1 2 > 
1 of 2
City Wins SOS Litigation
Posted: 20 June 2013 10:27 AM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  784
Joined  2012-10-10

Well, I see the City won the lawsuit brought against them by the SOS group.  Wonder how much that cost in legal fees?  Maybe the City should deduct the legal costs from the social services 2014 budget and ask the SOS group to raise an equivalent amount to make up the difference.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 June 2013 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2011-07-25

There was a fact error in the Mercury’s article about the outcome of the hearing.  SOS did not file the lawsuit against the City.  Four plaintiffs (Jeff Gauthier, Nancy Goulden, Karen Hummel, and Thomas Kerrigan) filed the suit.  They did so as individuals and not on behalf of SOS.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 June 2013 02:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  784
Joined  2012-10-10

Maybe those four can get SOS to assist in paying the litigation costs the City incurred.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 June 2013 02:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2011-07-25

Why should SOS help pay for the city’s litigation costs when SOS was not a party to the suit?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 June 2013 08:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  478
Joined  2012-10-10

The city costs were nominal.  Time to refocus efforts on getting donations, ask everyone in SOS, petition signers and the folks that filed the suit to donate one dollar a month through the SSAB water bill donation program.  That would produce some positive results.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2013 01:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  282
Joined  2012-10-10

Interesting that The Merc got the plaintiffs wrong in a prior article, too. Larry was told months ago that SOS did NOT bring the lawsuit, but he insists that they did.

The Merc, Larry and everyone else claiming SOS brought the lawsuit know full well they did not, they keep saying otherwise because it suits their agenda. Just stop it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2013 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2011-07-25

The Mercury’s “clarification” on page A2 in Friday night’s paper didn’t correct the fact error.  If anything it muddy the issue for readers.  Quite simply, the plaintiffs signed the petition which gave them standing to file the lawsuit.  They were not “members” of SOS since SOS was not a membership organization.  It’s puzzling that Mercury reporters would rather report by inference or implication rather than report the facts.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2013 12:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  478
Joined  2012-10-10

You have explained the facts very well.  The folks that sued the City, signed the petition.  They then went on to take legal action against the city, as individuals not as official members of SOS.  SOS does not have formal membership, so therefore SOS is not behind the legal action.  But the inferences that are being made can maybe be attributed to the following posts on the SOS website, which may cause many folks to get the impression (inference) that SOS is in favor of the action if not providing an outright endorsement.

REMINDER: the trial to determine whether the city commission has to enact the ordinance or put it to a vote of the public will be held on Tuesday, June 18. It will begin at 8:30 a.m. and is in Judge Bosch’s courtroom in the Riley County Courthouse. It would be great to see a full gallery in the courtroom—it will definitely be an interesting trial.

At the hearing on Wednesday, May 8, Judge Bosch decided that the issue should go to trial. The trial will be held on Tuesday, June 18 and will start at 8:30 a.m. It will likely last all day (and may even carry over to Wednesday, June 19). Please plan to attend. If the pretrial hearing is any indication, the actual trial should be very, very interesting.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2013 12:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2011-07-25

The posts you reference are on the SOS Facebook page.  It’s not a website per se.  Infer what you will (and we know how much you like to infer), it’s unfair (unethical) to the people who were involved with the group to mis-characterize the organization’s involvement.  Being interested in the case and hoping that the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs is not surprising given the issue, but it’s a serious fact error to state that the organization was party to the suit.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2013 01:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  478
Joined  2012-10-10

Agree 100%, you are not a party to the legal action, but support it because it furthers your intent or aim. Pointing that out is not unethical and fits the bill or definition of inference - the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former. 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2013 05:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2011-07-25

It’s when your inferences are based on false beliefs or assumptions that there’s a problem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2013 12:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  478
Joined  2012-10-10

Inferences are always based on logical assumptions.  Like a face book site is not a website? It is however on the WWW.  It is not an individual personal page, but SOS will come up if you Google it as Save Our Social Services Manhattan Kansas.  I am all for saving it through donations.    You have more spin than Fox News. 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2013 07:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2011-07-25

But, if the assumptions are based on incomplete or inaccurate information, then the inferences (and the logic) are flawed.

Facebook is a social media site and not a “website"as is commonly referenced.  There’s a common distinction between the two—the common statements are “Find us on Facebook” or “For more information, go to our website at…”

All for saving what through donations?

Spin?  I think it’s pretty apparent who has the corner on spin and it’s not me.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2013 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  962
Joined  2012-10-12

I think we are playing semantics here. 
SOS did not file the lawsuit.  That is a matter of fact.
Did they support it?  Of course.  Why wouldn’t they? All kinds of organizations support various causes.
Now, are some of the commisioners Tea Partiers?....or do they simply support the ideas of the Tea Party.  It is the same thing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2013 02:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

michael, you’re saying sos is the tea party?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 05:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  962
Joined  2012-10-12

No, Bob.  I was saying that you don’t have to be a member of a specific group to share their goals.

Profile
 
 
   
 1 2 > 
1 of 2
 

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | The Manhattan Mercury, 318 North 5th Street, Manhattan, Kansas, 66502

Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without written consent.