Latest Court Lawsuit Update

Per the notes on the Superior Courts website there is a date set for the following:
The Court has received the following:
o Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed August 10, 2018;
o Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed April 9, 2019; and
o Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class Certification filed April 9, 2019
Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on August 22, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. (time allotted: 90 minutes) with the time divided equally between the parties

This again is just a small portion of the case, but I do find it interesting that it addresses the "Class Certification" which also incorporates the Title 10/33 question in the original suit. Can't wait to see how this all shakes out after this legal wrangling and immoral judicial acts by some certain legislative representatives.

Just as a side note, the judge has stated he is willing to "impose sanctions to the losing party" who does not participate in the discovery process correctly. Lots of motions back and forth asking for additional pages to be added to their pleadings and the ensuing legal answers of allowing each party to add addenda to the current pleadings.

Should be interesting if the court date is upheld and and occurs on August 22nd.

 

My money is on an extension by the RCSC. Didn't the RCSC just change attorneys Carole> If so, are the new ones listed?

 

The last note from an attorney is from Chrisopher LaVoy, whose name has been in several documents previously. I see no notes listed about change of counsel, but then again, the notes of the case have been a hit and miss proposition. I know LaVoy has asked for summary judgement several times and it has been countered by the plaintiff, so that is what I am able to glean from the notes listed

 

It won’t be the plaintiff’s attorneys that do a half- baked job of discovery. RCSC’s attorneys have not been up to snuff in any legal action since I came here in 2006. That’s why RCSC has lost each major legal action.

 

CMartinez: These types of personal attacks have no place on this website. Define "immoral judicial acts by some certain legislative representatives". In addition to the definition, please provide the names, dates and actions so the parties can respond in an appropriate manner.

 

I, 3GenSCAZ, am entitled to have opinions, and to express them on this site or any other I so choose. Why is it okay for you to spread your form of personal opinion all over TOSC, but I am not allowed to write mine? Can't have it both ways, freedom of speech and expression are still protected First Amendment rights. I intend to speak freely as I see fit, and will share my opinion as long as I am an American Citizen.

 

CMartinez,
Of course everyone is entitled to their opinions and the ability to debate issues and opportunities based on facts. My point is unsubstantiated personal attacks have no place on this site. Going forward if you still have access to this site, please refrain from personal attacks such as the one you made in the above post. I support everyone’s right including legislative representatives to take all available actions against defamation and slander. Since it seems you are unable to defend your post I suggest you delete it although it is already in the public record and may still be subject to further actions.

 

Please provide the proof of any personal attack on anyone's character or lack of that Ms. Martinez has engaged in. I fail to find it in this thread.

3Gen, you are a polemicist.

 

3Gen,

I come on this forum as an American, free and proud of my God Given rights to speak my mind in good manners without name calling or spurious character attacks.

You come here to deny all the rest of us our 1st Amendment rights because you don't want to engage in the spirited discussion of ideas as Dick Stewart enlisted in the Marine Corps in WW II to defend. He enlisted believing he would be in the first wave to invade Japan as part of Operation Olympic. That invasion of the Japanese home islands, conservatively would have cost the lives of 250,00o American Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen. There would have 1 million more wounded. Japanese deaths would have been 4 million.

President Truman knew this and dropped two atomic bombs to prevent this slaughter. Yes, over 200,00o Japanese were killed, but the war was over before the end of August 1945 and my father came home from the South Pacific and raised a family. He had spent 3 1/2 years with General MacArthur island hopping.

You act like the new freshman congresswomen in the House of Representatives that feel they should be able to say anything, do anything, accuse others of racism and we should sit back and not comment. Well, welcome to real world of spirited discourse.

So, when you accuse Carol Martinez, Bill Pearson, myself, or anyone else of less than honorable behavior and it is not true, there will be pushback.

Deal with it.

Lt Col Tom McClain, USAF (ret) Fighter Pilot

 

Colonel Tom McClain,

First, thank you for your service and for returning to further serve our country. I also thank you for the defense of the posts written by others, yourself, and myself. You, sir, are truly, and officer and a gentleman, and I want to thank you for all you have said and done on this thread and other threads.

You are valued by me as an inspiration to always do the right things for the right reasons. Your integrity is beyond reproach, and no one has the right to besmirch you or your capabilities, ever.

 

Dear Carol,

I am honored that you think me worthy.

Tom McClain

 

My take on the above posts is that, it appears, 3Gen is concerned about referring to unnamed persons as "immoral" and claims that saying so was a "personal attack" on those unnamed persons. He DEMANDED names, dates, actions. Wow, that's a pretty heady reaction to what most of us probably didn't take with any more seriousness than if CM had said they need a haircut. But I guess you could consider "needed a haircut" as a personal attack too, if you are so disposed.

