Dumbfounded Bullock & Butler "Forgot" They GAVE UP the City's Right To Have LHA and CCF Pay $125K+ in Attorney Fees

[Brian Essi]

Indemnification K. Butler to J. Huntsberger 09032015 re Graham v. COL indemnification.pdf

(2.97 MiB) Downloaded 133 times

Last year Butler and the City said that the Lease required LHA to pay the City's legal fees in the taxpayer litigation--Butler documented that fact in the attached letter.

In Bullock's recent missive to Butler and City Council last month and in Butler's response, they both claimed they had no clue how to recoup the City's legal fees.

It appears that Bullock lacks the intellectual capacity to understand the consequences of his own action in voting for the Master Agreement and giving LHA and CCF a full release of liability under the Lease including the legal fees Butler knew were due from LHA.

Did they forget that they had an agreement that obligated LHA to pay those fees?

Why weren't these expenses included as a CCF obligation to pay the alleged $78M in wind down costs that nobody can explain? Did they just forget?

While they are searching for an answer to pay the legal fees, perhaps Bullock and Butler should start by looking at their own checkbooks balances.

[Bridget Conant]

Let me understand this better - So the city and mayor were indemnified under the terms of the lease and asked for payment of their legal bills.

Did they receive any monies as a result of that letter. If so, did they get all 50 thousand some dollars?

Now you seem to say that the Master Agreement the city signed with CCF terminates the obligation for LHA to cover the city's legal costs? Is that correct?

If they WERE being indemnified, why would they voluntarily give that coverage up?

If this is true, the whining about the "cost" of the Graham, et al. lawsuit seems to be all for show.

[Jim O'Bryan]

If this is true, the whining about the "cost" of the Graham, et al. lawsuit seems to be all for show.

No

It would be another lie, miss-truth, smoke screen to cover their screw-ups, again.

This is getting really sad.

Why didn't Councilman Bullock throw in the $1 million in crisis management they approved?

What did we get for that?

.

[Lori Allen _]

I don't understand all of the complaining about legal fees. It's a City Hall. They have to expect to be sued from time to time (negligence can play a factor too).

I feel it all boils down to this:

Open bids should have been taken in accordance with the law.

Had it been done with transparency and not behind closed doors, maybe the city would never have incurred any legal fees. When the deal is done behind closed doors and without opening bidding, it makes you wonder if something "shady" is going on.

Why was the sale much lower than market value?
Why were no open bids taken?
What does this appear to be?

"You reap what you sow."

[Brian Essi]

Let me understand this better - So the city and mayor were indemnified under the terms of the lease and asked for payment of their legal bills.

Did they receive any monies as a result of that letter. If so, did they get all 50 thousand some dollars?

Now you seem to say that the Master Agreement the city signed with CCF terminates the obligation for LHA to cover the city's legal costs? Is that correct?

If they WERE being indemnified, why would they voluntarily give that coverage up?

If this is true, the whining about the "cost" of the Graham, et al. lawsuit seems to be all for show.

Bridget,

I am a lawyer, but I don't play one on the Deck and I am not rendering any legal opinions or giving advice.

I am just one of hundreds of observers making observations of truth and logic.

Butler did not give me any public record showing the fees were paid by LHA nor did he give me the LHA lawyer's response.

Your questions point to two questions of simple logic (not law) that the Butler and Bullock dog and pony show just can't answer:

1. If the general release in the Master Agreement releases LHA and CCF of Butler's (our) claim of indemnity for attorneys fees ($125K and counting) under the Lease, then why didn't "negotiate" a better deal--Butler, Bullock, Summers and the rest of City Council said Master Agreement was "better" but the lawsuit expenses make it at least $125K worse.

2. If the Master Agreement does not release LHA of liability for $125K+++ in fees, then Butler and Bullock have chosen to use their official positions to unfairly level personal attacks on Lakewood citizens involved in the lawsuit.

[Kate McCarthy]

Let me understand this better - So the city and mayor were indemnified under the terms of the lease and asked for payment of their legal bills.

Did they receive any monies as a result of that letter. If so, did they get all 50 thousand some dollars?

Now you seem to say that the Master Agreement the city signed with CCF terminates the obligation for LHA to cover the city's legal costs? Is that correct?

If they WERE being indemnified, why would they voluntarily give that coverage up?

If this is true, the whining about the "cost" of the Graham, et al. lawsuit seems to be all for show.

Bridget,

I am a lawyer, but I don't play one on the Deck and I am not rendering any legal opinions or giving advice.

I am just one of hundreds of observers making observations of truth and logic.

Butler did not give me any public record showing the fees were paid by LHA nor did he give me the LHA lawyer's response.

Your questions point to two questions of simple logic (not law) that the Butler and Bullock dog and pony show just can't answer:

1. If the general release in the Master Agreement releases LHA and CCF of Butler's (our) claim of indemnity for attorneys fees ($125K and counting) under the Lease, then why didn't "negotiate" a better deal--Butler, Bullock, Summers and the rest of City Council said Master Agreement was "better" but the lawsuit expenses make it at least $125K worse.

2. If the Master Agreement does not release LHA of liability for $125K+++ in fees, then Butler and Bullock have chosen to use their official positions to unfairly level personal attacks on Lakewood citizens involved in the lawsuit.

This needs to be wrapped up and served as a present to all of those who think there is any level of competency in our city government. Playing fast and loose with our most valuable asset and then falling flat on basic protections to limit our liability. I can imagine there may be other entities out there filing complaints on restraint of trade, etc. Do they want to bankrupt the city as some part of a CLE+ plan or are they simply the gang that can't shoot straight?

This is embarrassing regardless.

[T Peppard]

This needs to be wrapped up and served as a present to all of those who think there is any level of competency in our city government. Playing fast and loose with our most valuable asset and then falling flat on basic protections to limit our liability. I can imagine there may be other entities out there filing complaints on restraint of trade, etc. Do they want to bankrupt the city as some part of a CLE+ plan or are they simply the gang that can't shoot straight?

This is embarrassing regardless.

I agree, Kate. This is embarrassing and I have the same concerns about their actions.