Read All About It - Update on Surepip and Ms. Surepip's Lawsuit!

[LisaKW@bellsouth.net]

Wow! Just read the recently handed down ruling in Surepip and Ms. Surepip's ruling - the anti-slapp ruling has been over-turned!

 

Paulding County v. Morrison

 

[rchaos]

Wow! Just read the recently handed down ruling in Surepip and Ms. Surepip's ruling - the anti-slapp ruling has been over-turned!

 

Paulding County v. Morrison

 

 

This was handed down 2 days ago. Really surprised that this was not posted by the news crew of PCom earlier. This is big news for Paulding County residents.

[LPPT]

Your tempting me. And it's not going to be good.

[rchaos]

You're tempting me. And it's not going to be good.

 

What is tempting you? And why would it not be good. I asked a question in another thread about this. Turns out a ruling was handed down 2 days ago and NOTHING has been posted.

 

I am a tax payer in the County who likes to know what his share of money is spent on.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Hulk Smash

[Wineguy]

So does this mean that the county county gets away with everything, and the Morrison's are out property and money?

[LPPT]

Would you like to discuss the politics of this situation?

Lets let the readers know exactly what is going on......

 

There seems to have been a strategy, some people were counting on the Morrison's to beat the drum non-stop against David Austin about this law suit.

There was a huge wrench thrown in the works when Melissa decided to run for representative.

 

The Morrison's have been called and talked to over and over by people constantly bringing the law suit up, while the Morrison's have worked very hard to keep the issue separate from the campaign.

 

They have disappointed a lot of people that were counting on them to rail against David Austin about this lawsuit.

It speaks volumes about David and the Morrison's character that they have not allowed themselves to be manipulated in this way.

 

I can see that some are still very hopefully that they can push the Morrison's buttons and get them to start railing against David or to come out publicly and support his opponent.

 

Good luck folks, Melissa has a lot more class than you give her credit for.

 

So does this mean that the county county gets away with everything, and the Morrison's are out property and money?

No it doesn't, it means the case can be heard.

[rchaos]

"During the subsequent hearings in each respective case, the Morrisons's counsel, Glen E. Stinson, was the sole witness. Although Stinson neither produced nor tendered any billing statements, invoices, or business records, he testified that he had incurred $147,765 in fees in one case and $117,348.68 in fees in the other.¹² Stinson further testified that, with the exception of time spent preparing and filing the complaints, "every hour" of the fees incurred during the five years of litigation was directly attributable to the Board's Wherefore clauses.^13"

 

"Consequently, the General Assembly adopted a mandate that, "[f]or any claim asserted against a person or entity arising from an act by that person or entity which could reasonably be construed as an act in furtherance of the right of free speech or the right to petition government for a redress of grievances . . . in connection with an issue of public interest or concern," the party asserting the claim and his or her attorney must file a verification in accordance with OCGA § 9-11-11.1 (.¹⁸ The verification in essence certifies that the claim is well-grounded in law and fact, is not directed toward a privileged communication, and is not interposed for an improper purpose.¹⁹ If the court determines that a party falsely verified a claim, the party and/or his or her counsel shall be sanctioned, and the sanction may include dismissal of the claim and/or an order to pay the other party's attorney fees.²⁰"

 

If I am reading this right their attorney never provided back up for his billing. Really? Over $250,000.00 in fees and no back up? That is one kick in the head right now.

[rchaos]

Would you like to discuss the politics of this situation?

Lets let the readers know exactly what is going on......

 

There seems to have been a strategy, some people were counting on the Morrison's to beat the drum non-stop against David Austin about this law suit.

There was a huge wrench thrown in the works when Melissa decided to run for representative.

 

The Morrison's have been called and talked to over and over by people constantly bringing the law suit up, while the Morrison's have worked very hard to keep the issue separate from the campaign.

 

They have disappointed a lot of people that were counting on them to rail against David Austin about this lawsuit.

It speaks volumes about David and the Morrison's character that they have not allowed themselves to be manipulated in this way.

 

I can see that some are still very hopefully that they can push the Morrison's buttons and get them to start railing against David or to come out publicly and support his opponent.

 

Good luck folks, Melissa has a lot more class than you give her credit for.

 

 

No it doesn't, it means the case can be heard.

 

Both Thad and Mellisa have stated on here that their lawsuit has no bearing on her running so why would it affect their campaign? Obviously it does. I totally agree with you that they are very wise not to use this against David. Very, very smart move on their part.