Nonetheless, I always try to see the other person's side. I started with ...

Dictionary definitions:

immoral... adjective... not conforming to accepted standards of morality

morality... noun.... a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society; the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
​

I concluded this is much ado about nothing. IMO, 3Gen's claim of impropriety, wrongdoing, and demand to prove it was actually a form of bullying, a tactic that has become more prevalent the past few years.

And a word about defamation and the 1st Amendment protection...

freedom of speech... noun... the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

Slander, libel or defamation. There are many, many nuances here — and the rules are different depending on whether or not the injured person is a public or private figure. Context matters, too, and so does whether the words used are an opinion (usually, but not always, protected) or factual statement (not protected unless the facts are provably true — and proving the truth is often far more costly and difficult than you might think).
​

It seem to me that most everything posted on this site is the opinion of the author, including this post of mine. Hence it's protected by the 1st. 3Gen's beliefs and sensitivities apparently differ from mine. I'm ok with that. But I'm less ok with the bullying tactics claiming defamation and not ok at all with the bullying threats made in another thread (here) to have other members barred from this site. In my world we're all equal - that means my opinion is as valid as everyone else's. We can try to convince each other to change our opinions and beliefs, but my experience is, and history shows, concessions gained by threats and intimidation are of little substance over the long term.

 

IC - I agree 100%. The bullying tactics of anyone on this site is unacceptable and should be watched very closely by the board administrator and take appropriate action if bullying continues.

I have noticed that since the original threats, the bullying tactics have subsided.

I saw no personal attacks on this site and wonder why the initiator of those bullying tactics even went as far as he/she did.

For anyone else so inclined, take your bullying to a RCSC board meeting and see how far they get.

 

The answer to the why of 3Gen's tactics is simple: Intimidation and attempting to stifle dissent and different ideas that are unpleasant to 3Gen.
Best cure is calling out the polemicist and make them prove their baseless screed.

 

Well, it is great to be back after letting surgeons slice and dice me again. Unfortunately their efforts were successful and I am back with my colorful spin on everything.
I appreciate Carole's update on the lawsuit and her spot on assessment of the clowns that pass for our legislative representatives. 3rdGen appears to be a touch uninformed as to the hijinks between the upper crust of RCSC and our local reps. In a thumbnail, shortly after the judge's ruling last September that RCSC was covered by Title 33 (a terrible ruling on law), magically a bill appeared in legislature that would essentially make the RCSC under Title 10 and was passed. It was drafted in the House by Kevin "foodtruck" Payne, sheparded through the Senate by Sun City resident Rick Gray and signed by the governor. This little legal two step is known as supremacy of statute, which would sort of invalidate the judge's ruling unless the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit want to litigate its constitutionality. Not to muddy up the waters, I asked the Board if RCSC was operating under Title 10 in light of the new law. The answer was that RCSC was still operating until Title 33 and will continue under Title 10 somehow. I replied what was the new law all about? Surprisingly I did not receive a straight answer.

As for the lawsuit, both myself and Carole understood the implications and legal strategy involved, subsequently confirmed by lawyers I know familiar with this type of action. The problem has always been that Anne of Cleavage wants revenge on RCSC using other peoples money, Plaintiffs attorneys want a notch in their belt, RCSC attorneys are not accustomed to this type of action and it shows and the judge really does not understand how Sun City operates or what an ex post facto law is.

That is it in a nutshell and I have another court hearing to attend where the Marx Brothers battle the Three Stooges overseen by Rodney Dangerfield.

Carole, if I have misrepresented anything, please correct me.

 

Let me clear this up 3rd gen...there’s another poster who goes by the name 3 genscaz.
Hope that helps.

 

WOW.
Why is it that I feel that there is a lot more going on here than a discussion of the law suits?
Suddenly we are dropping atomic bombs, dragging God in, wrapping ourselves in the flag and demanding our Constitutional rights as well as signing posts with our name, rank and serial number. As if any of this adds credence to our arguments? But it does make for entertaining reading.

 

Back to the court case and the rule of law. "So long as there is adequate factual evidence to support the verdict, an appellate court will not reverse a trial court's decision or "remand" the case (send it back to the trial court for retrial) unless they find that the trial court made a "mistake of law." Also, the court case can set precedence by overruling the change of Title 33, and reset things back to the way they were. It would almost certainly force an appeal, but I don't feel there has been a mistake of law, I feel there has been so much meddling in the governing of the RCSC, there is no way to go forward without going back a few steps.