2. The City probably saved some money this way... After all, if they had lost in court they may have had to pay even more. Either way, it looks like there would be a potential lawsuit from MB Harbour.
3. I doubt the City would have settled if they truly felt they could have won in court. The way I see it, if they could have won, the future risk MB Harbour would go away with one victory.
After all of the lies, the dirty dealings, the crooked politicos, the crooked lawyers and the deep-pocketed developer to bail them all out, I am elated to see that the residents of Glen Cove have been vindicated and have received justice.
Does anyone know when the MB Harbour fence that was built on Glen Cove common property will be torn down?
None of you could be more wrong. Read the final settlement agreement that was signed by the Judge. Your tax dollars were just given away for no reason and no cause.
Really Mr. Campbell, Vindicated! What type of drugs are you people on? The Glen Cove Master Negotiator (Smith) sold you people down the canal. Judge Criss was very clear with the settlement agreement. She stated that the 75 foot ROW on the north side of the subdivision was properly deeded to the City and no other claims were validated. Therefore, the lawsuit was frivolous. Judge Criss agreed that both parties were to pay their own attorney fees and that all other claims were void. The fact that the City gave away 225K of taxpayer’s money to their attorney was the only thing that was crooked in this lawsuit. I may have to call the Attorney General Office to file a complaint against the City, Becker and Company.
Wow if I thought the city "gave away" 225,000 i'd be mad too. LOL but we all know what the truth is.The "big Give away" happened years ago and those plyers have been thrown out of office for the good of the city. Now just a few questions: who owns the canal? Will the property owners have to pay to keep the piers ?
Every batter sees the fastball some batters hit a home run and some strike out and discuss how wrong the umpire was.
The final court order and the settlement agreement city council resolution are posted here as items 47 & 48.
Note that the hosting service that I have been using for these documents will be going away in a month or two. I have not decided yet if it is worth finding an alternate hosting service.
You really need to come out of the closet and smell the fresh sea breeze near the canal. You continue to spread your lies about secret meetings, but the facts prove otherwise. At no time, did anyone on the City side have “secret meetings.” They were all published and advertised, as per law. Would you like to talk about the secret meetings that you conducted with Randall, Phalen, Lee, and others, while they were actively serving on City Council? Are these the secret meetings that you are talking about? You and Smith met many times with them to discuss the strategy of the case.
I was looking forward to my testimony in court. What happen? After the Judge took the jury off the case and told you that the case had no substance, you immediately went to the City to negotiate for attorney fees. The Judge’s final order and agreement was very clear. The Honorable Criss stated that both parties to the lawsuit should pay their own attorney fees and that all other items were voided.
The City Council members agreed to pay your attorney’s fees (225K). This is nothing more than robbery committed by both you and Smith. You talked about being a crook! Wow! Oh, I forgot, you and Smith intimidated the City Council again and they must have succumbed to your demands. It’s election year again… I may contact the Attorney General’s Office to see why the City violated the Judges order.
Mr. Hagen, if you had all this evidence, smoking gun, and emails that were going to prove your case, why didn’t you just go to court? You were one day away from trial. Really doesn’t make any sense to me to have the “Hammer” and not to use it.
So Tommy, I don't recall reading that Messrs. Hagen and Smith held a gun to the council members head until they agreed to pay Glen Cove's attorney's fees. This is the city's tacit acknowledgement that what YOU AND YOUR ASSOCIATES did was wrong and that, sir, is vindication. Now go crawl back in the hole you came out of.
The judge did not "take the jury off the case" nor tell us that "the case had no substance".
The negotiations between the plaintiffs and the city were not a secret - city council publicly voted to offer settlement discussions with us and it was in fact the city that approached us to request settling the case, not the other way around.
The decision of the plaintiffs to agree to settlement terms with the city was not mine nor Mr. Smith's alone. There were 16 separate parties who jointly came to that decision. There were many reasons for and against choosing to settle, but you would have to ask each individual party why they made their choices that added up to the collective decision that was reached.
