Skindell vs Madigan Dismissed

[Jared Denman]

Mr. Anderson:

It is not a stretch to assume that the invocation of "patient confidentiality" as the reason for going into executive session in the context of the obfuscation that surrounded the whole process surrounding the closing of the Hospital- most notably not being given clear numbers regarding wind down costs and clear evidence of bid rigging- was meant to keep private discussions that the public would find disturbing. The lifeblood of a democracy is an informed public. Had Lakewood residents been provided the information they needed, the election results may have turned out very different.

[james fitzgibbons]

Great observation Jared! Very true.

[Lori Allen _]

Five days later, probably after a powwow....

I agree, Jared makes some great points in his post.

State Senator Michael Skindell is representing his constituents. Mr. Skindell cares about the interests and well-being of everyone, not just those that live north or west of certain streets and make $200,000+ per year.

I would much rather have Mr. Skindell use the courts in the manner that he is, instead of City Hall, who appears to use the court system to intimidate and harass their political opponents that speak out against Summers and the Lakewood Mafia...err...establishment. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Skindell has not and has not permitted:

- Public records being held hostage.
- Lying
- Giving friends contracts.
- Giving friends city-owned land for free.
- Alleged money laundering.

I believe it may be in Mr. Anderson's best interest to sit down and study his conscience. It is my opinion that some improvements need to be made.

[Brian Essi]

Mr. Essi – I was not asked by my lawyer or the judge to be present at Judge Friedman’s hearing. Testimony by Sam O’Leary....supported Judge Friedman’s determination .... Your continued disparaging remarks regarding how Judge Friedman conducted the hearing is disappointing. You seem to not have much respect for the legal process or the judicial branch of government.

It has always been my contention that Senator Skindell had used the court system to keep these careless and baseless allegations of illegal and secret meetings going to serve a political purpose. It's worked to a degree as many have bought it hook, line and sinker. Senator Skindell's statement after the second dismissal continues to promote the same cynical claims.

Mr. Anderson,

Firstly, you seem to have great distain for the ranking Democrat in the State of Ohio whose display of courage and integrity makes elected officials in Lakewood look feeble.

Secondly, there is no evidence or statement by me of "disparaging remarks regarding how Judge Friedman conducted the hearing."

I stated hard facts:

Judge Friedman's ruling was made: (1) only one business day after the case was filed, (2) after only a handful of hours of testimony, (3) after he failed to tell the parties it was a "trial" on the merits until AFTER the "trial" and (4) after no discovery was allowed---a very unusual "trial" that the Appellate Court never made any findings about.

There is mounting evidence that legal counsel and Mr. O'Leary behaved badly and proactively misled Judge Friedman--you've added to the mountain today. If you think that's all normal and okay, that's very sad for Lakewood.

Indeed, your post above documents a serious misunderstanding of laws and facts and proves the opposite of what you intended.

BTW, I have the utmost respect for the legal process and judicial branch.

For example, I wrote here on a few days ago:

... I just don't see any corruption on the part of Judge O'Donnell especially because he is a neighbor of the mayor, he lives in Lakewood or he receives campaign contributions from Mr. Smith or Mrs. Jones. On the contrary, at the outset, he asked all parties if they had an issue with where he lived and they did not object. I am told that he has announced from the bench that his docket is full and knowledgeable attorneys with other cases in his court confirm to me that he is jammed.

I learned as a very young lawyer over 30 years ago that bias or prejudice by a judge is not proved simply because of the way they rule or by the fact that they delay ruling. Specific evidence of prejudicial conduct is needed. I've seen none.

As the country awaits a ruling from the Circuit Court of Appeals on the West Coast, I find it amazing that so many are jumping to conclusions about the "left leaning" or "right leaning" judges appointed by Carter, Bush and Obama. That makes for good fodder on TV talk shows portraying themselves as news outlets, but who appointed these judges adds nothing to the true issues in the case and if the ruling favors the perceived "left" or "right," it will not mean the judges are somehow corrupt. The issue will be whether the ruling is correct or not under the law and the facts of the case.

Mr. Anderson, you and your handler have dodged my questions posted here earlier this week:

Mr. Anderson, If you are so comfortable with what you all did, why do you repeatedly hide behind the hasty ruling?

And why won't you and the city release the public records concerning what you did so the public can have the the same comfort you have?

Mr. Anderson,

As one lawyer in may case said "The documents you [Essi] want must really be damaging--why else would they [City Hall] be fighting so hard and spending so much money to hide them?"

Some of the documents I seek are in your public email account right now--they belong to me and the citizens of Lakewood, not you. You could easily print them and post them here of the Deck tonight.

What are you hiding?

And why do you continue to try to shoot the messenger?

