|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 8:58:03 GMT -5
This lawsuit is still hanging around? I understand it's different parties & for different reasons, but if Popejoy said that he can't force 204 to purchase BB, can another judge force the purchase? I've heard the 204 attorneys state that the SD is within its legal rights to drop the condemnation, but I don't recall hearing Brodie's explanation as to the legal basis for this lawsuit. I always thought that the timing of this lawsuit smelled fishy, as it was at the time that nsfoc was working on their lawsuit, generating publicity & doing their fund-raising. With the confirmation that BB and nsfoc were in communication, this makes me think even moreso that the Brodie lawsuit is just as frivolous as nsfoc's, and was possibly planned in conjunction with nsfoc's lawsuit in order to generate public pressure to purchase BB. The difference being that BB has legal standing to collect monies spent for its defense with regards to the condemnation suit. So, technically it's not 'frivolous'. I'm only talking about Brodie's "make 204 purchase our land" lawsuit
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 9:00:56 GMT -5
[Due to timing, I think it's silly BB is trying to charge the district because the case was over in Sep 2007 As for them being far reaching in their efforts, I believe they purposely chose to stop very short of what they could have reached for. I am not sure what you are talking about arch and I don't want to read anything in to it. What do you mean they chose to stop very short of what they could have reached for? By the way, as a good will gesture, I believe the NSFOC should offer to pay this fee. After all, did the district pursue costs related to their lawsuit?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 9:09:08 GMT -5
The difference being that BB has legal standing to collect monies spent for its defense with regards to the condemnation suit. So, technically it's not 'frivolous'. I'm only talking about Brodie's "make 204 purchase our land" lawsuit After the failure of the 2005 ref, the district DID TAKE STEPS to start to execute on the 2003 settlement agreement w/ the purchase of 25 acres (on may 31, 2005), filed another condemnation lawsuit against the remaining 55 acres and timed the filing thereof in agreeance and conformity with the settlement agreement and subsequently caused the 2006 referendum to be placed on the ballot. Their claim is that even though some things did not work out that were beyond anyone's control (passing the 2005 ref for the funds) that the district kept to the rest of the provisions of the agreement, continued to execute against it and thus, it still survives in full force as a binding obligation on the parties. The Brodie suit filed on 4/8/08 reads like a contract case. If one part of a contract doesn't remain true, it's not all null and void so long as both parties still agree to move forward with the rest. According to the timeline ane events Brodie spelled out, it APPEARS that is what happened with the original 2003 settlement agreement... the 2005 referendum failed, but the district MOVED FORWARD with executing the rest of the agreement. I admit, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how the hair slices at this point with contract law... but my arm-chair read of the lawsuit, that is the basis... contract.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 9:11:56 GMT -5
[Due to timing, I think it's silly BB is trying to charge the district because the case was over in Sep 2007 As for them being far reaching in their efforts, I believe they purposely chose to stop very short of what they could have reached for. I am not sure what you are talking about arch and I don't want to read anything in to it. What do you mean they chose to stop very short of what they could have reached for? By the way, as a good will gesture, I believe the NSFOC should offer to pay this fee. After all, did the district pursue costs related to their lawsuit? BB should just drop the fee. As for what they didn't reach for, I was told they were going to focus on just the voting rights and bait/switch as the focal point. That was a purposeful choice to limit very narrowly the scope of their lawsuit. Subsequently, they decided to drop it entirely. Again, showing they purposely limited what they 'reached for' as people put it.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 9:12:54 GMT -5
I am not sure what you are talking about arch and I don't want to read anything in to it. What do you mean they chose to stop very short of what they could have reached for? By the way, as a good will gesture, I believe the NSFOC should offer to pay this fee. After all, did the district pursue costs related to their lawsuit? BB should just drop the fee. As for what they didn't reach for, I was told they were going to focus on just the voting rights and bait/switch as the focal point. That was a purposeful choice to limit very narrowly the scope of their lawsuit. Subsequently, they decided to drop it entirely. Again, showing they purposely limited what they 'reached for' as people put it. Thank you. BB should charge NSFOC.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 9:14:10 GMT -5
BB should just drop the fee. As for what they didn't reach for, I was told they were going to focus on just the voting rights and bait/switch as the focal point. That was a purposeful choice to limit very narrowly the scope of their lawsuit. Subsequently, they decided to drop it entirely. Again, showing they purposely limited what they 'reached for' as people put it. Thank you. BB should charge NSFOC. Or pay the bill themselves, since they originated the calls. Unless they can show NSFOC called collect
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 19, 2008 9:21:59 GMT -5
Limited what straws they were grasping for, you mean. Attorneys start the clock the minute the phone rings; if members from NSFOC called for "advice", then they should pay for that "advice".
