|
|
Post by snerdley on May 15, 2008 7:46:23 GMT -6
Marcy, I am one in the same. Although I have never considered kind regards as pompous I will dispense with formality with respect to your universe. In that context, I understand your disagreement, however, I am just saying that if that is the best he can do I would ask for my $204 back. I do not know if you saw the Sun blog, but I have experience with him in the past and saw him snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. He, IMHO, is great at marketing, but poor with details -- not good for the people he represents. I think he went with whimsy in his response when he should have gone with laweyering. Great use of adjective and adverbs – something in my experience that seldom goes over well in any courtroom outside of the TV realm. His track record in court is solid. I heard him say he has won almost every injunction he has filed. We'll all just have to wait and see what the judge decides. Nothing else really matters at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 15, 2008 7:57:10 GMT -6
Marcy, I am one in the same. Although I have never considered kind regards as pompous I will dispense with formality with respect to your universe. In that context, I understand your disagreement, however, I am just saying that if that is the best he can do I would ask for my $204 back. I do not know if you saw the Sun blog, but I have experience with him in the past and saw him snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. He, IMHO, is great at marketing, but poor with details -- not good for the people he represents. I think he went with whimsy in his response when he should have gone with laweyering. Great use of adjective and adverbs – something in my experience that seldom goes over well in any courtroom outside of the TV realm. His track record in court is solid. I heard him say he has won almost every injunction he has filed. We'll all just have to wait and see what the judge decides. Nothing else really matters at this point. That is what matters. SC has historically shown that he can kick and make the heel land in an entity's teeth. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 15, 2008 8:49:00 GMT -6
His track record in court is solid. I heard him say he has won almost every injunction he has filed. We'll all just have to wait and see what the judge decides. Nothing else really matters at this point. That is what matters. SC has historically shown that he can kick and make the heel land in an entity's teeth. So, I guess we have just a week left to learn if the SB will have lost some teeth or that SC just got his foot bit. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 15, 2008 8:54:27 GMT -6
That is what matters. SC has historically shown that he can kick and make the heel land in an entity's teeth. So, I guess we have just a week left to learn if the SB will have lost some teeth or that SC just got his foot bit. ;D or see if there is a chance of removing this from my areas midsection  |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 15, 2008 8:57:37 GMT -6
8 days left....
IMO, this matter is going to be won or loss on May 23d.
The success of the NSFOC case is premised on what the law requires vs. an argument of what the facts are (each side may have their own take, but the representations made by the District that the referendum was to build the school on BB are pretty well documented).
Cutting to the chase and ignoring the theory from the District that the Board and Administration has the right to lie to voters (we can revisit this when the next referendums are presented), the District's argument is that it intended to build on BB, but had the legal right to change plans based on what it believes was an unforeseen change in events.
NSFOC's argument is that, as evidenced by the myriad of District representations and the forum in which they were made, the District made an intentional choice with the intention of limiting the referendum for approval to construct a third high school at "75th Street and Commons Drive".
Thus, if Judge Popejoy denies the District's motion to dismiss, he will have determined that that the prior conduct and representations by the District must be read into the 2006 referendum.
8 more days...
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on May 15, 2008 9:08:12 GMT -6
8 days left.... IMO, this matter is going to be won or loss on May 23d. The success of the NSFOC case is premised on what the law requires vs. an argument of what the facts are (each side may have their own take, but the representations made by the District that the referendum was to build the school on BB are pretty well documented). Cutting to the chase and ignoring the theory from the District that the Board and Administration has the right to lie to voters (we can revisit this when the next referendums are presented), the District's argument is that it intended to build on BB, but had the legal right to change plans based on what it believes was an unforeseen change in events. NSFOC's argument is that, as evidenced by the myriad of District representations and the forum in which they were made, the District made an intentional choice with the intention of limiting the referendum for approval to construct a third high school at "75th Street and Commons Drive". Thus, if Judge Popejoy denies the District's motion to dismiss, he will have determined that that the prior conduct and representations by the District must be read into the 2006 referendum. 8 more days... Oh we are in for more than 8 days.....that is when it will just be beginning no matter which way it goes. Such a shame. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 15, 2008 9:51:36 GMT -6
NSFOC's argument is that, as evidenced by the myriad of District representations and the forum in which they were made, the District made an intentional choice with the intention of limiting the referendum for approval to construct a third high school at "75th Street and Commons Drive". OK I'm not an attorney but there seemed to be lots of case law referenced in Collin's reply. I was especially interested in the case law that referenced decsions made in the same legislative session by the same body should be construed together to interpret the full meaning - in other words - the same school board during the same session passed resolutions that Brach Brodie was the site for the school (in Dec 2005) and that the 124.66 M was for "a high school site" (in Jan 2006) and those two resolutions must be taken together, or, BB = "a high school site" on the ballot. I also agreed that the district's motion to dismiss completely missed the mark by arguing that the purpose of the lawsuit is to choose a school site. It's not. It's about using the referendum money in the manner that was represented. |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 15, 2008 9:59:55 GMT -6
D204 Mom...shhhhhh
I love to see the SB and District treating the Court like it is the same Brookdale audience that it has been courting to over the past months.