You can't kill me.

And I won't give up until the whole truth is exposed.

[m buckley]

Mr. Essi – I was not asked by my lawyer or the judge to be present at Judge Friedman’s hearing. Testimony by Sam O’Leary....supported Judge Friedman’s determination .... Your continued disparaging remarks regarding how Judge Friedman conducted the hearing is disappointing. You seem to not have much respect for the legal process or the judicial branch of government

Mr. Anderson, If you are so comfortable with what you all did, why do you repeatedly hide behind the hasty ruling?

And why won't you and the city release the public records concerning what you did so the public can have the the same comfort you have?

Mr. Anderson,

As one lawyer in may case said "The documents you [Essi] want must really be damaging--why else would they [City Hall] be fighting so hard and spending so much money to hide them?"

Some of the documents I seek are in your public email account right now--they belong to me and the citizens of Lakewood, not you. You could easily print them and post them here of the Deck tonight.

What are you hiding?

And why do you continue to try to shoot the messenger?

You can't kill me.

And I won't give up until the whole truth is exposed.

Oh Mr. Essi, there you go again. Your disquieting pursuit of the truth.Your insistence that public records should be made public. You ask a lot. You ask too much.
Not interested in Butler. He's soiled his good name.
Not interested in Anderson. Who constantly parrots "it's legal". By the way, "it's legal" is the bottom floor of good governance. We should expect and demand more from those who represent us. Clearly that's a novel idea to Mr. Anderson.
I am interested in (Mr. Truth and Transparency) Dan O'Malley. What is his position regarding the withholding of public records by Lakewood's Law Director Kevin Butler?

[Michael Deneen]

It has always been my contention that Senator Skindell had used the court system to keep these careless and baseless allegations of illegal and secret meetings going to serve a political purpose.

Again, here is Team Summers taking a page from the Trump Playbook.
Trumps minions dismiss calls for his tax returns as being "politically motivated".
Like Lakewood City Hall, this White House loathes transparency.
Like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, Anderson spinelessly spins to explain away his submission.

Welcome to 2017......where pursuing the truth is viewed as "being political".
God Help Us All.

[james fitzgibbons]

I wonder who the council, Mayor and law director answer to or should I say have a duty to serve. It is surely not the citizens of Lakewood who pay their salary. Public records are just that, Public. Why are they stonewalling? Is there a legal limit?

[mjkuhns]

It has always been my contention that Senator Skindell had used the court system to keep these careless and baseless allegations of illegal and secret meetings going to serve a political purpose. It's worked to a degree as many have bought it hook, line and sinker. Senator Skindell's statement after the second dismissal continues to promote the same cynical claims.

This seems to go rather far in disparaging Senator Skindell, and, by implication, our court system as well.

He has proposed that his actions are motivated by concern over violation of open-meeting laws. His record, and others' corroborating interpretations, argue that this explanation is sincere; the Appeals Court's own action suggests that his personal judgment is at minimum far from an unreasonable one.

Lengthy elaboration follows…

Senator Skindell announced that he believed Lakewood City Council to have violated open-meeting laws. We cannot ever know with certainty what another person actually believes. But his long record of public service seems to argue for his sincerity, as does the principle of Occam's razor, both on its own and in combination with the multiple other qualified attorneys who have expressed support of his professed opinion.

As for what we know:

Senator Skindell filed a lawsuit charging violation of open-meeting laws, related to proposed Lakewood Ordinance 49-15, in December 2015. According to a publication of the Ohio Attorney General's office, this is the approved and the only corrective available to persons who believe that open-meeting laws have been breached. (The judiciary has asserted the existence of another corrective, of which more anon, but the AG seems not to recognize this formally.)

Skindell v. Madigan was dismissed after what, in comparison with other lawsuits of interest to the present audience, it does seem fair to characterize as atypically brief consideration.

Before the end of December 2015, Senator Skindell filed an appeal. Absent affirmative evidence of a secret motivation on the part of the Senator, it seems unfair to disparage this act as illegitimate; it's difficult to see why we fund higher courts if exercising the right to appeal is unreasonable.

Further, courts are (so far as I understand) broadly empowered to decide whether or not an appeal is valid. I am not an expert, but my impression from the docket is that the Appeals Court did formally determine that the Common Pleas Court's judgment merited reconsideration. At all events the case spent more than one year before the Appeals Court, which does suggest that it is exaggeration to characterize the appeal as a cynical exercise in propaganda. Could not the Appeals Court have determined this rather more efficiently, if so?

Meanwhile, the citizen-initiated referendum on Ordinance 49-15 proceeded throughout most of the appeal. Petitioners began work which led to the referendum before Skindell even filed his appeal. The Board of Elections verified adequate signatures to require either repeal, or a referendum, on Feb. 3, 2016. Before the end of that winter, Lakewood City Council formally ruled out any option besides a referendum.

