Of particular note in this discussion, Marc Edelman has posted that the city's attorney has advised the city council not to get a title search. Allow me to reiterate; the city's attorney in the bridge lawsuit has advised the city to not take the most basic step to discover the truth about the ownership of the bridge properties. (A step which by all rights should have been taken before the city ever agreed to anything with anyone about the bridge.)
At least according to Marc's statements in the GDN comments, excerpted here:
@Evan, The larger issue at hand is who owned the bridge, HL&P, The City, or the residents of Glen Cove. [...] Of Course the City's Lawyer is not going to sign off on releasing executive session information. He advised them never to perform a title search, but they did it anyway. Now they want to release the results. Elected officials have a fiduciary responsibility to their citizens. These actions violate that fiduciary responsibility.
And again:
Let's see Jeff,
What I said was the City's attorney advised the City Council not to get a title search after the law suit was filed by Glen Cove residents. I think it is wise for clients to follow thei attorney's advice.
[...]
After pondering this astounding comment (and assuming Marc's knowledge of the attorney's comments is accurate), the question naturally arises;
Just why in the world should the city be advised to avoid learning the truth?!
Is there some other reason than the obvious suspicion that the attorney knows the truth that will be uncovered is not favorable for his client (and his continued billing to the city)?
Another question that comes to mind is just how does Marc Edelman have knowledge of the private advice the city's attorney is giving to the city?
31 comments:
Editorial in today's GDN:
League City should tell residents about costs
By Heber Taylor
The Daily News
Published August 31, 2010
League City residents are going to pay the bills for problems involving the Glen Cove bridge. The city council has an obligation to give residents some idea of what they’re on the hook for.
A title search suggests the city gave away a bridge it didn’t own. The developer who got the bridge demolished it, making many of the residents of the subdivision off FM 2094 furious. Some sued the city.
The council agreed to release a title opinion. But Bill Helfand, the attorney representing the city in the lawsuit, objected.
The legal issues should be resolved in court.
But there’s a public policy issue here, too, and the council, without jeopardizing the city’s legal case, ought to tell the people who are going to pay the legal bills what they’re in for. They have a right to know, in general, about their liability.
It’s hard to imagine how informing the public about the title search would hurt in the case. You’d imagine that those suing the city would have, through the legal process, discovered the relevant records. The taxpayers shouldn’t be the only party in the dark.
The city’s policy should be to be as open and forthcoming as it can without jeopardizing the case.
Ok, someone help me out with the facts. Did a League City lawyer advise city council not to conduct a title search on the Glen Cove bridge? If so, who (I can name at least 3 LC lawyers) and when?
Chuck,
Marc's statement on GDN reads:
"Of Course the City's Lawyer is not going to sign off on releasing executive session information. He advised them never to perform a title search, but they did it anyway."
There was a council agenda item to release the city title opinion subject to approval of Attorney Helfand.
The title search should have been done in 2006 before the property deal. The Glen Cove lawsuit should focus on ownership (title). The cat's out of the bag now; no more avoiding the truth about property title. Anything else is lawyering at its worst and/or politicking by judges who commonly get overturned by other judges higher up on the totem pole.
Marc, please let us know the outcome of last night's executive session.
Lessee... I understand the need to protect city officials from being sued as private citizens from decisions legally made within official duty. But there's that key word "legally".
1) there may not have been enough evidence to indict shults and co for violation of open meetings act.
2) If GC is successful, then aside from being vindicated, what are the actual monetary damages and should the city (we the taxpayers) be forced to pay for individual chicanery conducted under the guise of the city?
3) Civil court only requires a preponderence of evidence. If said preponderance shows collusion (a violation of city charter), then can Shults, Reed, Scotto, and the other instigators be held personably liable instead of the city?
Chuck,
With only so few words you hit the nail on the head. BINGO!!
“The Glen Cove lawsuit should focus on ownership (title).” Long ago I lost count how many times GC folks have pleaded with the city over issues of “Ownership”.
There are FIVE LAWYERS on the city’s side that have been involved in this case. In total for all parties I am guessing about a baker’s dozen.
BHL
Two phrases come to mind.
“Government Immunity” and “Acting in good faith”.
A little research will provide a few more powerful phrases that I will not discuss.
I suggest one researching these issues and carefully look at the necessary components of a legal contract. I am guessing the city's Developer’s Agreement and 99 year lease with MB Harbor both qualify as a legal contract.
OF COURSE, I am not a lawyer.
Dear Paul,
You can't convince me that the latest series of articles in the GDN is not part of a carefully orchestrated PR campaign by those sympathetic to your lawsuit. You called me days before the articles were published to tell me that these articles favorable to your position on the matter were being published. If these articles were truly good just good news reporting, how did you know that their content would favor your position so far ahead of time? I can only imagine that you had an opportunity to review them prior to their publication? Why is that?
Just to make some things clear, in general, an "Attorneys Opinion of Title" does not provide a warrantee, nor guarantee, nor indemnify anyone against errors, or claims against a property. It is not a judge’s decree; it is merely an attorney’s opinion.
