Lawsuit Filed

[steckmom]

I would think a TRO will follow.

I found the in pari materia cases. They mostly deal with tax referenda or other statutes that have passed, not board or administrative resolutions. In other words, I don't think there is specific precedent for reading a board resolution together with a referendum. Two referenda, yes, but a board resolution is not a law.

I'm not going to read all of them though. I'll leave that to our district's attorneys.

[steckmom]

archwinsome said:

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 would find the best attorneys who specialize in this and not use the attorneys we used for BB.

Then I would file the standard answer, interrogatories--hitting really hard here--and motion for summary judgment.

Then I would do everything I could to work out some sort of settlement.

[rural]

Remedy Requested:

(a) Order Defendant to purchase the Brach-Brodie property for the purpose of developing a high school site thereon;
(b) Order Defendant to refrain from doing anything inconsistent with the purchase of the Brach-Brodie property, including the purchasing of the Eola-Molitor property or the construction of a school thereon;
(c) In the event Defendant is unable to purchase the Brach-Brodie property, order it to return the money they have already collected from the March 21, 2006 Bond Referendum and enjoin it from further collecting money from the taxpayers;
(d) Atty fees;
(e) and whatever other free stuff they can get, blah, blah, blah.

(my interpretation of d and e)

[rural]

Smom, correct me if I'm wrong please:

If I understand this right, they want the school at BB. If not then no school and return the money to the taxpayers no 3rd HS.
From this point, the District can determine if they want to try another referendum again, but I don’t know what the turnaround time for that is. Split shifts anyone? I really hope this does not work. We need to make people understand where this is heading. I can’t believe they realized what they signed on for.

[WeBe204]

rural said:

Remedy Requested:

(a) Order Defendant to purchase the Brach-Brodie property for the purpose of developing a high school site thereon;
(b) Order Defendant to refrain from doing anything inconsistent with the purchase of the Brach-Brodie property, including the purchasing of the Eola-Molitor property or the construction of a school thereon;
(c) In the event Defendant is unable to purchase the Brach-Brodie property, order it to return the money they have already collected from the March 21, 2006 Bond Referendum and enjoin it from further collecting money from the taxpayers;
(d) Atty fees;
(e) and whatever other free stuff they can get, blah, blah, blah.

(my interpretation of d and e)

This is probably the part that needs to get out to the public collective. We are not talking about stopping the buying of a site. We are talking about BB or nothing. So, nothing could be a reality.

How about F. Buy Macom and call it Ashwood Valley High. (That is me poking fun at myself)

[rural]

I'm sure we'll be reading about it tomorrow.

[rural]

I think Steckmom went to bed. I think she has the right idea.

[JB]

rural said:

Remedy Requested:

(a) Order Defendant to purchase the Brach-Brodie property for the purpose of developing a high school site thereon;
(b) Order Defendant to refrain from doing anything inconsistent with the purchase of the Brach-Brodie property, including the purchasing of the Eola-Molitor property or the construction of a school thereon;
(c) In the event Defendant is unable to purchase the Brach-Brodie property, order it to return the money they have already collected from the March 21, 2006 Bond Referendum and enjoin it from further collecting money from the taxpayers;
(d) Atty fees;
(e) and whatever other free stuff they can get, blah, blah, blah.

(my interpretation of d and e)

What's up with C? How can you enjoin it from further collecting money from the taxpayers? I just don't understand that - I read that as no more referendums ever,which is just plain silly.

For the record, I'm all about the Guinness.

[rural]

It means they would no longer be able to collect taxes for this referendum for the HS because that's what this suit is about.

[rural]

Here is some info off the Fish Law Firm website:

Areas of Practice
Injunctions/Restraining Orders
Mr. Fish has been involved in dozens of cases involving injunctive relief. An injunction (sometimes called a temporary restraining orders (TRO) or preliminary injunctions) involves asking a court to order someone else to do or stop doing something. Wikepedia defines an injunction as "an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that either prohibits or compels ("enjoins" or "restrains") a party from continuing a particular activity. The party that fails to adhere to the injunction faces civil or criminal contempt of court and may have to pay damages or sanctions for failing to follow the court's order."

Examples of Mr. Fish's injunctive practice included:

Mr. Fish has represented franchisors and franchisees in disputes involving injunctive relief such as the violation of non-compete agreements, franchise agreements, and intellectual property.
Mr. Fish has been involved in disputes involving municipal ordinance violations, the revocation of business licenses, and zoning violations.
Student and school disputes -- including disciplinary (i.e., suspensions and expulsions), special education, due process and civil rights violations.
Municipal election disputes.
Recovering stolen property.
Injunctions seeking to avoid the dissipation of assets.
Seeking injunctions against the violation of consumer rights.

[WeBe204]

That sort of tells of telegraphs the next step.

Let's say something crazy happens. The admin/board decides to negotiate. I know, I know I am in fantasy land. What would they negotiate? I can see relief for watts, owen.. (assuming you move some other people around) maybe resolved some splits. But at the end of the day there is no room at the NVHS inn and resort. So, is seems like negotiation or settling is not possible either. right??

[rural]

Our SD does not negotiate with terrorists. Actually, they kinda suck at negotiation, period.

[mandmmom]

rural said:

Our SD does not negotiate with terrorists. Actually, they kinda suck at negotiation, period.

I am hoping you used a poor choice in words in calling people terrorists. I do agree with you that they stink in negotiating period. This is going to be hard on our district, but the only ones to blame are the SB....they got us in this mess, now they have to figure a way to get out of it....

[Arch]

brad204 said:

That sort of tells of telegraphs the next step.

Let's say something crazy happens. The admin/board decides to negotiate. I know, I know I am in fantasy land. What would they negotiate? I can see relief for watts, owen.. (assuming you move some other people around) maybe resolved some splits. But at the end of the day there is no room at the NVHS inn and resort. So, is seems like negotiation or settling is not possible either. right??

I don't recall seeing anything resembling "or send areas {a,b,c} here and areas {d,e,f} there..." in there. Did I miss it?

Unless you're saying to negotiate for other things not even listed...?

I have to admit, I'm kind of amazed the present boundaries are not even mentioned. Either it wasn't about the current boundaries or someone got very clever and took the wind out of the sails of the people screaming that it was all about the current boundaries. Hard to tell. Either way, I don't see those are anything to negotiate either from what I read.

[Arch]

mandmmom said:

rural said:

Our SD does not negotiate with terrorists. Actually, they kinda suck at negotiation, period.

I am hoping you used a poor choice in words in calling people terrorists. I do agree with you that they stink in negotiating period. This is going to be hard on our district, but the only ones to blame are the SB....they got us in this mess, now they have to figure a way to get out of it....

It's a statement used by governments and entities throughout the world. It read like a play on that statement to me, tongue in cheek.