The Observation Deck

The attached Motion was filed last Friday by LHA in the taxpayer. LHA seeks to keep from the public a push poll conducted by Triad consulting for Summers/CCF/LHA in August.

LHA claims that "Triad was retained by LHA to conduct a telephone poll of Lakewood citizens to determine the citizens’ opinions regarding the potential closure of Lakewood Hospital."


So Defendant LHA (headed by Defendant Summers) who are duty bound to serve Lakewood residents have used public money belonging to Lakewood residents to conduct a poll of Lakewood citizens that shows Lakewood residents want to keep the hospital, but they don't want to share the results with us.

To make matters worse, LHA/Summers/Bullock/Madigan are spending more of our money on fliers and advertising to "sell" us on something we don't want.

Yet last night at City Council, Bullock claimed there was no poll.

So Mr. Bullock---Why are you, Summers, Madigan and LHA spending our money on attorney fees fighting to keep the poll from being discovered if there was no poll?

Triad Research conducted a poll. The results were NOT what the mayor/LHA/CCF wanted to hear. That's why you never heard a peep about the results.

Bridget Conant wrote:Triad Research conducted a poll. The results were NOT what the mayor/LHA/CCF wanted to hear. That's why you never heard a peep about the results.

We are well past the $1 million dollar mark in spending of public assets on spin, cover-ups. out right lies and crisis management.

This is quickly going from worst mayor in Lakewood's history to most corrupt government in Lakewood's history to Ohio's History?

The management style of Ed FitzGerald continues.

Lakewood goes from best city in the region to continual laughing stock of the county.

.

But all that can change if voters choose Mr. Clean the "Sunshine" candidate

In basically every single filing they have made in the case, Defendants have argued that the Plaintiffs are just simply five individuals who are not in any way representative of the citizens of Lakewood as a whole.

So, the five individuals ask Triad to turn over the polling data to see how the citizens of Lakewood feel about the hospital.

Then LHA - not Triad - files a motion for a protective order. There is no discussion of how turning over the polling data would be burdensome to or harm Triad. Rather, LHA argues that the polling data is confidential - not because it involves some sort of trade secret or personal information - but because the polling data was "shared only with the LHA Executive Committee and LHA’s counsel." OK.

LHA's main argument, however, is that the polling data is irrelevant to the lawsuit. But, as stated above, in basically every single filing they have made in the case, Defendants have argued that the Plaintiffs are just simply five individuals who are not in any way representative of the citizens of Lakewood as a whole. Defendants made it THE issue in the case. LHA even made it an issue in this very motion ("Plaintiffs are five disgruntled Lakewood residents"). But now that there's data to either back up or refute those claims - date which was collected at the behest of LHA - LHA wants to bury it.

Comedy gold at it's finest - if it wasn't all so sad.

I have noticed the same thing. The Clinic prefaces EVERY motion and filing with a screed about the "five disgruntled plaintiffs."

Do they think the judge lives in an isolation chamber? That the fact that this issue has become THE issue of the mayoral election and has generated the controversy it has is PROOF that these are not merely five disgruntled plaintiffs.

There are petitions, referendums, and charter changes on the ballot that PROVE there are far more than FIVE unhappy residents. I don't know how the Clinic lawyers continue to make that argument and not be embarrassed to see it in print.

Bridget Conant wrote:I have noticed the same thing. The Clinic prefaces EVERY motion and filing with a screed about the "five disgruntled plaintiffs."

Do they think the judge lives in an isolation chamber? That the fact that this issue has become THE issue of the mayoral election and has generated the controversy it has is PROOF that these are not merely five disgruntled plaintiffs.

There are petitions, referendums, and charter changes on the ballot that PROVE there are far more than FIVE unhappy residents. I don't know how the Clinic lawyers continue to make that argument and not be embarrassed to see it in print.

I am not an attorney, and I may have my ideas off, but aren't judges supposed to only use the material presented to them? They are "tunnel visioned" to the material in front of them. Also, isn't that how a jury is selected, oblivious to the events around the case they would oversee?

This ordeal has consumed a lot of people but isn't a judge supposed to look past outside factors and only focus on the material presented in front of them? If that is the case, is there a way to introduce the fact that many people support the 5 plaintiffs? Would this be the place to present a petition on behalf of the plaintiffs' supporters? Not sure how that works in the system.

Corey

Judging from the response to gather signatures for issue 64, these "five disgruntled residents" have the support of over 2500+ registered Lakewood voters who also don't trust the city to do what is in the best interest of the citizens.

That is why these 5 plaintiffs and these 2500+ registered Lakewood voters have to take matters in our own hands. Boy, it's not easy to have a family, have a job and then have to do other's jobs for them. This is what these 5 residents have taken it upon themselves to do. It is the only choice they had left, since the mayor and council refuse to fight for us.

Thank you, the "disgruntled 5"!

Sean Koran wrote:In basically every single filing they have made in the case, Defendants have argued that the Plaintiffs are just simply five individuals who are not in any way representative of the citizens of Lakewood as a whole.

So, the five individuals ask Triad to turn over the polling data to see how the citizens of Lakewood feel about the hospital.

Then LHA - not Triad - files a motion for a protective order. There is no discussion of how turning over the polling data would be burdensome to or harm Triad. Rather, LHA argues that the polling data is confidential - not because it involves some sort of trade secret or personal information - but because the polling data was "shared only with the LHA Executive Committee and LHA’s counsel." OK.

LHA's main argument, however, is that the polling data is irrelevant to the lawsuit. But, as stated above, in basically every single filing they have made in the case, Defendants have argued that the Plaintiffs are just simply five individuals who are not in any way representative of the citizens of Lakewood as a whole. Defendants made it THE issue in the case. LHA even made it an issue in this very motion ("Plaintiffs are five disgruntled Lakewood residents"). But now that there's data to either back up or refute those claims - date which was collected at the behest of LHA - LHA wants to bury it.

Comedy gold at it's finest - if it wasn't all so sad.

Sean,

Use caution in being so boldly intelligent, factual and direct---certain folks may feel "threatened".

So, let's recap. LHA or CCF paid for a poll to gauge public sentiment on closing the hospital. From what I heard, the questions were designed to favor the "close the hospital" side.

Must've not worked well. If that poll was useful AT ALL to the tear it down crowd, it would have been plastered all over the Internet and sent out as a glossy flyer in the mail.