|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 11:50:13 GMT -5
People can also choose to not visit the site, not read it, or simply ignore it too. Last time I checked there was still a 1st amendment. Now, unless someone has a legal leg to stand on to thwart their right to put forth what they want, there's really nothing anyone else can do about it except ignore it. that's fair - I'll let the integrity and veracity of the "information" on their site (and, therefore, the group itself, as well) speak for itself That's what everyone eventually did w/ CFO...
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 11:53:26 GMT -5
Obviously you are not following my line of thought/assumption...I think that BB is charging for their time spent talking with individuals from NSFOC when those individuals were NOT calling for BB attorney advice nor for aliances with them but rather to try to mediate a better price for the district. Heck, I thought about calling those attorneys and begging them to reduce their price....would I think they would bill me or anyone for that, NO! But heh, we have learned the hard way that BB is not playing fair. I find it a bit ridiculous that there is such "outrage" for a $7k charge from BB when our SD has spent MILLIONS on attorney fees trying to acquire land that they should have had every reason to believe could have cost them $600K an acre. I am done with this topic. I understand completely what you are saying but if you call up the attorneys who negotiate land purchases and try to mediate a deal, you are using their services. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 11:57:02 GMT -5
Huh? If individual members of the NSFOC called BB, maybe they should go after the individuals for those costs. You can't expect to use a lawyer's service without paying for it. Obviously, the district had nothing to do with that/those calls. I am certain BB will find a way to get it. They are pretty good lawyers. Obviously you are not following my line of thought/assumption...I think that BB is charging for their time spent talking with individuals from NSFOC when those individuals were NOT calling for BB attorney advice nor for aliances with them but rather to try to mediate a better price for the district. Heck, I thought about calling those attorneys and begging them to reduce their price....would I think they would bill me or anyone for that, NO! But heh, we have learned the hard way that BB is not playing fair. I find it a bit ridiculous that there is such "outrage" for a $7k charge from BB when our SD has spent MILLIONS on attorney fees trying to acquire land that they should have had every reason to believe could have cost them $600K an acre. I am done with this topic. SB is arguing against several million $ - nothing trivial and that same amount was certainly made a big deal about on the forums and by nsfoc when it was just a possibility that the SD would have to pay it (i.e. the nsfoc "204 may be liable for X million $" "articles"). The individual charges each have to be looked at, and when made public, some of the line items like this one certainly provide some fodder for discussion.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 11:57:55 GMT -5
that's fair - I'll let the integrity and veracity of the "information" on their site (and, therefore, the group itself, as well) speak for itself That's what everyone eventually did w/ CFO... good (appropriate) analogy
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Jun 19, 2008 12:01:18 GMT -5
Obviously you are not following my line of thought/assumption...I think that BB is charging for their time spent talking with individuals from NSFOC when those individuals were NOT calling for BB attorney advice nor for aliances with them but rather to try to mediate a better price for the district. Heck, I thought about calling those attorneys and begging them to reduce their price....would I think they would bill me or anyone for that, NO! But heh, we have learned the hard way that BB is not playing fair. I find it a bit ridiculous that there is such "outrage" for a $7k charge from BB when our SD has spent MILLIONS on attorney fees trying to acquire land that they should have had every reason to believe could have cost them $600K an acre. I am done with this topic. I understand completely what you are saying but if you call up the attorneys who negotiate land purchases and try to mediate a deal, you are using their services. Just my opinion. But it does seem that if the lawyers were billing for that time, they needed to inform the people they were talking to that THEY would be billed. It makes no sense to bill the SD for something that the SB and admin did not do, know about, or condone.
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 19, 2008 12:01:45 GMT -5
Obviously you are not following my line of thought/assumption...I think that BB is charging for their time spent talking with individuals from NSFOC when those individuals were NOT calling for BB attorney advice nor for aliances with them but rather to try to mediate a better price for the district. Heck, I thought about calling those attorneys and begging them to reduce their price....would I think they would bill me or anyone for 'that, NO! But heh, we have learned the hard way that BB is not playing fair. I find it a bit ridiculous that there is such "outrage" for a $7k charge from BB when our SD has spent MILLIONS on attorney fees trying to acquire land that they should have had every reason to believe could have cost them $600K an acre. I am done with this topic. SB is arguing against several million $ - nothing trivial and that same amount was certainly made a big deal about on the forums and by nsfoc when it was just a possibility that the SD would have to pay it (i.e. the nsfoc "204 may be liable for X million $" "articles"). The individual charges each have to be looked at, and when made public, some of the line items like this one certainly provide some fodder for discussion. true. I guess I am just more infuriated with BB for this than NSFOC. I think BB knows they can't bill the individual citizen for the call and are grasping at straws and attempting to charge the SD for this time. Honestly, didn't we all at one point or another think we could pick up the phone and talk nicely and get BB to be more reasonable? I know I did. I thought , "oh my , maybe we just need to get a group of Mom's to go to their offices and say, "please"". Would I think those slimeballs would charge anyone for that face to face..NO. But now we know differently. No offense to the good lawyers who post on this board but this is an example of the slimy tactics of 'some' lawyers IMO.