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 19, 2008 9:22:29 GMT -5
Funny, i typed in st**ws!
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 19, 2008 9:42:19 GMT -5
Talk about conspiracy theories... Does anyone have a transcript of what was actually discussed on the phone calls or is there just speculation? Does anyone have a transcript of what Holmes said to MWGEN? It was asked earlier, but no one responded. Contact with does not mean working together. There's information sharing and then there's cooperative strategy planning. Which do you know for sure transpired?[/quote] Arch, In each of these posts, it actually sounds like you should be on the legal team for BB or NSFOC.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 19, 2008 9:47:38 GMT -5
I often thought that the timing was questionable too. IIRC, there were even some posts from the blue board that stated to "Save this - we might need it" or something to that effect. I thought then that these people were actually rooting for BB or at least giving them some information. Even when the typo for the AME plans came out, someone on blue asked if the "original copy" was saved before the district corrected it. IIRC, there was a reference made to making sure BB had it because it would "prove" that the district had no intentions of buying the land. Give me a break! When I saw those types of post, that is when I suspected somthing was in the works and NSFOC and BB were working together to screw the district.
Not a conspiracy theory, but just putting some pieces together.
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 19, 2008 9:52:49 GMT -5
Did it occur to anyone that perhaps NSFOC was talking to BB attorneys to try to get them to make the BB land more affordable to the district and lower their price? That is the first thing I thought of when I saw that line item. BB probably feels that the SD should pay for their time on those phone calls since the SD caused that situation by walking away after they won the condemnation case.
I don't think that it is fair to judge the purpose of the calls without knowing facts. The billing by BB for the fees isn't the fault of NSFOC; once again we are blaming the wrong people. NSFOC, IMO was trying to talk reason into BB whom we have learned is absolutely unreasonable.
This hatred for NSFOC is no different than those who expressed anger towards Brookdale for voting NO. Both groups did what they felt was their only recourse. I applaud both for standing up for what they believed in in a civilized and non violent way.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 19, 2008 9:55:21 GMT -5
Talk about conspiracy theories... Does anyone have a transcript of what was actually discussed on the phone calls or is there just speculation? Does anyone have a transcript of what Holmes said to MWGEN? It was asked earlier, but no one responded. Contact with does not mean working together. A transcript?? Seriously?? So then, what about the posters on blue who were talking about the plans to buy AME all along and the conversations between the Rev. and Dr. D? Does anyone have the transcripts for those? Just as you are implying that "putting the pieces together" is a conspiracy, so are the opinions of some on blue then.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 9:57:12 GMT -5
I don't doubt there were some in the district eager to just kick the SB in the teeth for whatever reason they feel they were wronged or perceived wrong. There are still those that just want to kick NSFOC in the teeth too for some perceived wrong. Pot meet kettle
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 9:58:03 GMT -5
Talk about conspiracy theories... Does anyone have a transcript of what was actually discussed on the phone calls or is there just speculation? Does anyone have a transcript of what Holmes said to MWGEN? It was asked earlier, but no one responded. Contact with does not mean working together. A transcript?? Seriously?? So then, what about the posters on blue who were talking about the plans to buy AME all along and the conversations between the Rev. and Dr. D? Does anyone have the transcripts for those? Just as you are implying that "putting the pieces together" is a conspiracy, so are the opinions of some on blue then. It was speculative smack. Nothing more, without proof.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 10:03:33 GMT -5
Did it occur to anyone that perhaps NSFOC was talking to BB attorneys to try to get them to make the BB land more affordable to the district and lower their price? That is the first thing I thought of when I saw that line item. BB probably feels that the SD should pay for their time on those phone calls since the SD caused that situation by walking away after they won the condemnation case. I don't think that it is fair to judge the purpose of the calls without knowing facts. The billing by BB for the fees isn't the fault of NSFOC; once again we are blaming the wrong people. NSFOC, IMO was trying to talk reason into BB whom we have learned is absolutely unreasonable. This hatred for NSFOC is no different than those who expressed anger towards Brookdale for voting NO. Both groups did what they felt was their only recourse. I applaud both for standing up for what they believed in in a civilized and non violent way. How good of them. After the district abandons the BB because of cost and are involved in good-faith negotiations with other property owners, the NSFOC is going to fix it for the district and get the good land for all the good people of 204. Puhleeze. Collins is a lawyer and should have expected to be on the clock the minute he called Brodie. Hopefully, the NSFOC will be held accountable for these costs.
|
|