Subsequent to all of this—i.e., months after the end of any conceivable doubt that a referendum on 49-15 would take place—the Appeals Court agreed to hear arguments in the appeal of Skindell v. Madigan. Even later, the Appeals Court ordered the parties in Skindell v. Madigan to pursue mediation; the court actually scheduled a mediation conference after the referendum's outcome.

In January 2017, attorneys for the appellees (Madigan, et al.) supplemented an October motion to dismiss by arguing that the referendum cured "Any alleged failure of Lakewood City Council to deliberate Ordinance 49-15 in open meetings."

By this point, said referendum had been effectively an inevitability for nearly one full year. What changed, between then and the Appeals Court's dismissal of Skindell v. Madigan earlier this month? According to the Appeals Court judges, a plurality vote to uphold Ordinance 49-15 is precisely what changed.

As this only took place long after the Appeals Court decided to hear the appeal, and decided that the case should go to mediation—and as the dismissal does not cite any other material basis for that ruling—the resultant impression is decidedly mixed.

The Court of Appeals demonstrated, in multiple ways, skepticism that the Common Pleas Court's dismissal was an above-reproach judgment. The Court of Appeals then dismissed the appeal, itself, solely based on the outcome of a referendum which took place more than a year after the meetings charged with violating the law. From a lay perspective (and nothing more than that), the dismissal appears to say "having called a lower court's judgment of this matter into question, we now decline to rule one way or another on whether certain activities broke the law, owing to an event which took place after the activities."

It's entirely understandable that consternation has followed, on the part of both parties in the case. In fairness to the Appeals Court, the judiciary's primary job is to issue judgments on the basis of often complex law, rather than to practice public relations. (For example, it is odd that the court scheduled a mediation hearing after the outcome of the referendum, then determined that this outcome merited outright dismissal of the case. But, quite conceivably judges are unable to rule on a motion until it has been made. These are deep waters and an actual attorney can offer far superior speculation, at minimum.) All the same, it seems questionable to blame Senator Skindell for causing doubt among the public about compliance with open-meeting laws, as part of a devious scheme.

Once more: He has proposed that his actions are motivated by concern over violation of open-meeting laws. His record and corroborating interpretations argue that this explanation is sincere; the Appeals Court's own action suggests that his personal judgment is at minimum not an unreasonable one.

One may still differ with his judgment. But asserting that it is completely unreasonable, or that therefore he is acting deceptively based on some secret and dishonorable motivation, does seem unwarranted.

[Brian Essi]

Mr. Essi – I was not asked by my lawyer or the judge to be present at Judge Friedman’s hearing. Testimony by Sam O’Leary....supported Judge Friedman’s determination .... Your continued disparaging remarks regarding how Judge Friedman conducted the hearing is disappointing. You seem to not have much respect for the legal process or the judicial branch of government

Mr. Anderson, If you are so comfortable with what you all did, why do you repeatedly hide behind the hasty ruling?

And why won't you and the city release the public records concerning what you did so the public can have the the same comfort you have?

Mr. Anderson,

As one lawyer in may case said "The documents you [Essi] want must really be damaging--why else would they [City Hall] be fighting so hard and spending so much money to hide them?"

Some of the documents I seek are in your public email account right now--they belong to me and the citizens of Lakewood, not you. You could easily print them and post them here of the Deck tonight.

What are you hiding?

And why do you continue to try to shoot the messenger?

You can't kill me.

And I won't give up until the whole truth is exposed.

Oh Mr. Essi, there you go again. Your disquieting pursuit of the truth.Your insistence that public records should be made public. You ask a lot. You ask too much.
Not interested in Butler. He's soiled his good name.
Not interested in Anderson. Who constantly parrots "it's legal". By the way, "it's legal" is the bottom floor of good governance. We should expect and demand more from those who represent us. Clearly that's a novel idea to Mr. Anderson.
I am interested in (Mr. Truth and Transparency) Dan O'Malley. What is his position regarding the withholding of public records by Lakewood's Law Director Kevin Butler?

Mr. Buckley,

You have been way ahead of me in seeing through the bad actors.

I started my involvement by placing trust confidence in the 2015 City Council, Summers, Pae and Butler and giving them all the benefit.

They have proven that my trust was misplaced.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Mr. O’bryan – Judge Friedman dismissed the case specifically on the points of the lawsuit. (The entire transcript of Judge Friedman's hearing is available to the public.)

