|
|
Post by Arch on May 25, 2008 10:23:55 GMT -6
Why is it that people are racking their brains on questions that make no sense?
Such as: If the referendum is nullified and a subsequent one fails and no 3rd HS is built, will NSFOC sue again because they are going to be sent to WV?
The answer to this this pretty much shoots in the foot the whole supposed argument that it was all about not wanting to go to WVHS, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by spousestonethrow on May 25, 2008 10:28:20 GMT -6
Who says that if there is no 3rd HS (which I believe there will be eventually) that NSFOC will be at WV? Is there a list of all the middle schools their children attend or is that same dumb assumption that NSFOC is all TG/WE? I am confused!
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 25, 2008 10:29:16 GMT -6
These are the strawman arguments falling apart.  "Does Not Compute!" |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on May 25, 2008 22:13:40 GMT -6
Why is it that people are racking their brains on questions that make no sense? Such as: If the referendum is nullified and a subsequent one fails and no 3rd HS is built, will NSFOC sue again because they are going to be sent to WV? The answer to this this pretty much shoots in the foot the whole supposed argument that it was all about not wanting to go to WVHS, doesn't it? everyone pro and con has an angle arch....like I heard you posted about gas pipelines one time  |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 25, 2008 22:35:53 GMT -6
Why is it that people are racking their brains on questions that make no sense? Such as: If the referendum is nullified and a subsequent one fails and no 3rd HS is built, will NSFOC sue again because they are going to be sent to WV? The answer to this this pretty much shoots in the foot the whole supposed argument that it was all about not wanting to go to WVHS, doesn't it? everyone pro and con has an angle arch....like I heard you posted about gas pipelines one time Yup.. you know.. those things that don't exist there and if they did are completely benign.  |
|
SouthernWolf
Junior
Dean Wermer; when is the parade?
Posts: 139
|
Post by SouthernWolf on May 27, 2008 11:05:10 GMT -6
I am a supporter of NSFOC and all that stuff is meaningless to me. Of course no one is going to sue if the new boundaries (assuming no MVHS) dictate more neighborhoods need to move from NV to WV. There is no basis for a suit even if someone actually wanted to. My guess is that the NEW SB (after April 2009 elections) would review the student population (ACTUAL NUMBERS this time) and retool boundaries as needed since the current 2009 boundaries would be meaningless without MV. They may need to do this anyway if the MV is not ready Aug 2009 (and NSFOC loses the case).
My guess is that certain members of the SB would really like to punish tallgrass specifically (if there is anyway they can) as I have heard M2 and others say it is "hostile territory" or some other bulls**t like that. So, if any more splits are needed in a 2009 boundry with just the 2 HS's,...I'm sure the fry portion of scullen will remain the lone gunman split to WV if M2 has his way. That's fine. What they are doing is wrong, and I could not sleep at night If I did nohing to oppose this travisty of the 3rd HS process.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 27, 2008 11:14:29 GMT -6
I am a supporter of NSFOC and all that stuff is meaningless to me. Of course no one is going to sue if the new boundaries (assuming no MVHS) dictate more neighborhoods need to move from NV to WV. There is no basis for a suit even if someone actually wanted to. My guess is that the NEW SB (after April 2009 elections) would review the student population (ACTUAL NUMBERS this time) and retool boundaries as needed since the current 2009 boundaries would be meaningless without MV. They may need to do this anyway if the MV is not ready Aug 2009 (and NSFOC loses the case). My guess is that certain members of the SB would really like to punish tallgrass specifically (if there is anyway they can) as I have heard M2 and others say it is "hostile territory" or some other bulls**t like that. So, if any more splits are needed in a 2009 boundry with just the 2 HS's,...I'm sure the fry portion of scullen will remain the lone gunman split to WV if M2 has his way. That's fine. What they are doing is wrong, and I could not sleep at night If I did nohing to oppose this travisty of the 3rd HS process. Let's make no mistake - all the rhetoric over suing those with their name on nsfoc etc. is geared to try and limit any future add on supporters if the motion to dismiss is thrown out and that is viewed as a first step victory for nsfoc. It's all pre emptive damage control- likely led by the masters. Should we get the list for 204tk and sue them if nsfoc wins this case- for aiding and abetting the SB if their activites are found to be illegal? Really, silly arguments. But they have a prupose - |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 27, 2008 11:25:02 GMT -6
I read on the greenboard that some are trying to suggest that anyone who contributed to NSFOC can be responsible for legal fees if NSFOC loses. This is consistent with many of the greenboarders' constant attempt to "out" contributors and intimidate anyone who does not agree with their position.
Illinois (like the rest of AMERICA) does not generally require the loser to pay the winner's legal fees. There are certain limited exceptions by statute (such as civil rights claims where the defendant must pay if they lose, or cases where the plaintiff must pay when a case is dismissed on its face as completely frivolous and/or without any possible legal merit). Based on the fact that Judge Popejoy had many questions and needed more time to rule, this case is clearly one (like 99.9% of all lawsuits) where NSFOC will not be liable for legal fees if they do not prevail.
Even if this case was one that fell into the category where the plaintiffs could be responsible for legal fees (which it does not), by law, those who donated to NSFOC can not be found liable for these legal fees simply because they donated.
Completely amazing how far these folks will go. Next thing you know, one of them will actually try to write to the Judge to convince him that anyone that does not agree with them are racists. ;D
As the greenboarders continue to try to intimidate anyone who does not agree with them (even calling NSFOC members "focers"), some of the grenboarders argue that even if the SB's activity of building on AMES was ILLEGAL, it will be NSFOC's fault (and not the SB) that we may not get a third school.
