|
|
Post by drdavelasik on Mar 7, 2008 22:12:27 GMT -6
I think we need a blog conference call in line for this one! :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 7, 2008 22:14:24 GMT -6
I think we need a blog conference call in line for this one! :-) How about a blog bar. I will vote for Tommy Nevins.. I'll buy the wine for steckmom.. |
|
|
|
Post by drdavelasik on Mar 7, 2008 22:16:22 GMT -6
I think we need a blog conference call in line for this one! :-) How about a blog bar. I will vote for Tommy Nevins.. I'll buy the wine for steckmom.. Now you are talking! Roundhouse would work too......people in this district obviously don't mind driving! |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 7, 2008 22:17:19 GMT -6
"My name is Barney Gumball, and I'm a blogoholic..."
|
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 7, 2008 22:17:38 GMT -6
How about a blog bar. I will vote for Tommy Nevins.. I'll buy the wine for steckmom.. Now you are talking! Roundhouse would work too......people in this district obviously don't mind driving! Nice, I was thinking magic bus... |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 7, 2008 22:20:49 GMT -6
I think we need a blog conference call in line for this one! :-) How about a blog bar. I will vote for Tommy Nevins.. I'll buy the wine for steckmom.. Guinness for me please ! I'm starting my St Pat's day tonight ( Sunday is South Side Irish Parade in Chicago - world's largest outside of Dublin and being married to 1st gen Irish and being from the South Side -- it is where I'l be ) -- Right now thinking life was simpler there - everyone went to Catholic School-...and no boundaries- you went to whichever one you wanted. www.southsideirishparade.org/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Side_Irishwww.suntimes.com/news/neighborhoods/830563,CST-NWS-hoods07.article |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 7, 2008 22:21:18 GMT -6
Okay, my biggest concern are with paragraphs 51 and 52 and 58 and 59. Smom have you gotten there yet? (Counts 2, 3--the pars you mentioned) Doesn't look good, but I really don't know. I'd have to do some research on that one though. I don't know the law that requires them to be read together. Count 1 is a little odd. It states sections 1,2, and 4, but then cites free and equal which is section 3. I'd have to some research on this, but I don't think this is much of a claim. |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 7, 2008 22:22:43 GMT -6
How about a blog bar. I will vote for Tommy Nevins.. I'll buy the wine for steckmom.. Guinness for me please ! I'm starting my St Pat's day tonight ( Sunday is South Side Irish Parade in Chicago - world's largest outside of Dublin and being married to 1st gen Irish and being from the South Side -- it is where I'l be ) -- Right now thinking life was simpler there - everyone went to Catholic School-...and no boundaries- you went to whichever one you wanted. www.southsideirishparade.org/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Side_Irishwww.suntimes.com/news/neighborhoods/830563,CST-NWS-hoods07.article I am 100% irish..  I'll take a Guinness |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 7, 2008 22:25:05 GMT -6
For those interested, these are the paragraphs I'm referring to:
50. On December 19, 2005, the District passed a Resolution authorizing the filing of the condemnation action, stating in support that “it is necessary and desirable, and in the public interest and welfare, that [the Brach-Brodie property] be acquired ….. [for the construction of a high school building]…..”
51. Then, less than one month later, on January 9, 2006, the District passed another Resolution, this time authorizing the Referendum language and placement on the ballot, stating in support that “it is in the best interest of the district …..to acquire and improve a high school site and equip one new high school building…..”
52. Pursuant to Illinois law, the January 9, 2006 Resolution certifying the proposition to the election authorities must be read in pari materia with the December 19, 2005 Resolution. This means that in light of the proximity of the Resolutions, they must be “construed together and harmonized.”
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 7, 2008 22:25:16 GMT -6
I think we need a blog conference call in line for this one! :-) How about a blog bar. I will vote for Tommy Nevins.. I'll buy the wine for steckmom.. Steckmom will not be driving tonight.[insert bleary face] Count 4- my guess is it won't fly. I doubt it would work in the election context. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 7, 2008 22:41:31 GMT -6
Count III paragraphs:
58. On December 19, 2005, the District passed a Resolution authorizing the filing of the condemnation action, stating in support that “it is necessary and desirable, and in the public interest and welfare, that [the Brach-Brodie property] be acquired ….. [for the construction of a high school building] …..” The District has never annulled, terminated or superseded this Resolution.
59. Then, less than one month later, on January 9, 2006, the District passed another Resolution, this time authorizing the Referendum language and placement on the ballot, stating in support that “it is in the best interest of the district…..to acquire and improve a high school site and equip one new high school building…..”
60. Pursuant to Illinois law, the January 9, 2006 Resolution certifying the proposition to the election authorities must be read in pari materia with the December 19, 2005 Resolution. This means that in light of the proximity of the Resolutions, they must be “construed together and harmonized.” District’s passage of the December19, 2005 Resolution, together with their clear and unequivocal judicial, legislative and public pronouncements of the meaning of the January 9, 2006 Resolution as alleged herein, mandates that the proposition submitted to the voters in connection with the March 21, 2006 bond referendum be construed so the Referendum’s language “a high school site” mean what the District’s resolved and represented it meant (i.e., the Brach Brodie site).
*I did not check over my typing job, so my apolgies if there are typos or if I skipped a line*
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 7, 2008 22:43:15 GMT -6
Honestly, of everything in the suit, those are the only things that concern me.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 7, 2008 22:45:43 GMT -6
Honestly, of everything in the suit, those are the only things that concern me. I'm looking for a specific case or law on this, about requiring resolutions to be read together and I'm not seeing it. That doesn't mean it isn't there. In pari materia is typically used to read to laws together to determine legislative intent. |
|
|
|
Post by brooksmom on Mar 7, 2008 22:49:15 GMT -6
Steckmom, what happens now? Do they seek a TRO? When will we see something else develop?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 7, 2008 23:03:29 GMT -6
Steckmom, I'll be the first to admit, this is way over my head. So, I'll ask this for those of us who are legally challenged If you were on the board, what motion would you make for the course of action for the SB to take? (Or is it still too early to have a leaning?) Again, thank you for combing through this and sharing your insight. Sorry to put the question to you that way, but that dumbs it down enough for me to understand how severe or benign this thing could be. |
|
I'll take a Guinness 