To further clarify things, I was just as happy to stay out of this matter. It is you who came by my place of business to discuss these matters with me, it is you who called me to tell me about pending articles. Frankly sir, I would be much happier if you never discussed this issue with me again.
Sincerely,
Marc Edelman
Marc,
You are such a kidder and have a most vivid imagination. Just like your “Rickety Old Wooden Bridge Story and your many other Glen Cove Tales and Myths.
You were given the Glen Cove title opinion on Tuesday August 10th at about 2:45 and have not called and visited you since.
If I understand you correctly, I am ghost writing articles for the media and some how I told you in advance about future articles based on future events.
WOW Again!! Maybe I should find a crystal ball and hang a shingle “Old Smitty - Mystic and Fortune Teller”.
Your are saying I am responsible for these news items:
August 22 – Glen Cove Bridge Title Withheld
August 25 – City OK Release of Bridge Title
August 26 – 13 KTRK News http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7632459
August 28 – Release of Bridge Title in Limbo
August 31 – League City should tell residents about costs (editorial)
You are confused. The Glen Cove HOA President Scott Freudenburg is talking to the council and media. Our case is in the appeals court and at this point I don’t give a rat’s backside what’s going on in city council or the media.
I have only two concerns:
1) Ruling from 14th Court of Appeals.
2) Deep concern the city is considering another agreement regarding Glen Cove property they do not own. Any more contracts promising Glen Cove property rights to a third party could be devastating to the city.
Thanks for delivering the title opinion to your friend. You and Pat have always been a reliable conduit.
Most of all, I appreciate all the information and am saddened you feel this relationship must end.
Happy Trails Buckaroo
Ps. I will forward you post to GDNews for their review.
The lesson that League City government should have learned from the Glen Cove story (and they have for the most part) is humility. Nobody in City Hall is The Boss. Not the mayor, not council, not the city manager, not even large campaign contributors. The voters are boss! Big Heads in municipal government who run roughshod over neighborhoods will create crusading citizens like me, folks in Glen Cove and other subdivisions (including one from Victory Lakes!). It might take time, but voters have the ultimate veto power.
you are not telling the truth and I can prove it.
Oh and Paul, the joke is on you, I never sent anything that you gave me to anyone.
sigh... He said, she said....on and on...
Marc, Prove it. End it once and for all.
Mr. Edelman,
LOL !!! you are too funny. I can understand why you don’t wish to discuss this situation further. LOL. It seems to me that you think there is a conspiracy of some sort going on? Where is your “concrete proof” of this? You remember “concrete proof” don’t ya Marc? Fact is that what was said many years ago and hailed by you as BS is now proving to be true.
As for a conduit, C’mon we know. I understand your position. Just understand that while chasing a buck is fine, you need to keep your eyes (and mind ) open because it may lead you in the wrong direction. If you didn’t know Marc developers are in it for the money, not your friendship or to make friends. They understand one thing and that is money. They couldn’t care less who they run over to make that buck.
If the case is so solid why were the fences removed at the bridge? Wait a minute I have got it !! It is all part of the” Scotto community outreach program” right? LOL !
Two thoughts, for all the buckaroos and cowboys they apply where appropriate . . . .
When you run with dogs you get fleas; And, when in a hole, stop digging !
Elaine Kosty
PS. I love the song "Sympathy to the Devil" especially the chorus of all the whoot wooooooos ! I wonder on judgement day who is laughing ?? whoot hoooooos .
Morgan, that was really funny - I'm still laughing. ;-)
BHL & Chris, I suspect Marc may have had enough for now.
Too bad; I've really been looking forward all week to an explanation of how his theory of whichever government agency should rightfully own the land underneath the water has any bearing on a bridge over the water...
Or my still outstanding question of how waterway ownership has anything to do with land that isn't traversed by a waterway (among assorted other 'holes' in his theories).
Jeff
Chuck - you are absolutely right that it is the voters who are the ultimate boss. And since informed voters will make better bosses, folks might be interested in some of the details of how the city has been conducting itself in the GC bridge lawsuit. This recent letter to the mayor and city council might be informative.
(As an addendum to the above letter, on 9/2/10 in response to the recent motion by the city mentioned in this letter, the 14th Court of Appeals declined to render a decision at this time on the city's request to have the Dunlap title opinion struck from the appellate record but instead deferred that decision to the pending decision on the full case.)
All of the referenced documents linked in this letter are public records that may be obtained directly from the court by anyone who is so inclined.
Jeff
Thank you Mr. Hagen for providing all of these documents for public consumption.
City Council members: it is up to you to stop the wasteful, transparent shenanigans of Mr. Hefland. I can't believe we're actually paying for this.
Sanborn, Phalen and Barron - your days are numbered. We will not forget your vote opposing the release of public documents.
Morgan,
To be accurate, all seven members of council vote to relaese the city's title opinion pending approval of attorney Helfand.
Baron, Sanborn, and Phalen voted against rescinding of the 99 year lease on the appraoches to the bridge.