 

I asked the question why this was not reported 2 days ago on here by the staff.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Hulk Smash

[Wineguy]

"During the subsequent hearings in each respective case, the Morrisons's counsel, Glen E. Stinson, was the sole witness. Although Stinson neither produced nor tendered any billing statements, invoices, or business records, he testified that he had incurred $147,765 in fees in one case and $117,348.68 in fees in the other.¹² Stinson further testified that, with the exception of time spent preparing and filing the complaints, "every hour" of the fees incurred during the five years of litigation was directly attributable to the Board's Wherefore clauses.^13"

 

"Consequently, the General Assembly adopted a mandate that, "[f]or any claim asserted against a person or entity arising from an act by that person or entity which could reasonably be construed as an act in furtherance of the right of free speech or the right to petition government for a redress of grievances . . . in connection with an issue of public interest or concern," the party asserting the claim and his or her attorney must file a verification in accordance with OCGA § 9-11-11.1 (.¹⁸ The verification in essence certifies that the claim is well-grounded in law and fact, is not directed toward a privileged communication, and is not interposed for an improper purpose.¹⁹ If the court determines that a party falsely verified a claim, the party and/or his or her counsel shall be sanctioned, and the sanction may include dismissal of the claim and/or an order to pay the other party's attorney fees.²⁰"

 

If I am reading this right their attorney never provided back up for his billing. Really? Over $250,000.00 in fees and no back up? That is one kick in the head right now.

 

I think this means since it was all incurred for the same action, he did not itemize it and instead quoted the total in the filing.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Wineguy

[rchaos]

I think this means since it was all incurred for the same action, he did not itemize it and instead quoted the total in the filing.

 

If I were billed $250,000.00 in services I would fully expect an itemized billing statement. I get one from my attorney. It is a shame that it gets tossed because of this. Let's get this to court now.

[LPPT]

Both Thad and Mellisa have stated on here that their lawsuit has no bearing on her running so why would it affect their campaign? Obviously it does. I totally agree with you that they are very wise not to use this against David. Very, very smart move on their part.

 

I asked the question why this was not reported 2 days ago on here by the staff.

 

Because this is the first time we have seen it and when I ask the Morrison's they stated they had not seen it yet and did not want to remark on it until they went over it with their attorney.

I was one of the first people informed about it, and I don't know how to interpret it beyond what I have been told, and that was that the case itself can now be tried in court.

They continue to try and keep the issues separate against a bombardment of phone calls and emails of people reminding them of the injustice of the case.

 

The Morrison's will always do what is best for Paulding when they can and have continued to do so at every opportunity while this case is going on.

 

On a personal note I was very surprised that there was not a postponement of this until after the election, I smell more political strategy in the air.

[OldGoat99]

I will agree it seems the itemized bill should have been included along with some other documents.

 

It also appears that those with the most amount of money can only win in court.

 

And the age old saying is that you can't fight city hall is prevailing.

 

I do like that she is running for office and is in effect an end run to clean up the county government.

 

Either way I hope she does get elected and fires the lawyer firm that has been fighting them. I would like to see her clean up the county government also....

 

Could make Paulding county a interesting item in the papers if she gets elected.

[markdavd]

After reading the ruling, it sounds like their attorney screwed up big time.

[rchaos]

I will agree it seems the itemized bill should have been included along with some other documents.

 

It also appears that those with the most amount of money can only win in court.

 

And the age old saying is that you can't fight city hall is prevailing.

 

I do like that she is running for office and is in effect an end run to clean up the county government.

 

Either way I hope she does get elected and fires the lawyer firm that has been fighting them. I would like to see her clean up the county government also....

Could make Paulding county a interesting item in the papers if she gets elected.

 

This statement is what causes people to think her running is for personal reasons only. Statements like this do nothing but hurt her chances, NOT help.

[LPPT]

I will agree it seems the itemized bill should have been included along with some other documents.

 

It also appears that those with the most amount of money can only win in court.

 

And the age old saying is that you can't fight city hall is prevailing.

 

I do like that she is running for office and is in effect an end run to clean up the county government.

 

Either way I hope she does get elected and fires the lawyer firm that has been fighting them. I would like to see her clean up the county government also....

 

Could make Paulding county a interesting item in the papers if she gets elected.

 

She will have no ability what so ever to fire the county attorneys if she is elected. A legislator votes the will of the people of their district at the state level.

If she is good, which I know she is, she will listen to the people of her district and vote the way they want her to vote for their benefit, not the benefit of special interest groups when there is a conflict between the 2.

