Lawsuit Filed

[WeBe204]

I really do not know what to say right now. I'll just say for many reasons I am displeased with the fact we are here. And it in my mind this is not sad. This is pathetic.

[doctorwho]

steckmom said:

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"


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.

If this gets to a jury - what are the odds Brodie attorneys are called to give their opinion ? Not that it matters what I think in the case- but I do not believe there was intent to decieive BB for AME when the whole deal started. That doesn't hold water at all.

Now BB for 'maybe something else' when the SD knew prior to voting day that BB was going to ask $600+ per acre - if we knew we couldn't afford that yet didn't tell anyone that YES may not = BB - that might be the crucial point, in someone's interpretation.

And we already know what can happen when it gets in front of a jury - anything

just an observation

[Arch]

Was Dash here when we said "No thanks" to BB after we finally got a price?

*cue twilight zone music* King Midas in reverse.

[d204mom]

doctorwho said:

steckmom said:

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"


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.

If this gets to a jury - what are the odds Brodie attorneys are called to give their opinion ? Not that it matters what I think in the case- but I do not believe there was intent to decieive BB for AME when the whole deal started. That doesn't hold water at all.

Now BB for 'maybe something else' when the SD knew prior to voting day that BB was going to ask $600+ per acre - if we knew we couldn't afford that yet didn't tell anyone that YES may not = BB - that might be the crucial point, in someone's interpretation.

And we already know what can happen when it gets in front of a jury - anything

just an observation

Hey, so why aren't the voters in Cook County suing over "electing" John Todd Stroger?

[steckmom]

Before everyone takes my analysis as gospel, please keep in mind that I'm not exactly sober and I do not claim to be an expert. I just have a fairly strong legal background.

[doctorwho]

d204mom said:

doctorwho said:

If this gets to a jury - what are the odds Brodie attorneys are called to give their opinion ? Not that it matters what I think in the case- but I do not believe there was intent to decieive BB for AME when the whole deal started. That doesn't hold water at all.

Now BB for 'maybe something else' when the SD knew prior to voting day that BB was going to ask $600+ per acre - if we knew we couldn't afford that yet didn't tell anyone that YES may not = BB - that might be the crucial point, in someone's interpretation.

And we already know what can happen when it gets in front of a jury - anything

just an observation

Hey, so why aren't the voters in Cook County suing over "electing" John Todd Stroger?

because they actually did elect him 55% -45% -- after all the wrangling people did get what they voted for. They could have voted for Tony Peraica - but they chose not to.

It may have been shady ( what a shocker in Cook County) - to get his name on the ballot when he did - but he did.

They didn't vote for John and get Todd -- or vote in Cook County and suddenlly become Will.

[Arch]

steckmom said:

Before everyone takes my analysis as gospel, please keep in mind that I'm not exactly sober and I do not claim to be an expert. I just have a fairly strong legal background.

I appreciate your commentary on this, especially w/ the intent. I asked my 'Super' question because I wonder if the following might have happened:

The intention all along was BB. I honestly believe there was no 'intent' to deceive anyone with the way they kept on and on and even tried quick take.

In walks a new Boss who, after seeing the price, basically tells them to stick that price where the sun doesn't shine. Not literally, but could this event mark the 'change of intent' ?? I am merely posing a hypothetical to illustrate a point or possibility...

Am I wrong on my time line and does it have any bearing?

[drdavelasik]

So now will I have the pleasure of reading post after post during this saga of a lawsuit? I say just sit back and watch how it plays out. Speculation and talk around this day after day is a waste of time. Well it does give many something to do morning, noon and night. I am not surprised that it has come to this......saw it coming some time ago. Oh well, I have my popcorn ready to watch this show.

[Arch]

drdavelasik said:

So now will I have the pleasure of reading post after post during this saga of a lawsuit? I say just sit back and watch how it plays out. Speculation and talk around this day after day is a waste of time. Well it does give many something to do morning, noon and night. I am not surprised that it has come to this......saw it coming some time ago. Oh well, I have my popcorn ready to watch this show.

I think I'm going for popcorn and Crown.

[drdavelasik]

archwinsome said:

drdavelasik said:

So now will I have the pleasure of reading post after post during this saga of a lawsuit? I say just sit back and watch how it plays out. Speculation and talk around this day after day is a waste of time. Well it does give many something to do morning, noon and night. I am not surprised that it has come to this......saw it coming some time ago. Oh well, I have my popcorn ready to watch this show.

I think I'm going for popcorn and Crown.

I am cracking up. ;D Vodka on rocks for me!

[steckmom]

archwinsome said:

steckmom said:

Before everyone takes my analysis as gospel, please keep in mind that I'm not exactly sober and I do not claim to be an expert. I just have a fairly strong legal background.

I appreciate your commentary on this, especially w/ the intent. I asked my 'Super' question because I wonder if the following might have happened:

The intention all along was BB. I honestly believe there was no 'intent' to deceive anyone with the way they kept on and on and even tried quick take.

In walks a new Boss who, after seeing the price, basically tells them to stick that price where the sun doesn't shine. Not literally, but could this event mark the 'change of intent' ?? I am merely posing a hypothetical to illustrate a point or possibility...

Am I wrong on my time line and does it have any bearing?

That could be what happened. If it did, with respect to the last count, it wouldn't be deceptive because the intent wasn't there when it went on the ballot.

However, that those facts probably won't be the issue for summary judgment. To survive a claim of summary judgment the plaintiffs only need to allege the facts of a claim. So what actually happened is kind of irrelavent--the court just looks at the facts in the best light for the plaintiff.

[brooksmom]

Could it be that when the referendum passed, we had the money for BB but then it took so long to get through the case that the construction costs had risen to the point to make it prohibitive? Just a thought . . .

[d204mom]

brooksmom said:

Could it be that when the referendum passed, we had the money for BB but then it took so long to get through the case that the construction costs had risen to the point to make it prohibitive? Just a thought . . .

Possible. But they did offer to put $600K/acre in escrow at the end of June - less than 3 months before the jury award - just to prove that they could and would fork that much over.

Even if they never intended to fork over that much dough they told Linda Holmes they were ready willing and able to do it. And said as much in that July 2007 email from Metzger that has now disappeared completely from the district's website. (You can view it here ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=news&thread=1204641091&page=13 post #191).

That doesn't look so good I would suspect.

eta - so weird that it's been deleted. There are news items going back to 2005 that are still there.

?

www.ipsd.org/newsevents/news_item_detail.asp?id=15115

[Arch]

brooksmom said:

Could it be that when the referendum passed, we had the money for BB but then it took so long to get through the case that the construction costs had risen to the point to make it prohibitive? Just a thought . . .

Assuming costs did rise and the presumption from everyone thus far has been that they continue to rise, if we are only a few million short of affording it now (supposedly by the Jan 22 math) how much 'out of reach' was it when the jury first returned their verdict some 5 months ago?

[rural]

Okay, my biggest concern are with paragraphs 51 and 52 and 58 and 59. Smom have you gotten there yet?