8th ward quick topic and free speech?

Submitted by JunadRizki on Thu, 03/26/2009 - 19:09

 

Recently Ann Rainey monitors my comments on her message board 8th ward quick topic that is will not allow me to post–claiming I am posting Inflammatory comments. 
 
 I find it interesting when citizens were complaining about her message board at the city, she and some of those on her board, were claiming the right to free speech. 
 
Clearly she does not wish to let the citizens know the truth about the cost of a legal problem the city is facing. She claims the people involved are wasting our money yet why has the city spent $37,000 in legal fees and wanted to settle the suit for $600?
 
Does not make much sense to me. Why can’t the city settle this suit. $37,000 could plant alot of parkway trees since the suit is over one tree!
 
The people are not even using an attonery they are representing themselves in court and we need to hire attorneries?
 
No doubt she does not want us to know, how our tax dollars are wasted!
The following are from “local Political discussions”
 
My post - item 112 ( partial post)
At the last council meeting an elderly women and her daughter approached me. They have sued the city in court, for cutting down a tree on their property, they told me they have acted as their own lawyer in court against the city. They told me the city has spent $37,000 in legal fees and now recently sent them a letter to settle the case for $600. If the city can waste this much money on a tree, I shutter to think how much they would waste on trying to break a water contract. ( contracts 101 you don't break them!)
 
 
Ann Rainey's reply – item 113
do not hve time to answer you now.
To all: this story about the poor elderly woman and her daughter is NOT AND I SCREAM NOT the fairy tale interpreted by Junad. I will answer later.
 
 
My Reply –item 114
Ann - I am only conveying what the elderly women and her daughter told me.
Since it appears this is a legal case we will not know until it is settle whose story to believe. Since we all know we can not file a FOI to get any information.
 
 
 
Ann Rainey's reply –item115
 
8th Warder, /m112 please note the MO here. Junad posts an inflammatory comment and then if no one challenges him, it sits as fact. Are these 2 people wasting your money because of a court case? You bet.

The matter involves an alley paving which went through the normal channels of petition, etc, 50% 50% neighbors and city payment. A tree was half in the alley and half on a condo's property. City and association agreed to remove the tree.

The 2 disapproved, the court requires us to respond and that is why this is costing you money. Every time they think of something new - the city has to show up AND THAT COSTS MONEY - BIG WASTE OF MONEY.

 

Comments

jeffpsmith

Fri, 03/27/2009 - 09:45

Junad, the court case is a public file. Both sides' allegations are a matter of public record, you don't need an FOIA. Give me the case number or the plaintiffs' names and I or anyone else can pull the file.
However, $37,000 is an enormous amount of legal fees. Especially if the case is as cut-and-dried as Ald. Rainey asserts. If it's that simple, it should have been easy to dismiss.
The average lawyer in Illinois makes about $70,000 a year, I recently read.  $37,000?  I have done many, many cases that are a lot more complex than this one sounds, for considerably less. The ratio of fees to case value sounds absurd.
Without having gone over billing statements one by one, my impression is that there is very little oversight on what the CIty and Township spend on litigation, and that the cost-benefit analyses are way out of whack. I do not mean to criticize any particular lawyer or staffer here, but it sounds like there is something fundamentally wrong in the process.

JunadRizki

Sat, 03/28/2009 - 19:14

Jeff - you express my views - that is why are we spending so much money on this case?
Ann Rainey and all her friends seem to miss the point- It appears she is not interested in any over site?
If I see the people again, I will ask about the case number.
 
 
 
 
 

JunadRizki

Sun, 03/29/2009 - 18:54

Ann Rainey post -from 8th ward quicktopic 16085
 
apologize for taking up space and your time with this.

“The 8th ward quicktopic message board and the right to free speech,” has created some commentary on the Evanston Now site. Posted by Junad Rizki, he argues that I am monitoring him. I want to explain to you all what has taken place.

In my opinion, Junad is very demanding in his posts. He constantly demands answers from me while on other sites pointing out the ignorance of Aldermen. I do not always have the answers or the time to research and post in reply to his questions which are really statements that he wants confirmed.

The matter resulting in my placing his postings on monitoring have to do with the so called elderly woman and her daughter who have driven up legal fees for taxpayers. Junad has gone on the attack because he charges the city has spent $30,000 plus defending a case that I think he believes is worth $600+. I began monitor when I felt he had lost it again. By that I mean, the tactic he uses to ask, get answers and then harp over and over again for more. You know I have asked him on occasions to get help from his alderman.

Here is the only post I monitored:
From: Junad Rizki
Ann - why is my comment "Infammatory" has the city spent $37,000
on this?
This was in reply to my response in message 115. on the Local election board
http://www.quicktopic.com/41/H/Zf2tG6jEXkm. I answered his question with the info I had at the time but realized this was going to drag on forever and therefore put a monitor on his next post.

The fact is the case to which he referred was in circuit or chancery court for a while and now in the appellate court for about a year. The two people have also sued the condo management etc. The law demands a response for filings and when in the appellate courts we do use outside council.

The physician daughter and her mom want the city – that would be us and our tax dollars – to donate $100,000 to an arboretum because we took down a box elder that was on their condo’s property and the city alley when the alley was paved. The condominium association – said take down the tree. The tree was removed, the alley was paved.

Junad is not helpful on board. His work is better placed on other sites."
 
Jeff - still not certain what was spent? Do not know if this post helps - While Ann may feel I am attacking her - I am just qeustioning why are we spending all this money?
I thought we paid someone in the city in confilct resolution?

jeffpsmith

Mon, 03/30/2009 - 07:12

Any appeal significantly changes the fee equation. A combined circuit court and then appellate case can easily get into the $30K range because of the mechanics of an appeal. As to cost-benefit of litigation v. settlement, I couldn't comment here without knowing the facts, or at least reviewing the file, and so will reserve judgment.