|
|
Post by fryfox on May 23, 2008 16:35:59 GMT -6
"No matter who wins this thing, it's going to be appealed," Scotti said. "So it can only be positive for everyone that the court is getting all of the information it needs." They can't appeal the motion to dismiss, can they? I hope he's referring to the case and not to the motion for dismissal. It is an interesting question...If NSFOC loses, they would have a right to appeal. If the District loses, they do not have an automatic right to appeal in that I do not think that the denial of the motion would be final and appealable (in that it is not dispositive of the case). The Judge can (and may) certify the question for appeal, but I do not think the District would have an automatic right to appeal the decision until after a final verdict. Interesting...I guess the Judge (who appears to be very balanced and fair) - told the district's attorney that he didn't buy into the argument that it had to be dismissed because they were already underway with construction, had bulldozers out, etc, etc. He said they can't claim that they didn't know about the lawsuit - in as much as they moved ahead in spite of knowing about the lawsuit. He seems to be very well versed in the facts of the case. |
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on May 23, 2008 16:38:54 GMT -6
smom? sashimi? What's your take on today? I am glad that at the very least, we will have had our day in Court and moved to hold the Board and administration accountable for their conduct. If NSFOC loses, I will remain proud of what they did and for giving so many a voice. However, I will say that if it comes down in NSFOC's favor, get ready for the visual pushing of dirt from one side of the property to the other to come to a screaching halt (and it will be interesting to see how careless this Board and Administration can be). Do you think the pushing will stop by order of the Judge or by the district? Would there be an injunction if the case is to be heard? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 23, 2008 16:58:29 GMT -6
It is an interesting question...If NSFOC loses, they would have a right to appeal. If the District loses, they do not have an automatic right to appeal in that I do not think that the denial of the motion would be final and appealable (in that it is not dispositive of the case). The Judge can (and may) certify the question for appeal, but I do not think the District would have an automatic right to appeal the decision until after a final verdict. Interesting...I guess the Judge (who appears to be very balanced and fair) - told the district's attorney that he didn't buy into the argument that it had to be dismissed because they were already underway with construction, had bulldozers out, etc, etc. He said they can't claim that they didn't know about the lawsuit - in as much as they moved ahead in spite of knowing about the lawsuit. He seems to be very well versed in the facts of the case. Could be all that rushing , and no appraisals etc. will mean nothing except one more piece of evidence of recklessness snd disregard. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 23, 2008 17:04:12 GMT -6
Interesting...I guess the Judge (who appears to be very balanced and fair) - told the district's attorney that he didn't buy into the argument that it had to be dismissed because they were already underway with construction, had bulldozers out, etc, etc. He said they can't claim that they didn't know about the lawsuit - in as much as they moved ahead in spite of knowing about the lawsuit. He seems to be very well versed in the facts of the case. Could be all that rushing , and no appraisals etc. will mean nothing except one more piece of evidence of recklessness snd disregard. We'll see. Hmm, kind of sets the stage for another one... |
|
|
|
Post by spousestonethrow on May 23, 2008 18:21:57 GMT -6
It is an interesting question...If NSFOC loses, they would have a right to appeal. If the District loses, they do not have an automatic right to appeal in that I do not think that the denial of the motion would be final and appealable (in that it is not dispositive of the case). The Judge can (and may) certify the question for appeal, but I do not think the District would have an automatic right to appeal the decision until after a final verdict. Interesting...I guess the Judge (who appears to be very balanced and fair) - told the district's attorney that he didn't buy into the argument that it had to be dismissed because they were already underway with construction, had bulldozers out, etc, etc. He said they can't claim that they didn't know about the lawsuit - in as much as they moved ahead in spite of knowing about the lawsuit. He seems to be very well versed in the facts of the case. Please tell me that Scotty did not make that argument?! You must be joking. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 23, 2008 18:32:13 GMT -6
Interesting...I guess the Judge (who appears to be very balanced and fair) - told the district's attorney that he didn't buy into the argument that it had to be dismissed because they were already underway with construction, had bulldozers out, etc, etc. He said they can't claim that they didn't know about the lawsuit - in as much as they moved ahead in spite of knowing about the lawsuit. He seems to be very well versed in the facts of the case. Please tell me that Scotty did not make that argument?! You must be joking. Is this like "possession is 9/10ths of the law" ?? I'll have to have a nice chuckle if he actually made that argument. |
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on May 23, 2008 19:27:40 GMT -6
Please tell me that Scotty did not make that argument?! You must be joking. Is this like "possession is 9/10ths of the law" ?? I'll have to have a nice chuckle if he actually made that argument. I don't think he made that argument, persay, I think the judge was just commenting on the fact that the district has rushed forward so that more and more is done and it's harder to turn back. My impression is that he was making the point that the progress won't impact his decision. Just my understanding and purely speculation based on what I heard. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 23, 2008 20:55:28 GMT -6
Please tell me that Scotty did not make that argument?! You must be joking. Is this like "possession is 9/10ths of the law" ?? I'll have to have a nice chuckle if he actually made that argument. well we all knew that was behind the 2 day closing without an appraisal -- this is not a playground dispute over whose ball it is.... |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 23, 2008 21:00:42 GMT -6
The ball is always in play, until one decides to pop it.
|
|
|
|
Post by spousestonethrow on May 23, 2008 21:17:22 GMT -6
Just read this on the green board to get feedback from today on both boards. I am amazed that in all scenarios those people keep putting anything negative back on NSFOC. I am a reader only and don't post for that very reason. Once I got to this post I stopped reading. We all need to look at this for what it truly is. I will admit that I have not always been a supporter of NSFOC, but their argument has merit. Obviously the judge felt so as well to spend his holiday weekend reviewing the case. Kudos to Popejoy!
McLovin wrote:
One more surprising fact that came out of today's happenings in court was the email a district resident sent to the Judge.
WOW, what was that person thinking when they sent that email? I understand we all have an opinion on this lawsuit but an email to a Judge??? Clearly not a good decision. It's unfortunate that someone was misguided enough to go that far. And, a shame her name is out in the public record.
Really a dumb move.
ETA: a lesson for all of us involved. Never send an email to a Judge or jury member involved in a legal proceeding.
Then Chicoryowl replied:
An unsolicited message from a District 204 resident...was it that guy from NSFOC publicizing their latest meeting and asking for a donation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 23, 2008 21:23:12 GMT -6
I believe the term is called 'tampering'.
Federal crime, if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on May 23, 2008 21:25:49 GMT -6
For the record, the email came from someone attacking NSFOC, their motives and their position. I will not share the name, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it comes out. It is public record now, after all. It is illegal to present evidence to a judge outside of a court of law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 23, 2008 21:29:03 GMT -6
For the record, the email came from someone attacking NSFOC, their motives and their position. I will not share the name, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it comes out. It is public record now, after all. It is illegal to present evidence to a judge outside of a court of law. The sad part is they probably felt they were just "doing their duty".  |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on May 23, 2008 21:31:39 GMT -6
For the record, the email came from someone attacking NSFOC, their motives and their position. I will not share the name, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it comes out. It is public record now, after all. It is illegal to present evidence to a judge outside of a court of law. The sad part is they probably felt they were just "doing their duty". What? The email didn't help?  I'm glad the judge is taking his time with this. |
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on May 23, 2008 21:32:19 GMT -6
You're right, Arch - this situation has caused people to feel like they need to take action. She just took action with the wrong person in this case.
|
|