[rchaos]

After reading the ruling, it sounds like their attorney screwed up big time.

 

You think? What concerns me is he is the City of Hiram and the City of Dallas' attorney. Maybe open records requests for both city billings are in order.

[OldGoat99]

You know I hope you are right... but the will of the people never came to play with their law suit.... did it?

 

So I hope she is able to get a little pay back per se .....

 

If I was still in Paulding county I would vote for her. In a heart beat.

 

She will have no ability what so ever to fire the county attorneys if she is elected. A legislator votes the will of the people of their district at the state level.

If she is good, which I know she is, she will listen to the people of her district and vote the way they want her to vote for their benefit, not the benefit of special interest groups when there is a conflict between the 2.

[rchaos]

You know I hope you are right... but the will of the people never came to play with their law suit.... did it?

 

So I hope she is able to get a little pay back per se .....

 

If I was still in Paulding county I would vote for her. In a heart beat.

 

 

 

You did not reside in her district when you lived here.

 

Your comment about payback does nothing but hurt her.

 

The will of the people has nothing to do about the outcome of their suit. We still reside in a land that is governed by the rule of law, NOT the will of the people.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Hulk Smash

[gpatt0n]

All I will say is that until you posted the item above, I had not seen the decision. I had heard about the decision but I wouldn't attempt to write something about a reversal without knowing anything about it.

 

Thanks for posting the link you did. I was unaware of the site.

 

Looks to me like Glenn Stinson's handling of the case was not as well based in the law as we have been led to suppose...

 

The issue here is whether the prayer for relief by the county - asking reimbursement of legal fees if the county prevails - is at the crux of the matter. I can't believe there isn't some conflicting prejudice on this point but if there isn't - and it was as cut and dried a situation as the appeals court asserted - then Mr. Stinson's credibility would be tarnished.

 

As I read the appeals court decision, they considered the prayer for reimbursement of legal fees as almost boiler plate, rather than a direct threat and certainly only something that would come into play after the facts of the suit had been adjudicated.

 

I think, if Stinson has legitimate precedence that contradict this appeals court hearing this should be appealed. Otherwise, I think the pitfall that led the surepips to believe the anti-slapp statute applied ought to be addressed in legislation to clarify those instances where the statute is and is not applicable.

 

I also blame the county's attorneys for not asserting in any public way the nature of their defense, if this was indeed the defense that was being pursued. Not once was I ever told that the issues were as presented in the appeal.

 

pubby

[rchaos]

All I will say is that until you posted the item above, I had not seen the decision. I had heard about the decision but I wouldn't attempt to write something about a reversal without knowing anything about it.

 

Thanks for posting the link you did. I was unaware of the site.

 

Looks to me like Glenn Stinson's handling of the case was not as well based in the law as we have been led to suppose...

 

The issue here is whether the prayer for relief by the county - asking reimbursement of legal fees if the county prevails - is at the crux of the matter. I can't believe there isn't some conflicting prejudice on this point but if there isn't - and it was as cut and dried a situation as the appeals court asserted - then Mr. Stinson's credibility would be tarnished.

 

As I read the appeals court decision, they considered the prayer for reimbursement of legal fees as almost boiler plate, rather than a direct threat and certainly only something that would come into play after the facts of the suit had been adjudicated.

 

I think, if Stinson has legitimate precedence that contradict this appeals court hearing this should be appealed. Otherwise, I think the pitfall that led the surepips to believe the anti-slapp statute applied ought to be addressed in legislation to clarify those instances where the statute is and is not applicable.

 

I also blame the county's attorneys for not asserting in any public way the nature of their defense, if this was indeed the defense that was being pursued. Not once was I ever told that the issues were as presented in the appeal.

 

pubby

 

I find it interesting that neither PCom nor the Patch has seen this. Two local news agencies not given this information is very suspect indeed. It does sound political as LPPT noted earlier in this thread. Seems like someone very high up, out side of the news mind you, was trying to keep this close to the vest. I am sure that the Morrison's are having a WTF conversation right now with Mr. Stinson. Even they just found out about it this morning according to LPPT.

 

As for the bold, and underlined statement of Pubby above, it has been stated many, many times before in hundreds of threads, that not all information has been presented to all on this website.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Hulk Smash

[kp527]

Isn't this case being heard in Judge Tonny Beavers court??? I guess this means he doesn't understand the law because he is the one being overturned.