If the Judge Popejoy rules in NSFOC's favor, it is likely that he will give the SB a choice...purchase BB or present a new referendum (in that he will invalidate the 2006 referendum).
The reality is there is no way the SB will pursue BB and thus, I expect there will be the need for a third referendum. The funny thing is that many who voted no the last go around will now campaign hard to get a school in their backyard, and many who voted yes will now campaign to vote no because they no longer trust this Board and administration (and are done voluntarily giving it taxpayer money).
204 in a nutshell.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 27, 2008 11:29:43 GMT -6
I read on the greenboard that some are trying to suggest that anyone who contributed to NSFOC can be responsible for legal fees if NSFOC loses. This is merely consistent with their constant attempt to "out" contributors and intimidate anyone who does not agree with their position. Illinois (like the rest of AMERICA) does not generally require the loser to pay the winner's legal fees. There are certain limited exceptions by statute (such as civil rights claims where the defendant must pay if they lose, or cases where the plaintiff must pay when a case is dismissed on its face as completely friviolous and/or without any possible legal merit). Based on the fact that Judge Popejoy had many questions and needed more time to rule, this case is clearly one (like 99.9% of all lawsuits) where NSFOC will not be liable for legal fees if they do not prevail. Even if this case was one that fell into the category where the plaintiffs could be responsible for legal fees (which it does not), by law, those who donated to NSFOC can not be found liable for these legal fees simply because they donated. Completely amazing how far these folks will go. As they continue to try to intimidate anyone who does not agree with them, some of the grenboarders even argue that even if the SB's activity of building on AMES was ILLEGAL, it will be NSFOC's fault (and not the SB) that we may not get a thrid school. Seems like it is okay to pursue illegal activities as long as it fits their agenda. If the Judge rules in NSFOC's favor, it is likely that he will rule that the SB has a choice...purchase BB or present a new referendum. The reality is there is no way the SB will pursue BB and thus, I expect there will be the need for a third referendum. The funny thing is that many who voted no the last go around will now campaign hard to get a school in their backyard, and many who voted yes will now campaign to vote no because they no longer trust this Board and administration. 204 in a nutshell. "and many who voted yes will now campaign to vote no because they no longer trust this Board and administration" that apears to be the scenario. "The funny thing is that many who voted no the last go around will now campaign hard to get a school in their backyard, " exactly - since you can't find anyone there who will admit to voting no - they all voted yes ' for the kids' - I guess all the no voters moved. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 27, 2008 12:09:21 GMT -6
The saber rattling will continue, without a doubt.
The lingering question is will they re-use the leftover orange paint from 2 years ago or buy a new fresh color.
|
|
|
|
Post by slp on May 27, 2008 12:21:06 GMT -6
I read on the greenboard that some are trying to suggest that anyone who contributed to NSFOC can be responsible for legal fees if NSFOC loses. This is consistent with many of the greenboarders' constant attempt to "out" contributors and intimidate anyone who does not agree with their position. Illinois (like the rest of AMERICA) does not generally require the loser to pay the winner's legal fees. There are certain limited exceptions by statute (such as civil rights claims where the defendant must pay if they lose, or cases where the plaintiff must pay when a case is dismissed on its face as completely frivolous and/or without any possible legal merit). Based on the fact that Judge Popejoy had many questions and needed more time to rule, this case is clearly one (like 99.9% of all lawsuits) where NSFOC will not be liable for legal fees if they do not prevail. Even if this case was one that fell into the category where the plaintiffs could be responsible for legal fees (which it does not), by law, those who donated to NSFOC can not be found liable for these legal fees simply because they donated. Completely amazing how far these folks will go. Next thing you know, one of them will actually try to write to the Judge to convince him that anyone that does not agree with them are racists. ;D As the greenboarders continue to try to intimidate anyone who does not agree with them (even calling NSFOC members "focers"), some of the grenboarders argue that even if the SB's activity of building on AMES was ILLEGAL, it will be NSFOC's fault (and not the SB) that we may not get a third school. If the Judge Popejoy rules in NSFOC's favor, it is likely that he will give the SB a choice...purchase BB or present a new referendum (in that he will invalidate the 2006 referendum). The reality is there is no way the SB will pursue BB and thus, I expect there will be the need for a third referendum. The funny thing is that many who voted no the last go around will now campaign hard to get a school in their backyard, and many who voted yes will now campaign to vote no because they no longer trust this Board and administration (and are done voluntarily giving it taxpayer money). 204 in a nutshell. very well said. If the NSFOC comes out on top on Friday that means that a court of law concludes that the school board did something unethical and illegal. How can that possibly be the fault of NSFOC? |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 27, 2008 12:26:41 GMT -6
The saber rattling will continue, without a doubt. The lingering question is will they re-use the leftover orange paint from 2 years ago or buy a new fresh color. Orange is so two years ago. White is the new orange. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 27, 2008 12:30:13 GMT -6
The saber rattling will continue, without a doubt. The lingering question is will they re-use the leftover orange paint from 2 years ago or buy a new fresh color. Orange is so two years ago. White is the new orange. NO is the new YES too, right? |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 27, 2008 12:48:23 GMT -6
Orange is so two years ago. White is the new orange. NO is the new YES too, right? Absolutely! Have you SEEN the numbers?! We've got over 1,800 enrolled in ADK so far - and 80 in half day! And we've got over 1,800 seniors graduating this year! (Oops, uh, nevermind....) |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on May 27, 2008 12:55:31 GMT -6
NO is the new YES too, right? Absolutely! Have you SEEN the numbers?! We've got over 1,800 enrolled in ADK so far - and 80 in half day! And we've got over 1,800 seniors graduating this year! (Oops, uh, nevermind....) Yes and 1880 x 4 = 10,400 ! ooops |
|
