This time, I think I may have all the facts in order about the redistricting issue facing Council and citizens.
On Friday, on the 2nd Floor of the Federal Building, with the Judge being from Evansville, the following Council members were called in by Mr. Ulrich (their Attorney). The Council members called in were Mr. Gahan, Mr. Kochert and Mr. Zurschmeide.
Mr. Ulrich received a message from a Clerk of the Court, from Mr. Baylor, asking Mr. Beardsley to telephone him asap. Mr. Ulrich responded he was not that party's attorney (Mr. Beardsley).
The outcome is the litigants must come up with the parameters they have in mind by next Friday.
Now, this brings us back to the issues I raised in the other posting, which is, i.e., is Mr. Ulrich being paid extra for this work? Will Mr. Beardsley go easy on us as citizens if we have to pay his legal fees?
If they are redistricted, it can't possibly happen until after the election, right? It would seem we could not have two people running against each other in the fall; and btw, would that give the Democrats a caucus meeting so we can put Mr. Schmidt back in?
It will be published in the paper soon, I'm sure of it. Next Friday is the deadline, and anyone wishing to research it can search Federal records for a copy of the suit.
Thanks for letting me set the record straight.
Peace, NA.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Mr. Ulrich received a message from a Clerk of the Court, from Mr. Baylor, asking Mr. Beardsley to telephone him asap. Mr. Ulrich responded he was not that party's attorney (Mr. Beardsley).
Wrong again.
Unless there is another Mr. Baylor somehow involved with this case, I have neither telephoned the Federal Building nor spoken with a clerk there -- ever.
I have not spoken with Mr. Ulrich for two or three weeks, perhaps longer. The last time I spoke with Mr. Beardsley was roughly two weeks ago, at the former Main Street Grind, where a witness will verifiy that we chatted about a birth in process and did not mention the redistricting case.
In fact, I've not discussed the redistricting case with attorney Beardsley for six months or more, and probably closer to a year.
That's twice today that someone's given you very erroneous information, and I find it annoying. Look for a posting at NAC on Tuesday morning.
Sorry, sticking with this story. As it can be verified by Mr. Zurschmeide and Mr. Kochert, and I'm sure Mr. Ulrich and the Clerk's records, i.e., ...
This story will probably surface in the Courier and maybe we'll really know the rest of the story -- like I am against redistricting, which I'm not if it's needed or mandatory, etc.
Please go easy on me Tuesday morning. My grandmother had 13 children and I had one aunt and my dad left. My Aunt has passed away and I will be at her burial services on Tuesday.
Take care...
Yvonne, understand that you are placing my name for a second time today in a place where it does not belong, and for the second time today, I'm asking you to retract. I've no interest in this getting ugly, but you are being misled, and in turn, you are misleading others. I repeat: I have spoken neither to Mr. Ulrich or Mr. Beardsley since long before the episode you recount, and the last time I spoke to either of them, it was not about this case. Furthermore, I've made no phone calls seeking wither of the attorneys you name -- ever.
Whether or not I or anyone else should "go easy" on you is not relevant. If you don't have the truth, you should not publish it half-truths, or in this case, untruths.
Please remove my name from this post, at least in the context in which you're currently using it.
Insofar as I feel I have not slandered your name, and insofar as this story can be verified by two different council members -- whether the Baylor be you or not...
I stand with the story. It may be another Baylor -- like a relative, ya know...but it happened.
If you weren't involved, I don't see any harm done here. There is simply an education of the public going on about an ongoing lawsuit -- we only have several; EPA, Fox & Cotner, not sure if Georgetown has paid or not...
Hope ya understand this surely isn't anything personal. You probably won't there...I can handle it -- go ahead. If I am wrong after the CJ prints the story, we'll see, huh?
Peace.
Yes, we'll see, but the world should note that this is a common strategem of yours.
By the time you get around to retracting an erroneous statment -- if at all -- the damage has been done, the rumor has been planted, and whatever motive you've had in spreading disinformation has been achieved.
Whatever, Yvonne. I've set you straight twice today, and now I'll take some more time out of my day to set the record straight at NAC in the interests of public knowledge.
Clue me in. Why is this necessary?
Excuse me, but me thinks the world should note that this is a common "strategem of yours". Of course, these are my opinions also and you are welcome to yours.
There is no rumour and the CJ and two Council Reps will back me up and...what disinformation did I apread? Are you simply upset that some other of the crew who sued wasn't aware of the Court date Friday? As I don't have an agenda, and have made that quite clear; as I have said that it doesn't matter to me if they redistrict or not...why all the fuss from you about and to me?