The Judge stated, “The hearing was replete with as I say rumor, speculation and hearsay as to what was going to happen, what might happen, if this contract or agreement is approved or not approved. The statute requires that public officials take official action and conduct all deliberations upon official business only in open meetings unless the subject matter is specifically accepted by law. The conclusion of this Court is that the official action that is contemplated is what will happen up or down at tonight’s meeting. The law does not state open deliberations. It jus says deliberation – official action and deliberations upon official business and that the meetings must be open. This means the public must be given an opportunity to be present, and one would expect they must be given an opportunity to be heard. I expect that at tonight’s meeting both of those will happen.” The Judge goes on to state “Court finds that there has been no evidence that the executive sessions themselves were unlawful.”

David


Both you, Sam and others have admitted that often the discussions in "Executive Sessions" go beyond the scope of "Executive Sessions."

Open the books, turn over the paperwork, let the people see it.


.

[cmager]

Not interested in Anderson. Who constantly parrots "it's legal". By the way, "it's legal" is the bottom floor of good governance. We should expect and demand more from those who represent us. Clearly that's a novel idea to Mr. Anderson.

Indeed a very novel idea to Mr. Anderson. Why do people like this seek office?

[m buckley]

Mr. Essi – I was not asked by my lawyer or the judge to be present at Judge Friedman’s hearing. Testimony by Sam O’Leary....supported Judge Friedman’s determination .... Your continued disparaging remarks regarding how Judge Friedman conducted the hearing is disappointing. You seem to not have much respect for the legal process or the judicial branch of government

Mr. Anderson, If you are so comfortable with what you all did, why do you repeatedly hide behind the hasty ruling?

And why won't you and the city release the public records concerning what you did so the public can have the the same comfort you have?

Mr. Anderson,

As one lawyer in may case said "The documents you [Essi] want must really be damaging--why else would they [City Hall] be fighting so hard and spending so much money to hide them?"

Some of the documents I seek are in your public email account right now--they belong to me and the citizens of Lakewood, not you. You could easily print them and post them here of the Deck tonight.

What are you hiding?

And why do you continue to try to shoot the messenger?

You can't kill me.

And I won't give up until the whole truth is exposed.

Oh Mr. Essi, there you go again. Your disquieting pursuit of the truth.Your insistence that public records should be made public. You ask a lot. You ask too much.
Not interested in Butler. He's soiled his good name.
Not interested in Anderson. Who constantly parrots "it's legal". By the way, "it's legal" is the bottom floor of good governance. We should expect and demand more from those who represent us. Clearly that's a novel idea to Mr. Anderson.
I am interested in (Mr. Truth and Transparency) Dan O'Malley. What is his position regarding the withholding of public records by Lakewood's Law Director Kevin Butler?

Mr. Buckley,

You have been way ahead of me in seeing through the bad actors.

I started my involvement by placing trust confidence in the 2015 City Council, Summers, Pae and Butler and giving them all the benefit.

They have proven that my trust was misplaced.

Mr.Essi,
The only reason I got there first was because I had seen it before.
The lies. The sham of a process.The win at all cost mentality. Residents as adversaries/as obstacles. It was all there during Drug Mart.
The rot had already set in.
The Observer article, "Grace Ave. Lessons to be Learned" was an early warning about Mike Summers and where he was headed.

2017... Marx. Bullock. Nowlin.
Make them pay. Kick them to the curb.

[cmager]

Mr.Essi, the only reason I got there first was because I had seen it before. The lies. The sham of a process. The win at all cost mentality. Residents as adversaries/as obstacles. It was all there during Drug Mart. The rot had already set in. The Observer article, "Grace Ave. Lessons to be Learned" was an early warning about Mike Summers and where he was headed.
2017...Marx. Bullock. Nowlin. Make them pay. Kick them to the curb.

Siley sounds like a real piece of work.
How do all of these people like this end up in government?
http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2013/1 ... be-learned

[Lori Allen _]

C Mager,

They end up in Lakewood Government because they are "selected" by the Mayor. They have to be a member of the "Company."

[m buckley]

Mr.Essi, the only reason I got there first was because I had seen it before. The lies. The sham of a process. The win at all cost mentality. Residents as adversaries/as obstacles. It was all there during Drug Mart. The rot had already set in. The Observer article, "Grace Ave. Lessons to be Learned" was an early warning about Mike Summers and where he was headed.
2017...Marx. Bullock. Nowlin. Make them pay. Kick them to the curb.

Siley sounds like a real piece of work.
How do all of these people like this end up in government?
http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2013/1 ... be-learned

Mr. Mager,
Siley was the perfect bureaucrat for Summers. He combined the banality of that position with a real willingness to bend the rules.
Summers orchestrated. Madigan complied.( She lied to her constituents). Siley executed.
They would build on that formula when they went city wide with the Hospital.