I had a workers comensation case and I was legaly dead when the first unit arrived. I was barly blowing bubbles in my own blood on the grownd when the first responding Officer Arrived and grabbed my shoulder to pull my head out of my Pool of Blood. That gave me the power to start Breathing. The Paramedics Arrived they said I had no pulse and started CPR, they did the CPR all the way to the Hospital (11 minutes) Another 15 minutes had gone by so the doctors in the ER could stablize me, and when Enroute to the Operating Room My pulse dropped off again they started CPR all over and got me back to the ER. That happend Three times. I had to fight for the small settlement that I got, and I lost my medical to cover the pain that I will suffer from the rest of my life.
I had the Wrong Lawyer, the county Messed up and they now are out the money and they are not going to win in the next go around or Appeal!! You will see!!
BSRanch
County blames legal advice
Appeal expected in Colonies' case
Edward Barrera and Jeff Horwitz, Staff Writers
San Bernardino County Sun
Incompetent legal advice, a faulty judgment, leaked information and a sensationalistic media are just a few of the reasons county officials are using to explain a judge's damning ruling Monday.
Superior Court Judge Christopher Warner roasted San Bernardino County officials in their battle with the developers of the Colonies project in Upland over 72 acres used for flood control on the Colonies' land.
The judge in a tentative decision accused the county of deceit, coercion and jeopardizing public safety in its dealings with Colonies Partners LP, and said that the burden on the Colonies was so great that the county no longer held rights to the land for flood control.
"We have been spanked pretty badly," said Supervisor Gary Ovitt. "We have spent millions of dollars on legal teams, and the outcome has not been good."
Board Chairman Bill Postmus fumed in a statement that the decision was due to "incompetence and poor legal judgment on the part of many of the county's attorneys, including outside counsel Jones Day and on the part of some within our own county counsel's office"
Postmus went further, saying that leaked information in the case, which included a tentative settlement brokered in 2005, damaged the county's position.
"It is now apparent that the poor performance of our attorneys in this case and the unscrupulous behavior of the (individual or individuals) who illegally leaked confidential information, combined with the sensationalistic news coverage and irresponsible newspaper editorials criticizing our settlement efforts, have clearly put the interests of county taxpayers at a dire disadvantage in the Colonies case," Postmus stated.
In another statement, interim Counsel Dennis Wagner blamed the judge for misreading an earlier ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeals.
"The decision (Monday) is inconsistent with the Court of Appeals' directive concerning the case ..." Wagner wrote. The county's flood control "district continues to seek the advice of its legal counsel and will pursue all necessary avenues to protect the taxpayers from liability, which is simply not theirs to bear."
In 2005, the state appellate court ruled that the county had some rights to the Colonies property but more land was needed to complete the flood control work.
But in Warner's decision Monday, he noted the difference, writing that "it is one thing to say that existing flood control facilities on plaintiff's property ... can be used to detain or divert storm flows coming from different watersheds. It is quite another thing to say that the defendant can enter plaintiff's property and install a facility designed to carry massive storm flows to that property and then 'turn its back' and leave plaintiff to deal with the consequences."
An appeal of Monday's ruling was expected regardless of the outcome. At one point, even the judge commented on it, although he also encouraged the parties to pursue settlement talks.
During the drawn-out court proceedings, Postmus and Ovitt said they would be open to restarting negotiations. But it was an idea that the full board never approved.
"While the decision is only preliminary at this point and the possibility of an appeal still exists, I fear the county's best opportunity to resolve this significant financial risk to the taxpayers has likely already passed us by," Postmus said in his statement.
A tentative settlement brokered in 2005 was worth about $77 million. It would have included about $25 million in cash and the rest as a land-for-cash swap. The deal was never approved by the full board.
Supervisor Dennis Hansberger, long a vocal critic of any large settlement with the Colonies, backed the county counsel's opinion regarding Monday's decision.
"It's clear to me that Judge Warner has completely ignored the direction of the appellate court," he said. "I think our position is sound." Hansberger also believes that Postmus' frustrations have boiled over, saying "he seems to be very much on edge" and Tuesday's statement is "not the kind of thoughtful, reasoned response I would have expected of him."
County blames legal advice
Appeal expected in Colonies' case
Edward Barrera and Jeff Horwitz, Staff Writers
San Bernardino County Sun
Incompetent legal advice, a faulty judgment, leaked information and a sensationalistic media are just a few of the reasons county officials are using to explain a judge's damning ruling Monday.
Superior Court Judge Christopher Warner roasted San Bernardino County officials in their battle with the developers of the Colonies project in Upland over 72 acres used for flood control on the Colonies' land.
The judge in a tentative decision accused the county of deceit, coercion and jeopardizing public safety in its dealings with Colonies Partners LP, and said that the burden on the Colonies was so great that the county no longer held rights to the land for flood control.
"We have been spanked pretty badly," said Supervisor Gary Ovitt. "We have spent millions of dollars on legal teams, and the outcome has not been good."
Board Chairman Bill Postmus fumed in a statement that the decision was due to "incompetence and poor legal judgment on the part of many of the county's attorneys, including outside counsel Jones Day and on the part of some within our own county counsel's office"
Postmus went further, saying that leaked information in the case, which included a tentative settlement brokered in 2005, damaged the county's position.
"It is now apparent that the poor performance of our attorneys in this case and the unscrupulous behavior of the (individual or individuals) who illegally leaked confidential information, combined with the sensationalistic news coverage and irresponsible newspaper editorials criticizing our settlement efforts, have clearly put the interests of county taxpayers at a dire disadvantage in the Colonies case," Postmus stated.
In another statement, interim Counsel Dennis Wagner blamed the judge for misreading an earlier ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeals.
"The decision (Monday) is inconsistent with the Court of Appeals' directive concerning the case ..." Wagner wrote. The county's flood control "district continues to seek the advice of its legal counsel and will pursue all necessary avenues to protect the taxpayers from liability, which is simply not theirs to bear."
In 2005, the state appellate court ruled that the county had some rights to the Colonies property but more land was needed to complete the flood control work.
But in Warner's decision Monday, he noted the difference, writing that "it is one thing to say that existing flood control facilities on plaintiff's property ... can be used to detain or divert storm flows coming from different watersheds. It is quite another thing to say that the defendant can enter plaintiff's property and install a facility designed to carry massive storm flows to that property and then 'turn its back' and leave plaintiff to deal with the consequences."
An appeal of Monday's ruling was expected regardless of the outcome. At one point, even the judge commented on it, although he also encouraged the parties to pursue settlement talks.
During the drawn-out court proceedings, Postmus and Ovitt said they would be open to restarting negotiations. But it was an idea that the full board never approved.
"While the decision is only preliminary at this point and the possibility of an appeal still exists, I fear the county's best opportunity to resolve this significant financial risk to the taxpayers has likely already passed us by," Postmus said in his statement.
A tentative settlement brokered in 2005 was worth about $77 million. It would have included about $25 million in cash and the rest as a land-for-cash swap. The deal was never approved by the full board.
Supervisor Dennis Hansberger, long a vocal critic of any large settlement with the Colonies, backed the county counsel's opinion regarding Monday's decision.
"It's clear to me that Judge Warner has completely ignored the direction of the appellate court," he said. "I think our position is sound." Hansberger also believes that Postmus' frustrations have boiled over, saying "he seems to be very much on edge" and Tuesday's statement is "not the kind of thoughtful, reasoned response I would have expected of him."
No comments:
Post a Comment