|
|
Post by macy on May 9, 2008 23:01:34 GMT -6
"The Rudiscill court concluded that even if village officials intentionally lied to voters, “it is doubtful that the fundamental right to vote is even implicated.”
Why is this language in the motion to dismiss?
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 9, 2008 23:01:45 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! From what I read, they do not admit to untruths. At the time, the answers to the FAQ were true to the best of the SB/Administrations ability to judge the situation. They are not fortune tellers. "Assuming arguendo" means in plain english "for the sake of argument." They are not admitting to anything, but are saying, "For a moment, let's pretend you are right, and we mislead you. You still don't have a legal leg to stand on." You gotta love lawyers! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 9, 2008 23:05:27 GMT -6
Rural, this will bite them in the butt because this will be reminded to the voters before any future referendum...
They just gave the voteNO crowd a silver bullet for eternity.
I hope they're pleased with themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 23:10:03 GMT -6
The SB has no choice but to argue the motion this way. They have to agree with all of the facts in the NSFOC complaint and say so what? The SB has to assume that they did lie and agrue the law from there. It's a distinction between what the law is and what the facts are.
I guess it will come back to bite them, because I can't seem to get this point across and I think you guys are pretty brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 9, 2008 23:13:33 GMT -6
Rural, this will bite them in the butt because this will be reminded to the voters before any future referendum... They just gave the voteNO crowd a silver bullet for eternity. I hope they're pleased with themselves. No argument there, Arch. They didn't need a lawsuit to do it, either. It was already done. If this chapter in our history does nothing else, I think it will make voters more conscious of what/whom they are giving their vote. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 23:16:03 GMT -6
From what I read, they do not admit to untruths. At the time, the answers to the FAQ were true to the best of the SB/Administrations ability to judge the situation. They are not fortune tellers. "Assuming arguendo" means in plain english "for the sake of argument." They are not admitting to anything, but are saying, "For a moment, let's pretend you are right, and we mislead you. You still don't have a legal leg to stand on." You gotta love lawyers! ;D "The Rudiscill court concluded that even if village officials intentionally lied to voters, “it is doubtful that the fundamental right to vote is even implicated.” You gotta be really angry with that statement from the motion to dismiss regardless of how you feel about lawyers. Why would someone be angry about precedent from another case? |
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 9, 2008 23:18:43 GMT -6
"The Rudiscill court concluded that even if village officials intentionally lied to voters, “it is doubtful that the fundamental right to vote is even implicated.” You gotta be really angry with that statement from the motion to dismiss regardless of how you feel about lawyers. Why would someone be angry about precedent from another case? Isn't the precendent being applied to this case in the motion to dismiss and towards 204 residents being intentionally lied to by public officials? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 9, 2008 23:20:08 GMT -6
The SB has no choice but to argue the motion this way. They have to agree with all of the facts in the NSFOC complaint and say so what? The SB has to assume that they did lie and agrue the law from there. It's a distinction between what the law is and what the facts are. I guess it will come back to bite them, because I can't seem to get this point across and I think you guys are pretty brilliant. I get what you're saying and the stance they have to take.. but if they never filed for a dismissal, there would not be this new document for the voteNO crowd to point to basically saying that the public can go F* themselves and they don't have to be truthful about anything. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 23:26:06 GMT -6
Why would someone be angry about precedent from another case? Isn't the precendent being applied to this case in the motion to dismiss and towards 204 residents being intentionally lied to by public officials? The SB is not admitting to intentionally lying. The NSFOC complaint alleged that they intentionally lied. In a motion to dismiss, a defendant must assume that the facts stated by the plaintiff are true. They are merely citing precedent that says, even if they did lie, the NSFOC does not have a claim. A motion to dismiss is not the time to argue facts. The facts are assumed to be what is in the complaint. Since the NSFOC alleged that they intentionally lied, that is what the SB has to work with. I'm glad the SB is citing precedent to get them out of the lawsuit. Maybe that's where we differ. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 23:29:10 GMT -6
The SB has no choice but to argue the motion this way. They have to agree with all of the facts in the NSFOC complaint and say so what? The SB has to assume that they did lie and agrue the law from there. It's a distinction between what the law is and what the facts are. I guess it will come back to bite them, because I can't seem to get this point across and I think you guys are pretty brilliant. I get what you're saying and the stance they have to take.. but if they never filed for a dismissal, there would not be this new document for the voteNO crowd to point to basically saying that the public can go F* themselves and they don't have to be truthful about anything. True, but it would have been pretty negligent not to file the dismissal. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 9, 2008 23:32:15 GMT -6
"The Rudiscill court concluded that even if village officials intentionally lied to voters, “it is doubtful that the fundamental right to vote is even implicated.” You gotta be really angry with that statement from the motion to dismiss regardless of how you feel about lawyers. Why would someone be angry about precedent from another case? Knowing and having lived through this nightmare, I find it difficult to digest that it is legally acceptable for public officials to have "intentionally lied" to the the voters. I have a problem with the "intentional lie" verbage. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 9, 2008 23:38:16 GMT -6
Why would someone be angry about precedent from another case? Knowing and having lived through this nightmare, I find it difficult to digest that it is legally acceptable for public officials to have "intentionally lied" to the the voters. I have a problem with the "intentional lie" verbage. Well maybe this case will change the law, then. FWIW, I haven't read the case the SB cites. It might not even really apply. Honestly though, the SB really had no choice but to use it. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 9, 2008 23:55:29 GMT -6
None of this precludes another group of parents from filing yet another suit from a totally different angle...
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 10, 2008 5:28:32 GMT -6
"The Rudiscill court concluded that even if village officials intentionally lied to voters, “it is doubtful that the fundamental right to vote is even implicated.” You gotta be really angry with that statement from the motion to dismiss regardless of how you feel about lawyers. Why would someone be angry about precedent from another case? If one believes that one of the basic truths in this country is the right to vote and have that mean something - it should make one angry. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 10, 2008 7:36:30 GMT -6
Why would someone be angry about precedent from another case? If one believes that one of the basic truths in this country is the right to vote and have that mean something - it should make one angry. It was late. Yes, I can see being angry in general, if that is what the case law is. But I'm not angry with the SB for citing it in their motion. |
|
