Stock photo and blog post by John HoffIn a recent and previous blog post, I mentioned having my grubby little paws upon a particularly amusing and informative document, the motion for attorney fees by the defendants in the "Old Versus New Majority" lawsuit involving the Jordan Area Community Council. (JACC) Click here to go right to that document and skip all my pontificating.
The unsuccessful lawsuit, which was filed by the democratically ousted "Old Majority" plaintiffs, was successfully defended by the democratically elected "New Majority," led by Chairman Kip Browne. (Who recently re-assumed the position of Chairman, click here)
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to share a PDF of the document before because...
...the "PDF support site" for this blog was full. However, late last night I obtained some much needed volunteer technical support, for which I am profoundly grateful. Though the old PDF support site is still in operation, still supporting the documents we have placed there, we now have a great new site capable of supporting a vast number of new and juicy documents related to North Minneapolis issues.
What better way to celebrate this arcane, technical triumph than by posting a particularly interesting document, which takes pithy, pointed, highly-articulate shots at the "Old Majority" plaintiffs and their attorney, Jill Clark.
I would urge readers to enjoy the entire document, but here are some of my favorite passages...
* It was evident from the very onset of this litigation that Plaintiffs' claims were spurious and made in bad faith.
* Despite ample opportunity to prove their claims, including a nine-day evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs were unable to present any evidence demonstrating that Joint Defendants were guilty of any wrongdoing.
* There is no plausible explanation for this lawsuit other than a vexatious intent to intimidate Joint Defendants to yield to Plaintiffs demands or else defend against the costly litigation.
(This simple mathematical figure is, I think, the most revealing part of the lawsuit:)
* $191,153. (That's how much the defendants are demanding in attorney fees from the losing side)
* Tellingly, after all the relevant evidence had been presented--none of which supported the Plaintiffs claims--plaintiffs once again amended their complaint in an effort to needlessly prolong the costly lawsuit.
* In this case, the air similarly has the stench of bad faith. Plaintiffs' various Complaints present nothing more than imaginative litigation premised upon disappointment, rather than viable legal claims.
* From the outset of this litigation plaintiffs were on notice that Joint Defendants would seek attorneys' fees; in fact Plaintiffs' themselves requested attorneys' fees under this same provision.
It should be interesting to see how this motion for attorney fees is resolved, but not nearly as interesting as seeing where these "Old Majority" plaintiffs will come up with all that money if the judge rules against them.
Did I say "if?" Honestly, I'm thinking more like "when."
No comments:
Post a Comment