The Observation Deck

Lakewood Municipal Judge Patrick Carroll has ruled in Jennifer Scott vs City of Lakewood

Read the entire document here: http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/media ... 481065.pdf

Conclusion:
In reviewing the number of court decisions involved in this case, I am awed by the staggering amount of public funds spent on attorney's fees to dispute conflicts between a state statute and a municipal ordinance that covers the same area and with the same goal of public safety. Clearly, with all of the serious crimes of violence and drug abuse issues facing this community, these funds could be better well spent for the community in other ways. In addition to the monetary costs, there are the long term costs to the community by continuing to maintain divisive policies, regardless of the validity of an ordinance, which pit neighbor against neighbor and fosters greater division in this community.

The court is aware that since this case was filed, an amendment to the city's dangerous dog ordinance has been presented and is currently pending before the Lakewood City Council. In addition, House Bill 352 and Senate Bill 195 were recently introduced in the Ohio General Assembly regarding the control and definition of a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog and may ultimately have an impact on the issue. As such, further litigation on this issue may be legislatively preempted by local ordinance or state statute.

For the reasons set forth in this decision, the claims for relief raised in the plaintiff's complaint are dismissed without prejudice at the plaintiff's costs.

Signed February 12

Judge Patrick Carroll

Judge Carroll "In addition to the monetary costs, there are the long term costs to the community by continuing to maintain divisive policies, regardless of the validity of an ordinance, which pit neighbor against neighbor and fosters greater division in this community."

Signed February 12

Judge Patrick Carroll[/quote]

So, now we have an opinion by one of the most respected judges in Northeast Ohio that essentially states that Summers, O'Leary, Bullock and Butler, et al. are needlessly wasting taxpayer money, pitting neighbor against neighbor and creating GREATER division in the Lakewood Community.

The bottom line is that he dismissed the complaint, so now we will have to wait to see what the Common Pleas Court rules.

However, the decision shreds the city and the legal arguments they used. It looks like he rejected most of them.

That may bode well for the other case because a municipal judge has already seen through their weak arguments and it’s likely the county judge will also reject them.

Bridget Conant wrote:The bottom line is that he dismissed the complaint, so now we will have to wait to see what the Common Pleas Court rules.

However, the decision shreds the city and the legal arguments they used. It looks like he rejected most of them.

That may bode well for the other case because a municipal judge has already seen through their weak arguments and it’s likely the county judge will also reject them.

Bridget

No it says so much more, this would be the third in not the fourth Court of Law to catch them at their signature bullshit. Sowing the seeds of hate, divisiveness, misinformation, lies, cover-ups, destroying documents, hiding documents, and intimidation.

Think about it, now in at least three courts, three different judges, they have ruled in favor of the residents of Lakewood, and against those that lie, cheat and conspired to close the hospital, and hijack all of the assets and land.

The sun is coming up in Lakewood, and it is starting to feel like Lakewood again, as they will surely run for the shadows.

.

Folks-- don't forget, a great big LAKEWOOD thank you to Jennifer Scott for her steadfastness and perseverance (and to Charlie who's been such a great sport in all of these human shenanigans)

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Lakewood Municipal Judge Patrick Carroll has ruled in Jennifer Scott vs City of Lakewood

Read the entire document here: http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/media ... 481065.pdf

Conclusion:
In reviewing the number of court decisions involved in this case, I am awed by the staggering amount of public funds spent on attorney's fees to dispute conflicts between a state statute and a municipal ordinance that covers the same area and with the same goal of public safety. Clearly, with all of the serious crimes of violence and drug abuse issues facing this community, these funds could be better well spent for the community in other ways. In addition to the monetary costs, there are the long term costs to the community by continuing to maintain divisive policies, regardless of the validity of an ordinance, which pit neighbor against neighbor and fosters greater division in this community.

The court is aware that since this case was filed, an amendment to the city's dangerous dog ordinance has been presented and is currently pending before the Lakewood City Council. In addition, House Bill 352 and Senate Bill 195 were recently introduced in the Ohio General Assembly regarding the control and definition of a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog and may ultimately have an impact on the issue. As such, further litigation on this issue may be legislatively preempted by local ordinance or state statute.

For the reasons set forth in this decision, the claims for relief raised in the plaintiff's complaint are dismissed without prejudice at the plaintiff's costs.

Signed February 12

Judge Patrick Carroll

Here we see a local elected public official standing-up and criticizing the city administration in writing in his official capacity. Thank you, Judge Carroll.

We need to keep in mind that this is a legal victory for the City of Lakewood.

While the municipal court's analysis of its own jurisdiction it cogent, the court uses that analysis to essentially deny Scott's claims and grant the dismissal against Scott that the City sought; despite a presentation in the written opinion that it is denying most of the City's motion to dismiss.

Ms. Scott's case has been dismissed without prejudice and this means that Ms. Scott has the opportunity to rehire her legal counsel and bear future legal costs in the event that facts change sufficiently to warrant a second try in municipal court.

I am troubled by the fact that the municipal court did not address the fundamental issue of whether the administrative hearing should be closed or open. Particularly, when the court is cognizant that the City of Lakewood is litigating (has litigated) other Sunshine law violations quite recently.