Lakewood Playing Games with Appeals Court?

[Bridget Conant]

After being ordered to submit public records in camera to the Appeals Court, it appears that Lakewood and it’s law director are trying to obscure information.

This order was just issued by the court.

It appears pretty damning to me.

What could possibly be in there that they are trying so desperately to hide?

And how does anyone not see what they are doing after reading this order from 3 Appeals court judges?

In conducting the in camera inspection, the court discovered that it could not conduct the inspection of Jennifer Pae¿s calendar because the redacted copy was unreadable. On the copy the court examined, all dates, date ranges, times, and appointment headings were removed. Moreover, there were inconsistencies between the unredacted and the redacted copy, e.g., the redacted copy had more bullet points than the unredacted copy. The court further notes the Pae¿s redacted copy was inconsistent with Butler¿s redacted copy. Accordingly, the court orders Lakewood to submit under seal a properly redacted copy of Pae¿s calendar and an unredacted copy of Pae¿s calendar for a proper in camera inspection. The submission shall be within two weeks of the date of this order. Notice issued.

[Mark Kindt]

It would be of assistance if you would post a copy of the entire order issued by the court of appeals. Thank you.

[Bridget Conant]

Here’s a screen shot from court docket.

4EEF724B-5742-4DDC-A3AF-3E2FDA1994EF.png (275.55 KiB) Viewed 2637 times

[Mark Kindt]

Thank you! I am currently looking at document number LKWD-PRR158_001415.

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the documents produced by the City under court order.

Six pages are entirely redacted "blacked-out". Much of the cover email texts are also blacked-out.

However, based on the email addresses and unredacted text, it is clear that this document consists of the Clinic's comments on the Subsidium consulting agreement.

The city was not a party to this agreement.

Here we see an example of the city asserting (perhaps erroneously) the attorney-client privilege on behalf of the Clinic.

[Bill Call]

What is the City hiding?

Will the courts continue to let the City get away with this?

If the redacted documents would have changed the results of the last two elections do the voters have any recourse?

Is it now just about saving Tom Bullock?

Thanks Bridget.

[Mark Kindt]

The city administration is playing even bigger games

In the attached and heavily redacted document, we can actually see that lawyers for the Cleveland Clinic Foundation are negotiating the contract with Subsidium and making changes to the draft agreement. This is being channeled to Subsidium via the Mayor.

Note that Michael J. Meehan, Esq. is an attorney in the CCF Law Department.

With this document we have clear documentary evidence that "[...the Clinic's proposed changes to your agreement]" "Your agreement" referring to the retention agreement with Subsidium Healthcare.

Despite the heavy black-out, we can now infer that the retention of Subsidium by the Lakewood Hospital Association was not independent of management by the Clinic.

Subsidium is the firm that handled the proposal process to solicit and review proposals from other healthcare systems to operate Lakewood Hospital.

[m buckley]

Kevin Butler...
Lakewood's Legal Eagle. The Master Redactor.
Kevin Butler's Lakewood.
Tom Bullock's Lakewood.
Not my Lakewood.