Remember the lawsuit a local persom had against the County?

[Winchester]

Remember the lawsuit we've discussed here extensively in the past from many years (and ran into the ground in another forum) back that involved a local businessman who's wife ran for office? (not mentioning name here)

Well a decision was reached on Monday, per someone once named in the suit, told me last night at a meeting.

The County won on all counts.

:yeah

 

[Madea]

And to think I got FLAMED when I mentioned that the County was doing exactly what it should be doing, protecting the taxpayer.

 

[mei lan]

I still think the county was in the wrong, although I personally would have just sold them all the land and been done with it. You cannot fight city hall.

 

[Winchester]

I still think the county was in the wrong, although I personally would have just sold them all the land and been done with it. You cannot fight city hall.

No no, the suit was that the County tried to cover up and they did not. The County admitted they made a mistake (in court, not publicly) and the court saw the difference.

 

[lotstodo]

Well gee, if they knew they were going to win, why did they run up a two year, $1 million legal bill?? How is that protecting the citizens and taxpayers? No matter the outcome, they should have never used stalling techniques that served only to enrich well connected law firms. They should have gone to court and finished it ASAP.

 

[I'm Floored]

I still think the county was in the wrong, although I personally would have just sold them all the land and been done with it. You cannot fight city hall.

I was convinced, too, by reading his arguments over the years. Then I remembered that we only heard one side of the story - and it was quite convincing.

When the guard changed in our local government, and they STILL refused to settle, it really lead me to believe there must be much more to the story. It would be interesting to hear all the evidence on the other side now.

 

[mei lan]

Well gee, if they knew they were going to win, why did they run up a two year, $1 million legal bill?? How is that protecting the citizens and taxpayers? No matter the outcome, they should have never used stalling techniques that served only to enrich well connected law firms. They should have gone to court and finished it ASAP.

Thank you.

 

[mei lan]

I still think the county was in the wrong, although I personally would have just sold them all the land and been done with it. You cannot fight city hall.

I was convinced, too, by reading his arguments over the years. Then I remembered that we only heard one side of the story - and it was quite convincing.

When the guard changed in our local government, and they STILL refused to settle, it really lead me to believe there must be much more to the story. It would be interesting to hear all the evidence on the other side now.

You have a point; however, I have about as little confidence in what I've seen of the new crowd as the old.

 

[I'm Floored]

Well gee, if they knew they were going to win, why did they run up a two year, $1 million legal bill?? How is that protecting the citizens and taxpayers? No matter the outcome, they should have never used stalling techniques that served only to enrich well connected law firms. They should have gone to court and finished it ASAP.

That is a valid point. I have no explanation for that.

 

[honeybunny]

I'm surprised this has not been mentioned at the other place.







































Just kidding. )

 

[Blazing Saddles]

Lets go change that right now..............

 

[Madea]

There is so much to this that we don't know. I don't think we can make many assumptions only based on what we've heard from one very slanted side.

I've always believed that the Plaintiff was wrong for trying to win this case in the court of public opinion. I can't believe that their attorney would sanction that.

 

[Madea]

Lets go change that right now..............

Oh man! You gotta warn a girl! :spitchick

 

[I'm Floored]

There is so much to this that we don't know. I don't think we can make many assumptions only based on what we've heard from one very slanted side.

I've always believed that the Plaintiff was wrong for trying to win this case in the court of public opinion. I can't believe that their attorney would sanction that.

:agreed

 

[LisaC]

IMO: This litigation was drawn out for so long because the county was unwilling to pay what the other side demanded and the other side was unwilling to put a reasonable settlement offer out there. I work for a well-connected law firm, we don't play the games that the plaintiff was accusing the other firm of doing and I don't believe that firm does either - that firm has a great reputation in the legal community, the fact that it wasn't a Paulding County firm ticked folks off, but I don't believe there is a firm in Paulding that could honestly handle this type of litigation effectively.

 

[deewee]

My opinion, for a while, has been that the county made a mistake, greed took over from there. Originally, being new to the county and only hearing one side, I was on the plaintiff's side...until I read a post on another forum (by him) where he'd refused offers made by the county AND admitted that he'd spent his daughter's college tuition money fighting the county. He was gambling on a big payoff, in short hoping to get rich off the taxpayers of Paulding. It didn't work out.

 

[mei lan]

I've always believed that the Plaintiff was wrong for trying to win this case in the court of public opinion. I can't believe that their attorney would sanction that.

I do agree with this.

 

[Guard Dad]

I never really got into the details of the case so I won't comment on it's merit. But I will say I never cared for the way it was fought in the court of public opinion at the other place.

 

[naturegirl]

Interesting, is the plaintiff's attorney still a city attorney??

 

[mei lan]

BTW - I'm assuming that this was the anti-SLAPP portion of the lawsuit that was handed down from the appellate court? And not the original suit, which to my understanding, has STILL not been tried in a court of law after six or seven years?

And FTR, THAT has been my gripe the entire time. He may have a totally spurious case, although a judge didn't see fit to throw it out. So TRY THE CASE IN COURT ALREADY and be done with it!!!