By definition, the city can not have "violated the judge's order" by reaching a settlement. What you don't seem to get is that the lawsuit was settled by agreement of both sides. The judge did not order settlement. In settlements, both parties are free to enter into whatever agreement they find mutually acceptable. If both parties reach such an agreement, the judge has no say in the matter other than to close the case.
The unreasonable actions of the city at the time you served on city council were the cause that forced us to take action to defend ourselves from the city. I doubt reasonable persons would consider it just to force us to pay the legal cost of defending ourselves against the city's misdeeds. Consider too that the reimbursed costs are just direct legal fees, and do not include the thousands of hours of personal time that we collectively were forced to devote to this struggle. We may have succeeding in proving that you can in fact fight city hall, but it was definitely not easy.
Marc: You are partly correct. Too many tax dollars for too little real restitution for the direct victims. But far more are about to be spent now, and we will all be the victims. Only Chapter One just closed on this can of worms. Tommy: Really. No secret meetings. What do you call meetings held behind Glen Cove's back to arrange demolition of the bridge, while GC was being lied to openly about repair or replacement? Nothing to hide. Right. Chris: Will GC property owners have to "pay" to keep their piers? Who would they pay? Structures built on Clear Lake, an open public waterway, are subject to COE approval, not to Nick Scotto dba MBH. Has the corps said anything about the structures? With or without permits, they would have to be grandfathered in at this point anyway, so it is a moot point, albeit a dead horse Marc will surely continue to beat on from now 'till the cows come home.
Mr. Hagen, We all know the Judge stated the case had no merit, except for the 75 foot ROW on the north side. She stated that if Glen Cove could not prove otherwise, and that the City had the deed to the ROW, your case was completely over on Friday, April 20. Immediately after the hearing, Becker and Company placed an executive session agenda item on a WORKSHOP meeting for Monday, April 23, 2012. WOW! If the previous council would have conducted themselves in that manner, they would be accused of trying to hide information or having a secret meeting. They should have placed the agenda item on Tuesday Regular City Council Meeting on April 24th. Why? Is it because they didn’t want it televised? Becker and Company placed it on the agenda because they knew the outcome of the Judges order. When Phalen came out of the executive session in the WORKSHOP meeting, he had a prepared statement and motion. Does this mean they already made a decision in executive session? Of course, we are not stupid. On Thursday, April 26, 2012, the Judge signed the order, which stated that both parties were responsible for their attorney’s cost. This was the main reason why Becker and Company wanted it on the Monday WORKSHOP meeting. It’s amazing, court was schedule for Tuesday and not one person was subpoena from the plaintiff’s side. Again, Mr. Hagen, the only secret meetings that anyone ever had was the meeting that you had with Ms. Randall and others. The city spent 600K trying to lose this lawsuit, that’s the real crime. We have the Master Negotiator Smith, Randall, and yourself to thank for that. The City Council violated the court order by paying the fees. It’s not over yet, Mr. Hagen. Paul the Pirate*** It’s better living through the world of chemistry, I understand. At times, it’s hard to keep the brain cells alive. The demo of the bridge was completely discussed openly to the public in public session and all the necessary permit were pulled, prior to the demo of the bridge. Sorry, you and others couldn’t read the meeting notices. Morgan I should have approved the 1200 apartment units on the property. In retrospect, I wish I would have pursued that avenue; maybe Glen Cove would have appreciated that more. While on City Council, we were ordered not to speak about the issues, but now I can, therefore, I will rise up and speak. Trust me!
Once the appellate court returned the case to the district court, the judge made no further rulings in the case granting any of the city's motions, on April 20th or at any other time.
City council schedule was dictated by the ability to convene a quorum with the requisite 72 hours public notice and the settlement agenda item was added at the direction of the mayor.
The case is now over. Why are you attempting to retry it with public debate? What's in it for you?
Damage control, perhaps. After the city's land giveaway (three tracts along NRG canal), two lawsuits and recent settlement of one have cost all of us over a million dollars to date, Scotto's name and those close around him are mud in this town now. You can see that Tommy spends a lot of time hanging around Marc, when their chemical haze renditions of events keep getting farther from reality. They are groping for straws now.
17 comments:
1. Congrats to the residents of Glen Cove!
2. The City probably saved some money this way... After all, if they had lost in court they may have had to pay even more. Either way, it looks like there would be a potential lawsuit from MB Harbour.
