Finding myself shocked, dismayed and dumbfounded concerning the news I heard today regarding the City Council vs. the "Plaintiffs" over redistricting, I had to call several different types of people to get a reality check and see if my anger is justified.
Guess what? They totally agree. To Shane Gibson, I apologize personally for referring to you as possibly the person who drafted the "CONSENT DECREE" up; had trouble believing it could be Ulrich. Please allow me to apologize after finding out today he is and was the person who has and is still doing same (though he still thinks the Council can win).
Let us not even go to the "conflict of interest" part where the Council was back stabbed; let's not even mention bar ethics; let's not mention the law states the LEGISLATIVE BODY, not the Plaintiff's come up with a "Plan"; but do let's instead talk about "what" WE, THE REST OF THE MAJORITY, can do about it.
There is such a thing called a "Friend Of The Court" brief which can be filed by other taxpayers in order to intervene and set this mess straight (you have to know the Judge is going to love hearing about this one). The only Council member I can see being involved is Messer. The rest are dumbfounded, as was I.
As one of my legal beagles said -- Yvonne, ask to who's benefit and what is to be gained by same...very good question!
Any answers out there?
Let's play ball, New Albany.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
My first thought is: how can an attorney who is supposed to be representing the WHOLE Council, not be asking the WHOLE Council what THEY WANT to do. When they come to a decision on what they would like to present to the Judge, then their attorney should present that decision to the Court. If what you are saying is true and Mr. Ulrich didn't follow through correctly, sounds like he needs to go before a legal disiciplinary board. Mainly, it sounds to me like the Council needs a different attorney. Wonder if he represented the Council properly the rest of the time he was their attorney.
I know I am not an attorney and this is my opinion. So, are there any legal professionals paying attention and can offer suggestions on what the Council can do? Sounds like they need help!
Susan Johnson
This is very confusing. Are you saying that the City council Attorney is doing the legal work for the plaintiffs ?
Are the plaintiffs paying the City Council Attorney to do their legal work?
These two postings raise a lot of interesting questions; I simply wonder who has the answers to OUR questions!
Thanks for writing. Hope you are having a good Thanksgiving.
Peace, NA
Above all else, "let's not mention" the years that rolled past without the council doing its statutory duty to redistrict.
If this were sewer related issue, both you and Ms. Johnson would be self-immolating in protest of the council's slacktivity. What gives now?
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the council has finally acted, and in a few days, the judge will decide whether the council has acted lawfully. Perhaps the case will end, and perhaps not.
By the way, the use of "-" around the word plaintiffs isn't necessary. There are plaintiffs (in fact) and defendants (in fact).
Ask your legal beatles if that isn't the case.
And, if I may ask you, how in the hey did Ulrich end up representing the Plaintiff(s) and the Council? What happened to Mr. Beardsley?
We have recently discovered Council minutes whereas Mr. Ulrich states he doesn't even know if it is necessary to redistrict anymore, what with all of the "election" changes by the State.
Don't worry, we certainly, me and "Ms. Johnson" do not expect any answers from you to us.
We are simply biding our time to when some realize the "truth" as to what has been said on several blogs; boy, are some people in for a BIG SURPRISE. We simply want to watch the faces when reality dawns with the New Year approaching.
Good luck.
The attorney for the plaintiffs is Beardsley. The attorney for the council is Ulrich.
Not exactly nuclear physics, is it?
Post a Comment