The Observation Deck

“Rumors and hearsay.” That was the conclusion of Judge Stuart Friedman when he denied Michael Skindell’s lawsuit to prevent Lakewood City Council from voting to accept CCF’s proposal to replace the hospital. That lawsuit contained many of the same arguments in this thread that have been proffered by Ms. Contant, Mr. Call and Mr. Essi.

Pardon my use of legalese, but I can confidently write: I rest my case.

Well thank goodness you aren't a lawyer because you are confused and misinformed.

The subject of that lawsuit was the secretive nature of council deliberations, with alleged violations of Ohio Sunshine laws. It has NOTHING to do with the arguments over the hospital and Clinic lease that have been discussed here. It had NOTHING to do with the merits of the continuing case against the Clinic and LHA.

I suggest you read the docket on the Cuyahoga County website. Here is the Judgement Entry:

CASE CALLED FOR HEARING ON DECEMBER 21, 2015. ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD AND PARTIES APPEARED. TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN AND EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED. THE COURT NOTES THAT, UNDER THE PRESSURE OF THE MOMENT, THE COURT INADVERTENTLY STATED INCORRECTLY THAT IT WAS CONSOLIDATING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING WITH A HEARING ON A PERMANENT INJUNCTION. INSTEAD, THE COURT INTENDED TO GRANT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING WITH A TRIAL ON THE MERITS PURSUANT TO CIVIL RULE 65(B)(2). DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE IS GRANTED, OVER OBJECTIONS BY PLAINTIFF. THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: COUNT 1 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS PREVIOUSLY DENIED, COUNT 1 IS MOOT. COUNT 2 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR THE REASONS NOTED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS DENIED. COUNT 3 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THE COURT FINDS THAT THE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS WERE NOT UNLAWFUL IN THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT ANY DELIBERATIONS OCCURRED OR ACTIONS TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 121.22(A). FURTHER, ANY DELIBERATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE WERE EXPRESSLY PERMITTED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PENDING LAWSUIT CV-15-846212 BEFORE JUDGE JOHN P. O'DONNELL. COUNT 4 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT INASMUCH AS NO ACTION WAS TAKEN OR DECISION REACHED IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 121.22(A), THE MASTER AGREEMENT WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY INVALID. THE COURT NOTES IN THIS REGARD THAT THE VALIDITY VEL NON OF THE MASTER AGREEMENT ON ITS MERITS IS THE SUBJECT IF THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE JUDGE O'DONNELL. COUNT 5 PERMANENT INJUNCTION HAVING FOUND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT THE LAKEWOOD CITY COUNCIL FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE PRAYER AS TO COUNT 5 FAILS TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM. BASED UPON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, THE COURT FINDS THAT PLAINTIFF'S PRAYER FOR A CIVIL FORFEITURE, COSTS, REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES, AND "ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL RELIEF" IS MOOT. CASE IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AT PLAINTIFF'S COSTS. FINAL. COURT COST ASSESSED TO THE PLAINTIFF(S). PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 58(B), THE CLERK OF COURTS IS DIRECTED TO SERVE THIS JUDGMENT IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY CIV.R. 5(B). THE CLERK MUST INDICATE ON THE DOCKET THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PARTIES, THE METHOD OF SERVICE, AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SERVICE. NOTICE ISSUED

The court is ONLY addressing the procedural issue of the council being able to vote on the agreement, and if they violated open meeting laws. It does not address the other issues and specifically refers to them as issues that will be addressed in the pending lawsuit in O'Donnell's court.

Ms. Conant: The judgement entry was offered with supporting arguments, many of which have appeared in this thread, and all of these convinced Judge Friedman that these arguments are "rumors and hearsay."

Please know I understand the law enough to know that you and your peers continue to accuse Mayor Summers and others of innumerable crimes, yet can you tell us when one of them will be arrested? If you can't, you are perpetuating slanderous claims and, as I understand the law, you can be vulnerable to paying damages.

And much like Ms. Allen is finally asking of her peers, when are all the brilliant researchers supporting Save Lakewood Hospital going to unearth a solution for creating an economically viable inpatient hospital in Lakewood that attracts the majority of its patients from outside our city’s borders.

I rest my case.

Mr. Kenny, Again:

- Judge Friedman's decision was only on the issue of open meetings, nothing else. Any other issues raised by the parties were not the basis for the decision.
- Check out Black's Dictionary. There is no slander here.
- The "economically viable inpatient hospital" you seek was offered by MetroHealth and rejected by Mayor Summers.

Just to clear up any confusion:

If Summers (or anyone) wanted to bring a slander or libel lawsuit against anyone, the plaintiff must:

1. Prove that the allegedly slanderous material was spoken or published by a defendant, see http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2739

Also:

The allegedly slanderous material must be spoken or written as a fact.
The statement must have caused damages to the plaintiff.
You were negligent in making the allegedly false statement.