[zoocrew]

Sometimes it is legal to steal. From what I know about it, this maybe an example where it is just that. You can't fight the system. You can't win against politics. Disgusting what is done in the name of the law.

[glassdogs]

 

 

Looks to me like Glenn Stinson's handling of the case was not as well based in the law as we have been led to suppose...

 

 

 

If you will check back, I told SurePip that very thing quite a while back in another thread.

[gpatt0n]

I do want to remark on the assertion that there was no itemized billing.

 

I sat in court for a portion - way too long a portion of the time - listening to Glen Stinson reading his itemized billing statements saying things... this is a paraphrase ... $845 billed for two point five hours in relation to the receipt of defendants motion of 8.4.2008 in regard to interlocutory bs. bs.

$322 Billed for point five hours in relation to the receipt of defendants motion of 8.4.2008 in regard to their reply to Morrisons reply

$122 Billed for point two hours in relation to the phone call with morrisons to explain defendants motion of 8.4.2008 in regard to their reply bs

 

-----------------------

 

All that was going through my mind hearing it ... and the above is intended to describe the surreal scene of a man who has literally put that family in the poor house reciting the stupid crap and its itemized cost in a monotone with occasional interruptions ... but demanded to be read into the record by the county's legal team. ... and thinking how close to a real hell that is to be spending not just a few minutes but literally hours. THAT WAS PURE TORTURE.

 

And understanding that and to have this decision that suggests that they paid all that on what amounts to a bs legal strategy - assuming the appeals court reading of the law is rock solid - would be a whole another kind of hell that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

 

That said there were issues back in the day when this happened that still need to be addressed.

 

Unfortunately, Stinson will likely get the lionshare of whatever settlement is reached.

 

pubby

[gpatt0n]

Isn't this case being heard in Judge Tonny Beavers court??? I guess this means he doesn't understand the law because he is the one being overturned.

 

Two things. That Judge Beavers ruled as he did suggests that there is some precedent for another reading out there. I wouldn't think he would have been ruling against all known precedent in a clear matter of law.

 

Second, the politicized nature of the case may have had some impact in a Judge Roberts obamacare kind of way. The credibility - independence of the court - could have been questioned had the decision appeared to rubberstamp the county position.

 

Which goes back to the first point. I suspect the law on the point asserted may not have been as settled as the appeals court states... (I.e. it looked like the case cited by the appeals court may have been a Superior Court decision.)

 

Hence, my suggestion that courts may need some legislative direction and clarity in regard the Anti-slapp statute.

 

pubby

[Coppertop's Pop]

So... when can a jury hear the case and award a jackpot payout to The Morrison's?

I'm sure any judgement will be appealed for another 5 or six years.

[xxrsellars]

So... when can a jury hear the case and award a jackpot payout to The Morrison's?

I'm sure any judgement will be appealed for another 5 or six years.

 

 

From what I read above, any "Jackpot Payout" will probably go to the Attorney....

[Eddie Bennett]

All I can say is, Thank God!

 

I didn't have enough money to go against Public Corruption, in Paulding County. I can prove nothing against it. But, thank God some people do.

[solosoul]

This statement is what causes people to think her running is for personal reasons only. Statements like this do nothing but hurt her chances, NOT help.

You are right. It is a very real fear that this will happen.

[zoocrew]

This statement is what causes people to think her running is for personal reasons only. Statements like this do nothing but hurt her chances, NOT help.

 

Wait. Maybe I'm missing something but how can a state representative fire a county attorney?

[Eddie Bennett]

John Walsh was a man who started off with his own personal reasons to do what he is doing as host of America's Most Wanted.

 

I think that is what it takes; A PERSONAL COMMITMENT.

 

 

[zoocrew]

I thought we wanted people to get involved in the political process to make changes when they see a problem. Didn't Reagan do that? If this law needs changing, wouldn't Mrs Morrison, of all people, know first hand that there is a law that needs fixing? Based on what I've read on here, wouldn't that be a reason to get in the race since no other representative is doing anything about an injustice?

[LPPT]

So... when can a jury hear the case and award a jackpot payout to The Morrison's?

I'm sure any judgement will be appealed for another 5 or six years.

 

There is no jack pot, the house needs a lot of maintenance and repair done to it from the continued blasting close to it. Also the legal fees have hampered them in trying to do what smaller repairs they could have done to the property.

 

Their suit was based on principal not a on a payday, if it had been a pay day they would have quit a long time ago when it was made clear to them that it would cost them a million dollars to have this suit heard and were expected to pay their attorney up front.