I do not think that Judge Popejoy is going to jump on the elist/racist angle (probably does not own an orange shirt), and for perhaps the first time, someone will concentrate on the facts and the law as opposed to raw emotion and subdivision gerrymandering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 15, 2008 10:24:32 GMT -6
That is what matters. SC has historically shown that he can kick and make the heel land in an entity's teeth. So, I guess we have just a week left to learn if the SB will have lost some teeth or that SC just got his foot bit. ;D Let's hope the district has a fully funded dental plan because the suits will keep coming due to the chosen location lending itself to a multitude of angles. |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 15, 2008 10:39:41 GMT -6
More lawsuits?.....
multitude of angles?
New plaintiff group?
5 lawsuits and counting?
Can't be!!!
?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 15, 2008 10:51:53 GMT -6
More lawsuits?..... multitude of angles? New plaintiff group? 5 lawsuits and counting? Can't be!!! ? It's only a matter of time for a good lawyer to work the endangerment angle. |
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on May 15, 2008 11:24:19 GMT -6
More lawsuits?..... multitude of angles? New plaintiff group? 5 lawsuits and counting? Can't be!!! ? It's only a matter of time for a good lawyer to work the endangerment angle. It doesn't have to be a 'good' lawyer...just better than our lawyer  |
|
|
|
Post by slp on May 15, 2008 11:26:57 GMT -6
Perspective, The idea that a closing on the end of a post is considered pompous on this board is ridiculous! I believe some on the board had a hard time with the ideas presented by the last poster that used a similar closing. This may be the root, perhaps not. Regardless, closings add an aspect of personality to a post. If you are comfortable using it, I urge you to continue to do so and not be bullied into changing who you are by other posters. Sincerely. ;D I disagree with your statement regarding the last poster who used a similar closing. That person held themselves out to have a scientific background and disputed in great detail some of the environmental points. But then they also could put on a lawyer's hat and dispute in great detail some of the legal points. A great deal of it came off as district spin. It looked to me as if someone was feeding them this information in an attempt to sway opinion. It just didn't have the feel of a real discussion. Just my opinion - and with regard to the closing - it didn't add anything and became kind of annoying to be honest. My sentiments exactly. The close was annoying! Definitely fed info too. you are right on. eta: I used to be fed info too.  |
|
|
|
Post by perspective on May 15, 2008 18:49:23 GMT -6
We can agree that we will know for sure on the 23rd. My comments were based on a direct experience in the Solutions 180 Hotbar suit in which SC got it handed to him by Katten Muchin. The judge not only dismissed the case with prejudice, he admonished SC for his response -- I can not remember the words the judge used, but it was to the effect that he had wasted the court’s time -- not sure of the judges reasoning. I know of several he has won as well, but since I was involved in this one it stands out more clearly in my mind. Anyway you are all right -- we will not know until the 23rd.
|
|
|
|
Post by perspective on May 15, 2008 18:54:30 GMT -6
Thanks to all for the concern on my sign off, but I did not feel that Macy bullied me, I really pride myself on not being bullied, and I just want to play well in an unfamiliar sand box. Also, with all due respect, I am not the issue on this post and am more comfortable keeping with the "theme". The way I sign does not define me and I do my best to be fair and impartial to everyone's opinions -- not that it would necessarily change mine.
Kind (oops) :-)
|
|
