Lawsuit Filed

[blankcheck]

OK-Just began to read the motion - Please - can anyone ever spell the names of the schools correctly? NEUQUA

[JB]

archwinsome said:

jb said:

Thanks, I was wondering...

..and so it begins

Kosh?

LOTR

[steckmom]

doctorwho said:

jb said:

Thanks, I was wondering...

..and so it begins

It's very sad it came to this....

Yes, it is.

[snerdley]

steckmom said:

doctorwho said:

It's very sad it came to this....

Yes, it is.

I agree.

I know it's naive, but I would think that education should just be about what's best for the kids.

But my eyes have been opened living here - the SB operates in a political way - using certain areas, ignoring others.

Maybe one day, it won't be that way. Until then, I think this is what some people felt had to be done.

[blankcheck]

But where are your tax dollars going? Really......think about it.

[steckmom]

Just skimmed the complaint.

Nicely allleged given the case. We're screwed.

My only hope is that the judge takes pity on the district and/or NSFOC is willing to settle.

ETA: I would include hopes for the SD, but I have none.

[Arch]

steckmom said:

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.

A lot of times in the corp world, as long as a party 'tried their best' or had things happen well beyond their control, they are often off the hook because those efforts showed 'good faith' that they intended to follow through with the original plan... but sometimes s*** happens... It helps demonstrate there was no 'intent' to deceive.

so.. *shrug*

[steckmom]

archwinsome said:

steckmom said:

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.

A lot of times in the corp world, as long as a party 'tried their best' or had things happen well beyond their control, they are often off the hook because those efforts showed 'good faith' that they intended to follow through with the original plan... but sometimes s*** happens... It helps demonstrate there was no 'intent' to deceive.

so.. *shrug*

That's what I was thinking when I read Smith v Cherry. But item 41 of the facts of the complaint alleges that the district repeatedly stated they had the money for BB. That allegation may be enough to defeat a claim of good faith and show deception to get them over the hump for summary judgment.

[d204mom]

Kinda seemed like the point to me that on the ballot, "site" = "Brach-Brodie" - the district made very clear that those words meant the same thing.

So, no Brach Brodie, no high school.

Am I missing something?

[fryfox]

d204mom said:

Kinda seemed like the point to me that on the ballot, "site" = "Brach-Brodie" - the district made very clear that those words meant the same thing.

So, no Brach Brodie, no high school.

Am I missing something?

I can't remember - did it actually say that on the ballot?

[slp]

steckmom said:

archwinsome said:

A lot of times in the corp world, as long as a party 'tried their best' or had things happen well beyond their control, they are often off the hook because those efforts showed 'good faith' that they intended to follow through with the original plan... but sometimes s*** happens... It helps demonstrate there was no 'intent' to deceive.

so.. *shrug*

That's what I was thinking when I read Smith v Cherry. But item 41 of the facts of the complaint alleges that the district repeatedly stated they had the money for BB. That allegation may be enough to defeat a claim of good faith and show deception to get them over the hump for summary judgment.

and is the fact that they attempted to get 'quick take' also an indication that price was not an issue? I don't know.

I know that MM frequently said that they had worst case scenario 'covered'. I guess we should have asked, "what is worst case??" Hindsight is sooo 20/20 isn't it???

this is a sad day for our district no doubt.

[fryfox]

slp said:

steckmom said:

That's what I was thinking when I read Smith v Cherry. But item 41 of the facts of the complaint alleges that the district repeatedly stated they had the money for BB. That allegation may be enough to defeat a claim of good faith and show deception to get them over the hump for summary judgment.

and is the fact that they attempted to get 'quick take' also an indication that price was not an issue? I don't know.

I know that MM frequently said that they had worst case scenario 'covered'. I guess we should have asked, "what is worst case??" Hindsight is sooo 20/20 isn't it???

this is a sad day for our district no doubt.

We did ask MM at our PTA meeting in Spring 2006 how high they were willing to go and he said he didn't want to say because it would hurt their negotiating power.

[d204mom]

fryfox said:

d204mom said:

Kinda seemed like the point to me that on the ballot, "site" = "Brach-Brodie" - the district made very clear that those words meant the same thing.

So, no Brach Brodie, no high school.

Am I missing something?

I can't remember - did it actually say that on the ballot?

No it said "acquire site for 3rd high school" but the complaint alleges that the district convinced everyone that "site" WAS Brach Brodie

[fryfox]

Oh, sorry - misunderstood.

[steckmom]

d204mom said:

Kinda seemed like the point to me that on the ballot, "site" = "Brach-Brodie" - the district made very clear that those words meant the same thing.

So, no Brach Brodie, no high school.

Am I missing something?

Yes, that's alleged also. I was just working backwards.