The lawyers will now get the jackpot.

[rchaos]

Wait. Maybe I'm missing something but how can a state representative fire a county attorney?

 

Exactly. There are people on this board who think they can.

 

Another thing I find quite odd is that this thread has been on this board for about 6 hours now. I have yet to see Surepip enter this thread at all? Of all the threads on this board he's been on, whether it had to do with the lawsuit or not, this would be the one I'd expect to hear from.

 

I, and I am sure that a lot of other people on here, would love to hear what excuse his lawyer gave him today on why they had to hear from this on PCOM, of all places, and not by him 2 days ago.

 

Pubby stated that he had heard about the ruling earlier but did not want to make a comment until he actually read it. How early he had known about it is unclear; however, it is safe to say that if Pubby has heard about it earlier, then others have as well. A simple Google search was done this morning and it was found within a minute on a public website. Since it is a public court document it was safe to assume that both parties knew of the outcome.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Hulk Smash

[Ugadawgs98]

There have been a 100 threads started about this very lawsuit but strangely nothing after a major ruling. I have said the entire time we are only hearing one side of the story which looks like it may be true.

[LPPT]

There have been a 100 threads started about this very lawsuit but strangely nothing after a major ruling. I have said the entire time we are only hearing one side of the story which looks like it may be true.

 

 

I am trying to figure out why so many are trying to goad Surepip into blasting David Austin about this.

 

They need to talk to their lawyer about this event.

Give it up already!

[gpatt0n]

Exactly. There are people on this board who think they can.

 

Another thing I find quite odd is that this thread has been on this board for about 6 hours now. I have yet to see Surepip enter this thread at all? Of all the threads on this board he's been on, whether it had to do with the lawsuit or not, this would be the one I'd expect to hear from.

 

I, and I am sure that a lot of other people on here, would love to hear what excuse his lawyer gave him today on why they had to hear from this on PCOM, of all places, and not by him 2 days ago.

 

Pubby stated that he had heard about the ruling earlier but did not want to make a comment until he actually read it. How early he had known about it is unclear; however, it is safe to say that if Pubby has heard about it earlier, then others have as well. A simple Google search was done this morning and it was found within a minute on a public website. Since it is a public court document it was safe to assume that both parties knew of the outcome.

 

Hulk:

 

You've got to do the search ... to find that. I had never gotten access to documents on that site before. The last time I wanted to look at documents it was the federal paperwork back in late May early June when the documents regarding the candidate challenges first surfaced. I'm sure I searched some of that then but never saw this site and to get online access, I had to sign up for a pacer account. Even with that, finding some of the bankruptcy stuff required the case styling.

 

But you're right, it showed right up in a google search of Morrison Paulding County as the third listing ... with Pcom's links at the top. Since I don't go to Google to get here, I don't see that as often. Frankly, I would have assumed I would have been sent a PDF or a link by PM without having to make that effort. That wasn't the most important thing on my mind, you know.

 

pubby

[Ugadawgs98]

I am trying to figure out why so many are trying to goad Surepip into blasting David Austin about this.

 

They need to talk to their lawyer about this event.

Give it up already!

 

 

Blasting David Austin? All I was pointing out is they have not held back on freely posting over and over about their situation by creating topics and interjecting it into topics that did not remotely involving their case when there was any ruling in their favor yet when it does not go their way they are silent. I could not care less about the politics, it is the perceived hypocrisy that exists when you choose to try your case in the court of public opinion but don't release all the facts.

[zoocrew]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I can say if the ruling was against me after all that had gone on, I wouldn't jump on here for some time in order to simply digest it all. I hardly think this silence deserves such interpretation add anything more. Maybe they already had plans today. Could be anything. Let's give the benefit of the doubt for a day or two.

[LPPT]

Blasting David Austin? All I was pointing out is they have not held back on freely posting over and over about their situation by creating topics and interjecting it into topics that did not remotely involving their case when there was any ruling in their favor yet when it does not go their way they are silent. I could not care less about the politics, it is the perceived hypocrisy that exists when you choose to try your case in the court of public opinion but don't release all the facts.

 

Sorry I blasted you about it, There lawyer is out of town as far as they know. They don't have an opinion on it because their lawyer has not explained what this means to their case.

I would hope people would understand how stressful this has been for years, now getting a judgement and not having your lawyer available to you to answer your questions.

Surepip can't even come on site because of getting bombarded with questions and being gigged about not discussing it immediately with people.