"Did you see this? What a sad waste of our resources to have fought such a losing battle. Hope ROCK chipped in for our losing attorney fees."
Right on, brother, but I suspect Reclaim Our Culture Kentuckiana is too busy wielding Tony Dungy as a fundraiser for the ongoing anti-Theatair X theocrat's
Note that the most interesting part of the article excerpted below is the comments section.
New Albany again rebuffed in battle against adult bookstore, by Harold J. Adams (Courier-Journal).
The City of New Albany must decide whether to keep fighting following another loss in its long-running battle to shut down an adult bookstore.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week denied the city’s request that the full court reconsider a September ruling by a three-judge panel blocking the city from closing New Albany DVD.
14 comments:
I've done one of these recently, so I might be able to put this into perspective:
When you appeal a case from a federal district court to a court of appeals a three-judge panel from the court of appeals hears the case and makes a ruling.
Once the panel makes its ruling, a party can petition the court for a rehearing en banc, which means a rehearing in front of the entire appellate court bench.
The court of appeals disfavors these petitions and rarely grants rehearings en banc. They will only grant them when "necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions" or "the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance."
Even if they grant the rehearing, they rarely change the original panel's decision. This type of petition is usually a last-ditch effort when a party believes the stakes are high and wants to exhaust every possible option.
It's my understanding that this ongoing legal battle is due to an effort by the City to retroactively apply legal restrictions on actions that were perfectly legal when they occurred.
Given this unsuccessful and wasteful precedent, it's unfortunate that the very same type of retroactive legal action is being sought regarding building and stormwater drainage.
Do I agree with an "adult book store", fundamentally, no I do not.
Do I patron adult bookstores, again, no I do not.
Have I noticed a trend in increased rape, child molestation, sexual assaults since the bookstore opened, not according to the DOJ records.
Bottom line, I dont go there, my wife and child seem to be in no increased danger from the hordes of sexual preditors flocking to our city in the droves to stalk the alleyways and dark corners in our houses, so frankly, it doesnt bother me one bit.
If you dont like the place, dont go there. Besides, when ever we drive past on our way to the diner, there seems to never be any cars there save one.
Dang it, Christopher, I thought i had hidden my car better than that. :)
Another downtown business supports walkable communities!
lets not forget it was Shane Gibson who led the city to believe he could win this suit, the same attorney who now wants to be our state representative. All Shane is doing is laughing all the way to the bank with the money he has made off the taxpayers.
Should be easy to make a choice in that race.
For once, I agree with Eco. My choice is easy. Not voting for Ed.
From a March 19, 2004, Courier story:
The council also unanimously approved a resolution transferring $100,000 from the city's Riverboat Fund, which holds money the city receives in revenue sharing from the Caesars Casino, to an account used for the city's legal expenses. The intent was to provide City Attorney Shane Gibson with money for the legal battle against New Albany DVD.
"As far as I'm concerned, this is more important than anything else going on," Councilman Steve Price said, urging support for the resolution.
Good catch, Brandon.
bottom line brandon, attorney Gibson made a bad call in pursuing the case, he was after the money not the best interests of his client, the city and the taxpayers.
Typical of you lawyers to shift the blame somewhere else for lack of ethics or judgement
Paraphrasing:
It's typical of Eco to shift the blame somewhere for political reasons when he lacks recourse to ethics or good judgement.
If you think all this was about Shane Gibson, and not about a slew of other political gameplaying, then you're just not paying very close attention.
You wanna bash Shane? Fine by all of us. But that's leaving quite a lot out of the story, isn't it?
Tim, the only thing typical here was your hateful, over-the-top response to my post.
Looney.
attorney Gibson made a bad call in pursuing the case,
He didn't make the call, the city did. He may have given them bad advice, but no one knows that, not even you, because it is confidential.
I thought the case was a dumb idea and told Mayor Garner so in person, but focusing solely on Shane is disingenuous.
Now let's see how many personal insults that generates...
what is insulting is the amount of money Shane has made off the taxpayers for third rate legal service
Post a Comment