|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 7, 2008 18:08:03 GMT -6
I just received an e-mail that the lawsuit has been filed against the SD by NSFOC.
Hello, sardine can!
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Mar 7, 2008 18:14:35 GMT -6
That was fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 7, 2008 18:18:26 GMT -6
I received a copy as a PDF doc and don't know how to cut/paste. It is long and legalese but essentially demands the school be built on BB or monies refunded (whatever).
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Mar 7, 2008 18:24:15 GMT -6
I received a copy as a PDF doc and don't know how to cut/paste. It is long and legalese but essentially demands the school be built on BB or monies refunded (whatever). Ugggh. A request to prevent the school board from buying Midwest Gen may have worked. I don't see how this is going to fly. |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Mar 7, 2008 18:28:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 7, 2008 18:28:54 GMT -6
So does this deserve a reaction? Guess we'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Mar 7, 2008 18:34:27 GMT -6
inter alia means "among other things."
I did not know that until today.
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on Mar 7, 2008 18:47:20 GMT -6
inter alia means "among other things." I did not know that until today. Thanks, I was wondering... ..and so it begins |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 7, 2008 19:33:10 GMT -6
inter alia means "among other things." I did not know that until today. Thanks, I was wondering... ..and so it begins Kosh? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 7, 2008 19:33:54 GMT -6
inter alia means "among other things." I did not know that until today. Thanks, I was wondering... ..and so it begins It's very sad it came to this.... |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 7, 2008 19:46:27 GMT -6
Ah-ha.
So the case law is Smith V Cherry. Unconstitutional to use "bait and switch" to get swing voters to change their votes. NO in 2005 to YES in 2006 indicates many swing voters were persuaded based on boundaries and site. Before the 2006 vote, Metzger email calls switching boundaries a "bait and switch".
Well at least he didn't call it a Hail Mary pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 7, 2008 20:02:22 GMT -6
Thanks, I was wondering... ..and so it begins Kosh? Wow, I am so impressed with the totally geek sci fi reference. I was thinking B5 when I saw that  |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 7, 2008 20:10:35 GMT -6
Okay, I've had a few glasses of wine with a lovely dinner, but I am currently reading Smith v Cherry. Here are some thoughts.
First, the opinion only holds that such a claim can survive summary judgment. Not that such a claim can win. In other words the court held it could get to a jury.
Second, Smth v Cherry involves a candidate running for office then later withdrawing allowing for the appointment of another candidiate. Also, the plaintiff was another candidate, not a group of voters (Though he did sue in his capacity as a voter) Kind of a stretch. Plus, the Seventh Circuit has not really chosen to extend it to other scenarios.
I have not yet read the complaint.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 7, 2008 20:18:49 GMT -6
Here's a quote.
"Put another way, Cherry's name on the ballot was said to be a sham intended to deceive the voters. Those who thought they were voting for Cherry were as a practical matter voting for whomever the Committeemen might thereafter select; in effect, votes intended for Cherry were really votes for Palmer. This deception on the face of the ballot clearly debased the rights of all voters in the election. Such an abridgment of the right to vote is impermissible and evinces the sufficiency of this complaint"
I still haven't read the complaint, but it looks like they're going to have to prove more than just implied promises. NSFOC is going to have to show actual intent to deceive. That's going to be tough considering that the district really did go after BB.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmanpotter on Mar 7, 2008 20:21:01 GMT -6
So they did it. The saga continues.
|
|
