According to the SJC website:
After the Appeals Court has decided an appeal, a party may file (a) a petition for rehearing by the Appeals Court, and/or (b) an application to the SJC for Further Appellate Review (FAR). The affirmative vote of three SJC Justices is required in order for an FAR application to be allowed.
The Appeals Court decision seemed pretty clear, so I'm curious what legitimate issues could be raised. (yes, I am fully expecting a response written entirely in caps saying "YOU DIDNT COOMPLAIN WHEN JOHNSON APEELED THE OTER COURT . YOUR AN ASSWHOLE!").
It's still unknown whether three SJC Justices will be willing to actually hear the requested appeal-appeal -- so this may just be a stall tactic.
A. School Counsel has discovered some issue of law that the three justices of the Appeals Court missed. (OK, stop laughing ... )
B. Insurance Counsel is engaging in some CYA tactics so they can say they did everything possible before the insurance company stops funding the Town's defense.
C. Counsel is using the filing as a negotiating tool -- encouraging a "low ball" settlement in exchange for dropping their appeal.
D. Counsel is just running the fee clock and nobody is willing to question the amount of public money (either direct taxes, or indirect town insurance premiums) are being flushed down the judicial toilet.
E. All of the above (except A!)
(Since this issue has pretty much been beat to death -- Comments on this topic will be limited to those that actually add something new to the conversation -- not just constant repetition of the same old discussions.)
4 comments:
Bob, did you actually read what was submitted? There is "new" stuff in this. One that I thought was very interesting... the committee could not have taken this to court to be heard, they would have been then the plaintif and the defendant. It seems the committee at the time made the right decision. As I understand it, the three judges who heard the previous complaint aren't on this panel, so maybe... things will end up differently. Only time will tell. Lets see what Nevins has to say in his reply.
That's weak.
Any three taxpayers (INCLUDING individual School Committee members), or the DA, or the AG could have filed with the court to overturn the contract -- nobody did.
Does anyone know how much school money has been spent pursuing this legal claim already?
I suppose you could argue that every dollar spent by the school committee on lawyers’ fees is one less dollar for school supplies, teacher trainings, and other classroom related activities.
What’s the total so far? And, when does it end?
I like the idea of keeping up this fight. It reminds me of Custer’s great effort to defend Big Horn to the last man and Captain Smith’s long (sorta) hard fight to keep the Titanic afloat and Mrs. Lincoln’s efforts to stem the bleeding. This appeal will ultimately rank right up there with these well-intentioned but wasted moments of history.
Post a Comment