The Macom Deal

[d204mom]

doctorwho said:

d204mom said:

Now just exactly who is responsible for convincing the jury NOT to award 518 an acre?

And who is reponsible for picking the person that convinces the jury to NOT award 518 an acre.

I'm tired of the "poor us we are victims of circumstance"

juries just aren't that predictable - many high profile cases have shown that. Do you think OJ / Robert Blake or Phil Spector were innocent ? Sometimes it just happens - even if your law firm is Dewey, Cheatem & Howe.

Who picked the jury? Who agreed to every member sitting on the jury? As I recall wvhsparent posted that we didn't object to a single juror. What the heck?

I'm sorry but I am sick of the "poor us" and "everything bad happens to us boo hoo."

OJ got off because the prosecution MADE MISTAKES in my opinion. But that is a whole other story.

THERE is a difference between Whitt Law and DBGC! If our school board was too arrogant to notice, whose fault is that?

Oh right, it's the jury's fault. They are all evil wrongdoers.

[doctorwho]

d204mom said:

doctorwho said:

juries just aren't that predictable - many high profile cases have shown that. Do you think OJ / Robert Blake or Phil Spector were innocent ? Sometimes it just happens - even if your law firm is Dewey, Cheatem & Howe.

Who picked the jury? Who agreed to every member sitting on the jury? As I recall wvhsparent posted that we didn't object to a single juror. What the heck?

I'm sorry but I am sick of the "poor us" and "everything bad happens to us boo hoo."

OJ got off because the prosecution MADE MISTAKES in my opinion. But that is a whole other story.

THERE is a difference between Whitt Law and DBGC! If our school board was too arrogant to notice, whose fault is that?

Oh right, it's the jury's fault. They are all evil wrongdoers.

You believe they made a sound decision then ?

[d204mom]

doctorwho said:

d204mom said:

Who picked the jury? Who agreed to every member sitting on the jury? As I recall wvhsparent posted that we didn't object to a single juror. What the heck?

I'm sorry but I am sick of the "poor us" and "everything bad happens to us boo hoo."

OJ got off because the prosecution MADE MISTAKES in my opinion. But that is a whole other story.

THERE is a difference between Whitt Law and DBGC! If our school board was too arrogant to notice, whose fault is that?

Oh right, it's the jury's fault. They are all evil wrongdoers.

You believe they made a sound decision then ?

No.

But given the information presented to them, yes, I think they did "the best they could under the circumstances."

I also stated that as I recall we didn't object to any of the jurors. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[d204mom]

daisy said:

Here are a few details I can pass on about that. Alka Tile said they are leaning toward a northern site. She said something about Howie Crouse did not do "due diligence" on that site before.

If this is true then shame on our board for not learning from past mistakes. As I remember a poster on this board had a gripe that Howie did not do due diligence on the St. John's site (feel free to chime in).

Trying to correct a past wrong with the same wrong all over again is sad if it is true that they are not giving the Macom site due diligence.

But hey, why give us any information about the situation when we can all just come unglued over rumors? Divide and conquer!

[wvhsparent]

I only saw the last few jurors get picked, and yes during those there were no objections to them where BB booted most of them. The jurors picked prior, I have no knowledge if any were booted by the SD Atty.

[d204mom]

bob said:

wvhsparent said:

She has access to all Board docs, new and old. maybe she took the time to peruse them

M2 did the site report, not HC, so how could HC be blamed for not doing DD on a north site.

Howie was the messenger. Just as Steve is doing the negotiations now, that was Howie's job back then. He reported back to the board that the pastor was unwilling and we walked away.

Not doing dd on any site is as easy as not returning a phone call.

[bbc]

I agree with d204mom. The bulk of the posts on this sight regarding the unfavorable verdict focus on how we got screwed. In my opinion BB outsmarted us. That's what a trial boils down to more times than you may like. BB had better lawyers and , apparently, worked harder at presenting the jury with evidence that was more compelling. Now we need to make sure we don't repeat our mistakes. Unfortunately, we are relying on the same SB who got us into this mess (and hired our lawyer) to figure out a solution that will impact our kids and taxes for years to come. Shame on the SB for letting us down once, if we allow them to let us down again, shame on us. I would also like to know if Casey was correct in that our lawyer is a buddy of mm.

[casey]

bbc said:

I would also like to know if Casey was correct in that our lawyer is a buddy of mm.

Not sure of the definition of "buddy" but I do know what I have been told and I trust my sources as they are from a person directly involved.

Does anyone know how our legal team was selected? Dumb question but is it up for open bidding just like other contracts? Do we have a contract with them or can we simply "fire" them?

Bottom-line is we would have no real way of knowing who's in tight with who, would we? So much of the world is about connections (think Mayor Daley ) and one hand washing the other, right?

[blankcheck]

Whtt law firm has always donated $$$ towards the passage of referendums.

[casey]

blankcheck said:

Whtt law firm has always donated $$$ towards the passage of referendums.

Wow! Big surprise ;D

[bob]

blankcheck said:

Whtt law firm has always donated $$$ towards the passage of referendums.

Gave money to the 204TK not to the SB or the admin. Let's get that straight. Blankchek always make the accusation of the SB getting money for the referendum.

[bob]

casey said:

blankcheck said:

Whtt law firm has always donated $$$ towards the passage of referendums.

Wow! Big surprise ;D

Constitutional right and all above table.

[bob]

casey said:

bbc said:

I would also like to know if Casey was correct in that our lawyer is a buddy of mm.

Not sure of the definition of "buddy" but I do know what I have been told and I trust my sources as they are from a person directly involved.

Kind of like sources about the Macom deal.

[casey]

bob said:

Constitutional right and all above table.

Yes, it is but it is borderline unethical. That's what gets someone in trouble IMO.

[bob]

casey said:

Hi Daisy and welcome to the board.

FWIW, I have heard the exact same thing with regards to the Macom deal - the dollar amount as well as the land swap. I am not divulging my resources either but I can say this, I do feel it is very accurate!

Interesting that WP wondered what is coming next, the full page ad in the Sun? Well, that's exactly what should happen. Why should this deal be kept completely secret? The SB doesn't want the details to be made public because they aren't interested - why I don't know! Macom has made a pretty good case for this offer (the purchase price of the land and the BB buy-back) why isn't the SB seriously considering it? Again, in my opinion, egos get in the way! They want that far northern site and want nothing to do with Macom.

This Macom deal should be made public. I know that the land negotiations are supposedly being handled in confidence but the fact is that MACOM isn't getting a chance at their offer . Why is the SB doing nothing to work this deal? Judging by the many posters speaking out on how wrong the northern site is, I should think we'd be happy that there is a deal out there like Macom. Let's go SB! Time to examine the Macom land!