But your point is well made - has the city really gotten their money's worth from Helfand? Or does he just string the city along to squeeze out as many bucks as he can?
Just please don't get him fired until after he looses the case.
I stand corrected. The paint fumes from my weekend project have distorted my memory.
Morgan,
Quite understandable. While the underlying ethical issues may be simple, the tangled web of surface details can get more than a bit complex.
I am just grateful that you took the time to investigate and comprehend the critical documents yourself. I am hopeful that many others will follow your example.
Jeff
In a Rule 11 Agreement, Appellants stipulated they would be bound by the testimony of
the four representative Plaintiffs designated by Appellants. (CR 83-84). Appellants designated
Paul Smith as one of the four representatives whose testimony would bind all Appellants.
During the trial court's hearing on the City's Plea to the Jwisdiction, Smith provided the
following testimony:
Okay, Mr. Smith. Now, after 1928 however all of the roads in the Glen
Cove subdivision become public roads, right?
A. Sometime after that there was public dedications of roadways.
Q. And the roadways were dedicated to the City of League City, correct?
A. That's not correct. They were I believe dedicated to the county at the
time.
Q. That's right. Prior to that area being part of the City of League City,
correct?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. So, they were dedicated to Galveston County, right?
A. There is a document that I have seen that shows a dedication to Galveston
County. I questioned the chain of title on that dedication, but, yes, there
was a dedication in the early sixties to the county of a number of roadways
including Seminole bridge right of way.
Q. And then the city incorporates the City of League City, took over the
jurisdiction of that area including Seminole Drive, correct?
A. That's what I believe, yes, sir.
Q. And then after that up until you filed a lawsuit, well, even since you filed a
lawsuit the City of League City maintains every street and roadway in
Glen Cove subdivision, correct?
A. That's not correct.
Q. Which ones don't they maintain[?]
A. What they don't maintain, they never maintained the right of way of the
bridge.
Q. Listen to my question. The streets, the roads, the City of League City
maintains them, don't they, Mr. Smith?
A. They do now.
Q. They did in 2003, didn't they?
A. Yes.
Q.. And they did in 2000, didn't they?
A. Yes.
Q. And those streets include a street called Seminole Drive, right?
A. That's correct.
Hey Max,
Interesting to see you are following the case.
My suggestion is read the supplemental briefs submitted to the 14th Court of Appeal.
http://web.me.com/jeffhagen/Jeffs_League_City_info/GC_bridge_documents_files/letter%20to%20city%20council%20regarding%20responses%20to%2014CoA.pdf
The Bronson Dedication is fully discussed. (Another debunked myth)
Feel free to quote me anytime. I am not a lawyer and only one of many plaintiffs. You should have heard what Judge Frost told city hired attorney Bill Helfand after he quoted my testimony. But that's a story for another day.
I never understood if you are an anonymous character or a breathing person. Please let me know.
Happy Trails Buckaroo
The link in Paul's message above appears to be broken. If it does not work for you, try this link.
Max,
The excerpted testimony that you quoted above includes some issues of fact misconstrued by the attorney for the city. For clarification of the street dedications in Glen Cove, start with the Dunlap title opinion document.
Two points of particular note that have been confused in regard to this quotation:
1) As regards to the maintenance issue, there is no record or witness testimony that any maintenance was ever done on the bridge since its construction.
2) The dedication to the county referred to in this quotation did not include the portion of Glen Cove that contains the properties in dispute in the Smith et. al. case.
Jeff
Jeff, Don't be so hard on "Max". After all it is hard for one to accept he's now totally irrelevant. Note his last blog post was related to Charlie B and NASA's Muslim outreach. I even notice that once again another Hallisey post has been deleted.
"Max", there are professionals who can help you deal with your denial of the situation.
A meeting was set up for me and an active "blog meister" at Molly's Pub to meet Max Kelly. The young man introduced himself and we chatted for over an hour. Max turned out to be Terry Matula, a League City resident, living in County Side North. It was pleasant and fun, but Max Kelly, as we all know by now, has always been an entertaining myth.
BHL stated it best regarding Mr. Max Kelly.
Elaine Kosty
Max,
Give me a call and I will do what I can to keep you better informed. Maybe I'll give you a news scoup before it happens.
How about "Arlo" and I meet you a Molly's?
EK - thanks for the info
Hmmm Marc does not comment but Max Kelly does.... Have you ever noticed that they are not in the same room together?
With the exception of Molly's? Could this have been a set up ??? (Oh my not in League City !!!)But where is the "concrete proof"??
LOL Sorry y'all
The city may need to be concerned about a completely different kind of law suit after the man was nearly electrocuted at Big League Dreams last Sunday.
http://tiny.cc/xn0n2
Thankfully, he survived.
CJM - I was wondering that myself? Where is the proof? I suspect we'll hear more about this and other matters come March. But I suspect it will be more rhetoric without unbiased evidence.
Sad to see some one work so much in trying to build something (a LC blog, online radio program), only let it all go to naught because of pride and friends.
Post a Comment