Just have people get on the Federal Government's Court websight and read all about it; though I'm sure what transpired Friday has not been transcribed by today -- it's public knowledge and all of the public should be aware.
That's the only clue I have for you. Take care.
It's really very simple, Yvonne. This "information" is not true, period, and it's something that you are repeating second-hand as though it were true.
Isn't that enough?
If anything has been learned in the workings of our city council since Kochert rose to the thrown, is basically, what ever the esteemed president states as a fact is generally found to be misrepresnted, twisted, manipulated, and fictional at best.
As I stated before, Mr. Zurschmeide, Mr. Kochert, Mr. Gahan, and Mr. Ulrich can attest to same. The court records are at the Federal Building.
IT DID HAPPEN......guess the Messenger will be shot on this one.
Don't worry, though. CJ is printing the story. Again, peace.
As usual, with this kind of tactic, there is probably a grain or two of truth in what you wrote. Not saying that everything else is a flat out lie, but assumptions. You will take that grain and claim absolution. (echoes of SOLNA)
You are already laying the groundwork to place blame on Mr. Beardsley. He hasn't done anything wrong. Perhaps the Council members themselves ought to pay for any such award of fees. Why wasn't your Mr. Price looking out for the taxpayers then? Whatever this lawsuit costs the taxpayers, he is as much to blame as anyone.
I've asked Kevin Zurschmiede and received the answer I expected. I'll let you know if and when Jeff Gahan responds. I expect to see Jerry Ulrich soon, but I'll not bother with Larry Kochert because I suspect 3 out of 4 will constitute all the proof I need.
BTW, received a letter from attorney Beardsley this morning. More on that when the gag order is lifted.
Dem,
I am not saying that what you have written from your perspective is or is not true.
From your point of view what you are writing may in fact be the truth, that yes, parties involved in this situationmay well have in fact told you of this, and you are realting what you were told by one or more persons involved.
However, given the totality of circumstance surrounding this saga as it unfolds is suspicious at best, and that, in my mind is not directed at you. It is rather directed at those who gave you the information that you have posted.
Look at it, all parties involved that you stated are witnesses to the "incident" are on one side of a lawsuit. The person, whether intentionally or not, a "Mr. Baylor" is a more well known plaintiff in the case. Of course with out being there first hand, relating this information would be considered hearsay.
Are you sure that you are not being used in this situation as a clearinghouse for false information intended to plant seeds of doubt regarding the character of person who was one filed the redistricting suit?
I do not intend to shoot the messenger, my aim is at the ones who crafted the message.
** Politics out the window, sorry for your loss you had mentioned earlier in the thread. May God give your Aunt peace and rest.
I won't comment on your abrupt disappearance from the discussion, but I will say that now I have two witnesses to nothing having been said, and we inch ever closer to the one current council member who is the likely source of the falsehood you've been peddling.
Want to come clean now?
Please check your facts with Mr. Beardsley. Gee -- he and I get along fine. He, Mr. Beardsley of all people, will tell you I do not have any kind of hidden motive.
Unreal. Dream on. You can dine with him at breakfast on the right days. Don't you love his motif in his office of JFK? I say I hope he takes it easy on taxpayers, and I'm laying "groundwork".
Talk w/ the man. I'm serious.
Thank you CSD619. Politics out the windows, there was a pre-trial hearing Friday at the Federal Courthouse.
As Mr. Baylor stated, he received correspondence from Mr. Beardsley recently.
And, anytime anyone sues the Council, you are in effect suing me and yourself, politics aside.
So what if I wonder? The C-J is wondering the purpose to because it doesn't go to trial until the end of year; and upon say a win on your situation, it won't go into effect for four years.
And, it use to be and all of you may wish to check this out -- the Districts ARE NOT DRAWN BY VOTERS; THEY ARE DRAWN BY POPULATION.
Thought there may be some confusion on that issue. I guess they will use the 2000 census for that issue.
Thanks for your kind sympathy words. Peace.
New Albanian,
Nothing to come clean about -- not on my end anyways. There was a pre-Trial conference Friday; there were council people who attended.
Am I ready to come clean about my "sources"? Hey, no way. Please know I asked them personally if they were told not to say anything to anyone and they said "no", and gave me permission to go ahead.
I can understand your frustration of filing a lawsuit two years ago; it not gong to trial until the end of this year; and if you win -- no results for four more years. Please, just don't shoot the messenger. Thanks.
Post a Comment