3. I doubt the City would have settled if they truly felt they could have won in court. The way I see it, if they could have won, the future risk MB Harbour would go away with one victory.
After all of the lies, the dirty dealings, the crooked politicos, the crooked lawyers and the deep-pocketed developer to bail them all out, I am elated to see that the residents of Glen Cove have been vindicated and have received justice.
Does anyone know when the MB Harbour fence that was built on Glen Cove common property will be torn down?
None of you could be more wrong. Read the final settlement agreement that was signed by the Judge. Your tax dollars were just given away for no reason and no cause.
Really Mr. Campbell, Vindicated! What type of drugs are you people on? The Glen Cove Master Negotiator (Smith) sold you people down the canal. Judge Criss was very clear with the settlement agreement. She stated that the 75 foot ROW on the north side of the subdivision was properly deeded to the City and no other claims were validated. Therefore, the lawsuit was frivolous. Judge Criss agreed that both parties were to pay their own attorney fees and that all other claims were void. The fact that the City gave away 225K of taxpayer’s money to their attorney was the only thing that was crooked in this lawsuit. I may have to call the Attorney General Office to file a complaint against the City, Becker and Company.
Wow if I thought the city "gave away" 225,000 i'd be mad too. LOL but we all know what the truth is.The "big Give away" happened years ago and those plyers have been thrown out of office for the good of the city. Now just a few questions: who owns the canal? Will the property owners have to pay to keep the piers ?
Every batter sees the fastball some batters hit a home run and some strike out and discuss how wrong the umpire was.
The final court order and the settlement agreement city council resolution are posted here as items 47 & 48.
Note that the hosting service that I have been using for these documents will be going away in a month or two. I have not decided yet if it is worth finding an alternate hosting service.
Jeff
Mr. Hagen,
You really need to come out of the closet and smell the fresh sea breeze near the canal. You continue to spread your lies about secret meetings, but the facts prove otherwise. At no time, did anyone on the City side have “secret meetings.” They were all published and advertised, as per law. Would you like to talk about the secret meetings that you conducted with Randall, Phalen, Lee, and others, while they were actively serving on City Council? Are these the secret meetings that you are talking about? You and Smith met many times with them to discuss the strategy of the case.
I was looking forward to my testimony in court. What happen? After the Judge took the jury off the case and told you that the case had no substance, you immediately went to the City to negotiate for attorney fees. The Judge’s final order and agreement was very clear. The Honorable Criss stated that both parties to the lawsuit should pay their own attorney fees and that all other items were voided.
The City Council members agreed to pay your attorney’s fees (225K). This is nothing more than robbery committed by both you and Smith. You talked about being a crook! Wow! Oh, I forgot, you and Smith intimidated the City Council again and they must have succumbed to your demands. It’s election year again… I may contact the Attorney General’s Office to see why the City violated the Judges order.
Mr. Hagen, if you had all this evidence, smoking gun, and emails that were going to prove your case, why didn’t you just go to court? You were one day away from trial. Really doesn’t make any sense to me to have the “Hammer” and not to use it.
So Tommy, I don't recall reading that Messrs. Hagen and Smith held a gun to the council members head until they agreed to pay Glen Cove's attorney's fees. This is the city's tacit acknowledgement that what YOU AND YOUR ASSOCIATES did was wrong and that, sir, is vindication. Now go crawl back in the hole you came out of.
Mr. Cones,
The judge did not "take the jury off the case" nor tell us that "the case had no substance".
The negotiations between the plaintiffs and the city were not a secret - city council publicly voted to offer settlement discussions with us and it was in fact the city that approached us to request settling the case, not the other way around.
The decision of the plaintiffs to agree to settlement terms with the city was not mine nor Mr. Smith's alone. There were 16 separate parties who jointly came to that decision. There were many reasons for and against choosing to settle, but you would have to ask each individual party why they made their choices that added up to the collective decision that was reached.
