question for trial? |
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 9, 2008 22:22:03 GMT -6
Hmmm, fine line. One argument may be that they were truthful with the information in regard to the circumstances at the time. Circumstances changed with the jury award. If that same set of FAQ were written up after the jury award, they would contain different answers. The FAQ is key as it went out to all voters prior to the 2006 vote was it marketed to "reasonable" or "non-reasonable" voters? Was it factual, or not? Judge Popejoy will decide if the Q and A with "factual" information had an impact on voters. Wouldn't it be funny, if a Will County judge has already ruled that the Q and A was based on "factual" information? Didn't the district argue that the information in the backpack flyer was "factual" in front of a Will County judge in order to defend yet another election interference act violation? |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 9, 2008 22:23:27 GMT -6
Dr. W, I completely agree with you. After I read the motion to dismiss, I had the same thought process. I thought I was an "educated" voter. How stupid was I do be educated. I will go to the polls from this date on as a "reasonable" voter as defined in this motion to dismiss. I now know (after reading the motion) that I should not trust any SB member to be accountable as what they are telling voters can legally be intentionally mistruthful. If they intentionally lie, they are legally protected, right? That's what I read from the motion to dismiss. This is why I think there is a chance the motion will fail. Intent. The SB has no choice but to argue in their motion that they could intentionally say one thing and then do another and it would not break the law, because that is what the NSFOC has alleged. If the SB argues different facts, then their motion will fail. The SB cannot say that they didn't lie. Instead, they must show that the law says that even if what the NSFOC claims is true, they don't have a case. Precedent, however, says that intentional lying is not legal. That the SB has to argue factually that they did not act intentionally, creates an issue of material fact. That means that their motion could be dismissed, allowing this thing to go to trial, with intent being the issue. Not saying the court will agree with this, but this is why I think this thing can go either way. Seems to me if the district was completely confident they would not agree to mediation. Why waste their time if they think they're 100% in the right and the case is frivolous? At this point this "botched up mess" is a total loss in the PR department - one meeting isn't going to salvage any good will whatsoever. Which brings me to another point. I never heard a peep about the ground breaking ceremony. Did they have one? |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 22:26:10 GMT -6
This is why I think there is a chance the motion will fail. Intent. The SB has no choice but to argue in their motion that they could intentionally say one thing and then do another and it would not break the law, because that is what the NSFOC has alleged. If the SB argues different facts, then their motion will fail. The SB cannot say that they didn't lie. Instead, they must show that the law says that even if what the NSFOC claims is true, they don't have a case. Precedent, however, says that intentional lying is not legal. That the SB has to argue factually that they did not act intentionally, creates an issue of material fact. That means that their motion could be dismissed, allowing this thing to go to trial, with intent being the issue. Not saying the court will agree with this, but this is why I think this thing can go either way. Seems to me if the district was completely confident they would not agree to mediation. Why waste their time if they think they're 100% in the right and the case is frivolous? At this point this "botched up mess" is a total loss in the PR department - one meeting isn't going to salvage any good will whatsoever. Which brings me to another point. I never heard a peep about the ground breaking ceremony. Did they have one? Were Aurora's finest on hand? So nice that the cops need to be called in for board meetings nowadays. Shows a real trust between the board and the community.  Mediation isn't PR for the public, it's PR for the judge. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 9, 2008 22:29:00 GMT -6
Mediation isn't PR for the public, it's PR for the judge. Why wouldn't they take Kilander's suggestion to sit down with BB once more in January? Doesn't Judge K. still have a say in damages & fees they'll be awarded? |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 9, 2008 22:30:44 GMT -6
smom, you probably know this one too.
Do the judges talk? Does Popejoy know the shenanigans that the district put BB through?
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 22:32:40 GMT -6
Mediation isn't PR for the public, it's PR for the judge. Why wouldn't they take Kilander's suggestion to sit down with BB once more in January? Doesn't Judge K. still have a say in damages & fees they'll be awarded? I have no idea. Maybe because someone besides Whitt law is involved or maybe because they're idiots. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 9, 2008 22:32:41 GMT -6
Hmmm, fine line. One argument may be that they were truthful with the information in regard to the circumstances at the time. Circumstances changed with the jury award. If that same set of FAQ were written up after the jury award, they would contain different answers. I was using the term "lying" because it was easier. Either way though, if NSFOC argues they had intent and the SB argues they didn't intend to lie but that circumstances changed, wouldn't that become a question for trial? Not necessarily. The NSFOC case law hinges on intent to deceive before the vote. There was no intent to deceive. Doesn't this fact render their argument moot. I think the whole "assuming arguendo" aspect of the motion is just as back up. Judge Popejoy may not dismiss with prejudice, but I do believe he's going to say, "Go back and start over. This one isn't going to do it." |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 9, 2008 22:33:50 GMT -6
Why wouldn't they take Kilander's suggestion to sit down with BB once more in January? Doesn't Judge K. still have a say in damages & fees they'll be awarded? I have no idea. Maybe because someone besides Whitt law is involved or maybe because they're idiots. That just occured to me, too - maybe they are finally getting some decent legal advice. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 22:35:02 GMT -6
smom, you probably know this one too. Do the judges talk? Does Popejoy know the shenanigans that the district put BB through? I'm sure Popejoy knows all about D204, but his judgment is only supposed to be based on what is before him. I think most judges actually do a fairly good job of that. |
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on May 9, 2008 22:37:43 GMT -6
I agree with this kind of thinking. If this is dismissed and that means this SB and administration can act in this manner to get a yes vote and then have the power to change what we were sold, I don't think I can ever vote yes again. CFO's new tagline: Reasonable voters vote NO! I love this!  Too funny. I am sure the SB and administration are kicking themselves for sending out that Q & A. It was a big mistake and I am glad they did it. I think NSFOC has a case and the SB knows it. This is one reason why they are in such a hurry to start building the new school. They hope the judge has pity for district 204. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 9, 2008 22:48:47 GMT -6
Isn't that why they were "assuming arguendo" in their motion? They were saying: We didn't actually lie, but even if we did--which we didn't-- you can't do anything about it. Exactly. If they say that they didn't lie, then they will lose the motion. Seems they have stated they lied, no? What they've stated in this motion is only going to come back and kick them in the ass, from what I know. Ouch! Stay tuned district 204! |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 22:57:35 GMT -6
Exactly. If they say that they didn't lie, then they will lose the motion. Seems they have stated they lied, no? What they've stated in this motion is only going to come back and kick them in the ass, from what I know. Ouch! The SB did not state that they lied. For purposes of the motion only, the SB essentially assumes all the FACTS that the NSFOC has alleged are true. The common legal phrase is that the court will look at the facts "in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." The SB has not admitted to lying, They are saying that even if they did lie, the NSFOC still has not stated a cause of action. |
|
Too funny.