Furthermore, if the plaintiff in a libel, slander, or defamation case is a public figure (such as a celebrity or politician) that plantiff must have evidence that the defendant allegedly defamed them with malice.

See https://www.ohiobar.org/forpublic/resou ... e-171.aspx

In my experience, libel, defamation, and slander suits do not go to court that often. These cases are generally rather difficult to prove. While the law does apply to anyone, it seems to be geared more toward media outlets and newspapers.

Just to clear up any confusion.

Jim Kenny wrote in response to my last post:

you are perpetuating slanderous claims and, as I understand the law, you can be vulnerable to paying damages.

Are you threatening me, Mr Kenny?

Mr. Kenny's "damages" claim is yet more BL hot air.
Republican Mike Summers is the Mayor, and therefore a public political figure.

If political figures could sue for slander, Bill and Hillary would be multi-billionaires.

Mr. Kenny is engaging in quite an interesting exercise...he's pretending to offer "healing", but in reality he want to just shut down dissent.

Ms. Conant: I haven't made any threats. I have asked if you and others are aware of criminal acts that you please present your evidence so that the perpetrators are arrested. If you're not going to see to that, please apply your energies to helping our community heal. The community wants to move forward. The community has a plan to do so. Please get behind it or, out of consideration to your neighbors, please stand aside.

You specifically said

you are perpetuating slanderous claims and, as I understand the law, you can be vulnerable to paying damages.

You are threatening that I or other dissenters who speak out about political issues could "be vulnerable to paying damages." You are insinuating that I or others here are "slandering" public officials and might face charges or litigation.

What you are saying is chilling. You think you can silence dissent by threatening me and other outspoken critics of the hospital deal with legal action.

The fact that you would publicly say this is frightening to me. Is that how you think political dissent should be handled, I mean stifled?

Are you representing Build Lakewood?

Ms. Conant: I have made no threats implied or otherwise. I have been insulted, called names and accused of conspiracies on this thread and others on the Deck. These acts against me, however, give me no grounds to do anything other than smile and continue to be courteous to you and others who might not appreciate the difference of my opinion. This consideration I continue to offer is why I expressly asked you to consider the gravity of your accusations, especially if you're not willing to present your evidence to legal authorities. If you have evidence of a crime, please share it with authorities and remove the threat from the rest of us.

Mr Kenny wrote:

consider the gravity of your accusations, especially if you're not willing to present your evidence to legal authorities. If you have evidence of a crime, please share it with authorities and remove the threat from the rest of us.

I stated facts. I linked to published accounts of anything I referred to. Apparently, these facts are tantamount to "accusations" to you and while I never stated or implied there was criminal conduct, you see it as that.

Very, very interesting!

Ms. Conant: Are you certain of your facts? You stated on 1/15: "it was clear that the Clinic could sue Metro for interfering because THERE WAS NEVER A RELEASE GRANTED, Boutrus bowed out. That is all your quote references and/or proves. "

I produced a letter documenting that CCF had released MetoroHealth and encouraged MetroHealth to submit a true proposal. So it is not a fact that "THERE WAS NEVER A RELEASE GRANTED," as you claimed on 1/15. Furthermore, you never linked the statement to any published account or attributed it to any source, as you claim to be habit. Without a link or other evidence, what you did was make an accusation.

Here's the letter: http://bit.ly/1n70IMc

Mr. Kenny, Did I miss your appointment to Minister of Thought Control? Because really, I would have sent a card.
First you want to eradicate cancerous thought on The Deck and now anyone who is not in lock step with you and your political Daddy needs to stand aside.
Apparently in KennyWorld you wield an awful lot of power. Trouble is, the rest of us live in Lakewood. So, like many of my neighbors I won't be standing aside.

Jim Kenny wrote:Ms. Conant: Are you certain of your facts? You stated on 1/15: "it was clear that the Clinic could sue Metro for interfering because THERE WAS NEVER A RELEASE GRANTED, Boutrus bowed out. That is all your quote references and/or proves. "

I produced a letter documenting that CCF had released MetoroHealth and encouraged MetroHealth to submit a true proposal. So it is not a fact that "THERE WAS NEVER A RELEASE GRANTED," as you claimed on 1/15. Furthermore, you never linked the statement to any published account or attributed it to any source, as you claim to be habit. Without a link or other evidence, what you did was make an accusation.

Jim,

There is a small problem with your "facts."