By definition, the city can not have "violated the judge's order" by reaching a settlement. What you don't seem to get is that the lawsuit was settled by agreement of both sides. The judge did not order settlement. In settlements, both parties are free to enter into whatever agreement they find mutually acceptable. If both parties reach such an agreement, the judge has no say in the matter other than to close the case.
The unreasonable actions of the city at the time you served on city council were the cause that forced us to take action to defend ourselves from the city. I doubt reasonable persons would consider it just to force us to pay the legal cost of defending ourselves against the city's misdeeds. Consider too that the reimbursed costs are just direct legal fees, and do not include the thousands of hours of personal time that we collectively were forced to devote to this struggle. We may have succeeding in proving that you can in fact fight city hall, but it was definitely not easy.
Jeff
Marc: You are partly correct. Too many tax dollars for too little real restitution for the direct victims. But far more are about to be spent now, and we will all be the victims. Only Chapter One just closed on this can of worms.
Tommy: Really. No secret meetings. What do you call meetings held behind Glen Cove's back to arrange demolition of the bridge, while GC was being lied to openly about repair or replacement? Nothing to hide. Right.
Chris: Will GC property owners have to "pay" to keep their piers? Who would they pay? Structures built on Clear Lake, an open public waterway, are subject to COE approval, not to Nick Scotto dba MBH. Has the corps said anything about the structures? With or without permits, they would have to be grandfathered in at this point anyway, so it is a moot point, albeit a dead horse Marc will surely continue to beat on from now 'till the cows come home.
Mr. Hagen,
We all know the Judge stated the case had no merit, except for the 75 foot ROW on the north side. She stated that if Glen Cove could not prove otherwise, and that the City had the deed to the ROW, your case was completely over on Friday, April 20. Immediately after the hearing, Becker and Company placed an executive session agenda item on a WORKSHOP meeting for Monday, April 23, 2012. WOW! If the previous council would have conducted themselves in that manner, they would be accused of trying to hide information or having a secret meeting. They should have placed the agenda item on Tuesday Regular City Council Meeting on April 24th. Why? Is it because they didn’t want it televised? Becker and Company placed it on the agenda because they knew the outcome of the Judges order.
When Phalen came out of the executive session in the WORKSHOP meeting, he had a prepared statement and motion. Does this mean they already made a decision in executive session? Of course, we are not stupid.
On Thursday, April 26, 2012, the Judge signed the order, which stated that both parties were responsible for their attorney’s cost. This was the main reason why Becker and Company wanted it on the Monday WORKSHOP meeting. It’s amazing, court was schedule for Tuesday and not one person was subpoena from the plaintiff’s side. Again, Mr. Hagen, the only secret meetings that anyone ever had was the meeting that you had with Ms. Randall and others. The city spent 600K trying to lose this lawsuit, that’s the real crime. We have the Master Negotiator Smith, Randall, and yourself to thank for that.
The City Council violated the court order by paying the fees. It’s not over yet, Mr. Hagen.
Paul the Pirate***
It’s better living through the world of chemistry, I understand. At times, it’s hard to keep the brain cells alive. The demo of the bridge was completely discussed openly to the public in public session and all the necessary permit were pulled, prior to the demo of the bridge. Sorry, you and others couldn’t read the meeting notices.
Morgan
I should have approved the 1200 apartment units on the property. In retrospect, I wish I would have pursued that avenue; maybe Glen Cove would have appreciated that more. While on City Council, we were ordered not to speak about the issues, but now I can, therefore, I will rise up and speak. Trust me!
Mr. Cones,
Once the appellate court returned the case to the district court, the judge
made no further rulings in the case granting any of the city's motions, on
April 20th or at any other time.
City council schedule was dictated by the
ability to convene a quorum with the requisite 72 hours public notice and the settlement agenda item was added at the direction of the mayor.
The case is now over. Why are you attempting to retry it with public debate?
What's in it for you?
Jeff
Damage control, perhaps. After the city's land giveaway (three tracts along NRG canal), two lawsuits and recent settlement of one have cost all of us over a million dollars to date, Scotto's name and those close around him are mud in this town now.
You can see that Tommy spends a lot of time hanging around Marc, when their chemical haze renditions of events keep getting farther from reality. They are groping for straws now.
Rest in Peace Paul!
Post a Comment