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 19, 2008 12:02:46 GMT -5
Obviously you are not following my line of thought/assumption...I think that BB is charging for their time spent talking with individuals from NSFOC when those individuals were NOT calling for BB attorney advice nor for aliances with them but rather to try to mediate a better price for the district. Heck, I thought about calling those attorneys and begging them to reduce their price....would I think they would bill me or anyone for that, NO! But heh, we have learned the hard way that BB is not playing fair. I find it a bit ridiculous that there is such "outrage" for a $7k charge from BB when our SD has spent MILLIONS on attorney fees trying to acquire land that they should have had every reason to believe could have cost them $600K an acre. I am done with this topic. I understand completely what you are saying but if you call up the attorneys who negotiate land purchases and try to mediate a deal, you are using their services. Just my opinion. I guess we agree to disagree. I don't think that BB should charge the SD or NSFOC for those calls.
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 19, 2008 12:04:30 GMT -5
Too FUNNY!
In my previous post I typed, "grasping at straws" and the post appeared grasping at pipelines. I did not type pipelines. Did someone go into my post unauthorized or is the word 'straws' not allowed here?
eta: actually its not funny; someone or something changed my wording from straws to pipelines. I am a bit curious how and why that happened. Any insight from a mod on this?
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 12:05:39 GMT -5
But it does seem that if the lawyers were billing for that time, they needed to inform the people they were talking to that THEY would be billed. It makes no sense to bill the SD for something that the SB and admin did not do, know about, or condone. I agree with you. If BB didn't inform those individuals they were being charged, I imagine they will have a hard time getting a penny from anyone.
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 19, 2008 12:08:10 GMT -5
I understand completely what you are saying but if you call up the attorneys who negotiate land purchases and try to mediate a deal, you are using their services. Just my opinion. But it does seem that if the lawyers were billing for that time, they needed to inform the people they were talking to that THEY would be billed. It makes no sense to bill the SD for something that the SB and admin did not do, know about, or condone. good point. If I had called and the BB attorney said right off the bat, "you will be charged for your call and comments", I would have hung up immediately. I am sure that if the citizen from NSFOC or Tall Grass or whereever BB said they were from did not think they or the school district would be charged for that type of call.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 12:14:51 GMT -5
Too FUNNY! In my previous post I typed, "grasping at straws" and the post appeared grasping at pipelines. I did not type pipelines. Did someone go into my post unauthorized or is the word 'straws' not allowed here? eta: actually its not funny; someone or something changed my wording from pipelines to pipelines. I am a bit curious how and why that happened. Any insight from a mod on this? Anytime a mod modifies someone's posts it shows with name and time, nobody modified your post. There must be a glitch in the censored word list. We used to censor pipelines to say $traws. I will look into it.
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 19, 2008 12:17:14 GMT -5
Too FUNNY! In my previous post I typed, "grasping at straws" and the post appeared grasping at pipelines. I did not type pipelines. Did someone go into my post unauthorized or is the word 'straws' not allowed here? eta: actually its not funny; someone or something changed my wording from pipelines to pipelines. I am a bit curious how and why that happened. Any insight from a mod on this? Anytime a mod modifies someone's posts it shows with name and time, nobody modified your post. There must be a glitch in the censored word list. We used to censor pipelines to say $traws. I will look into it. Thanks. Let it be known that I did not use the word pipelines. That would appear to make my post sarcastic and it was not. Thanks for checking into this. Gotta get outside now!
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 19, 2008 13:01:39 GMT -5
I had heard mention of this too, but like everything else.. hard to filter through the accusatory stuff flying around. It would seem to 'fit' on some level that if NSFOC wanted the district to buy BB and the district said BB was too expensive that NSFOC could be asking BB to make some concessions on the price or the damages to make the land 'affordable' to the district. Since I wasn't on the call, I don't know if that's what happened but it is a possibility. I have no problem with anyone calling BB and asking if they would reconsider. As making them billable to the SD..that I have a problem with. If certain individual residents tried to contact BB to negotiate with them, then "thank you" to those residents. But for BB to charge the SD is ruthless. They should not be charging anyone if the calls were, indeed, to reach out to them and come to an agreement. If, on the other hand those calls were from a group of people like the NSFOC or any other formed group, then I can possibly see billing the group as an entity. I still think it is ruthless of them to scrape every penny they can from whoever they can. These group of lawyers really give all lawyers their bad rep. BB should eat those costs.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 19, 2008 13:06:51 GMT -5
I didn't see this posted here, but the online article omits one line item that does appear in the printed newspaper article. That items is "$2,500 in "fees for an undisclosed expert who neither testified or appeared in court." What does this mean? Does BB have an "imaginary expert" they are trying to bill for? Any lawyers out there to explain this?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 13:22:47 GMT -5
I didn't see this posted here, but the online article omits one line item that does appear in the printed newspaper article. That items is "$2,500 in "fees for an undisclosed expert who neither testified or appeared in court." What does this mean? Does BB have an "imaginary expert" they are trying to bill for? Any lawyers out there to explain this? (Old Eddie Murphy joke) "I don't know, but I'm going to go buy a bike"
|
|