The "release and encouragement" you refer to happened on June 19, 2015 ---the day AFTER Metro said it had enough of the crazies at City Hall---Boutros called it a "maelstrom"

If everybody knows you have asked a your "Fatal Attraction" girlfriend to the prom, its unlikely another girl will take your invitation seriously--she would be wise to stay away from you.

http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/index ... erest.html

HERE ARE THE TWO METRO PROPOSALS---Jim Kenney said were not "true proposals"
Jim Kenney said above that Metro's proposals we just a "money grab" that is a Summers lie that was proven false by the written proposals.
In fact, the Master Agreement passed on December 21st is a "money grab" by CCF.
Metro’s initial proposal from May 2, 2014 was not made public until May, 2015 after serious political pressure from me and others. Here are just a few of its provisions that challenged LHA’s and Summers false narrative concerning Metro:
a. That Metro is a profitable well managed healthcare organization with patient revenues on the rise in areas that had less favorable demographics than Lakewood.
b. “MetroHealth believes that The Cleveland Clinic Foundation has a requirement and responsibility to fulfill their commitment to [Lakewood Hospital].” Metro estimated the Clinic’s responsibility to be $40-$50 million.
c. “MetroHealth is committed to developing a mutually agreeable collaborative arrangement with the City and LHA whereby it will commit to a long term agreement (including possibly a long term lease) providing for the operation of Lakewood Hospital.” Note Summers and other LHA trustees repeatedly misrepresented that Metro insisted on transfer of the land to the County.
d. It wanted to “reinvigorate” the Community Advisory Board by recruiting new members “to provide a platform for the Hospital to listen and learn about concerns and ideas.” This was a sharp contrast to LHA’s and Summers’ secrecy.


This undermined the longstanding false narrative (that Jim Kenny is perpetuating above) that all Metro wanted was to take Lakewood’s money, that Metro’s management was somehow weak and that Metro could not bring any new capital to the table. Metro is a public institution subject to greater transparency than the Clinic or LHA.

On September 17, 2104, Metro made an in person presentation to the Step 2 Committee that improved upon and further refined the May, 2014 written proposal. The Step 2 trustees left the September 17, 2014 meeting without any documents or notes.

On July 1, 2015, more than 9 months after it was made, after months of denials by Summers and LHA that it existed and after six weeks of emails and records requests by me with City Hall, I finally received MetroHealth's second proposal from September 17, 2014.
Here is brief summary of its terms:

1. Maintain Lakewood as a full service, low acuity inpatient hospital. P 2
2. Significant capital resources to ensure physical infrastructure is made efficient and viable p.2
3. Shift of ER visits from Metro to Lakewood ER. p. 3
4. Consolidate Metro visits into Lakewood ambulatory sites. p.3
5. Jobs. Keeping Lakewood employed 900 jobs and tax revenue. P.6
6. Hospital. Redirect Metro programs and patient volume to Lakewood. P. 6
7. Capital. $100 million in capital improvements and medical technology over ten years. (double what the CCF Definitive Agreement required)




Mr. Kenny, facts are stubborn things, once they are documented and established, they don't go away.

I have a ton more that I could add if you want to continue whistling Dixie.

I have an idea: If you stop making up stuff and repeating lies, I will stop telling the truth about you, Summers et al.

Hello Brian: I will not contest that you are good at uncovering details that when looked at in isolation can be condemning. I know you went to great lengths to pressure the MetroHealth to share its May 2014 PowerPoint that was used to guide a discussion between MetroHealth, LHA and the City. I know this because you were generous enough to share it with me before posting it here on the Deck as you wanted to gauge my reaction. What I also know and find ironic is you've never characterized this May 2014 meeting or its presentation as a "backroom deal," as we both know to do so would take away the credibility that you give it and use to support your other conclusions.

The leadership team at MetroHealth was still in recovery in May 2014. Dr. Akram Boutros was still cleaning house, as we later learned when in Dec. 2014 he terminated his COO Dr. Edward Hill, who is now being investigated by the FBI (see below). The presentation developed for that the May meeting was a product of the administration he adopted. As Dr. Boutros has repeatedly stated for the record, Lakewood Hospital doesn't fit into his vision for $1 billion makeover of MetroHealth's campus. It's been documented repeatedly that MetroHealth's finances were suffering 2014 (citation available in an earlier thread). These facts confirm why LHA and the City were uneasy with MetroHealth's motives. As a MetroHealth patient, I'm delighted by the changes Dr. Boutros has achieved, and I hope he can convince his bonding agent, Cuyahoga County, to support his vision.

Brian, I know you have a ton more facts but please understand that more facts don't give you more liberties when describing the truth. I also know what the City Council, Nickie Antonio and others are asking is that we stop looking in the past for blame and embrace as a community the shared vision put forth by our City Council on Dec. 21.

Dr. Hill's problems: http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/ ... metro.html