Judge tosses detroit consent agreement lawsuit

[313WX]

So if she can prove that there's a debt owed, then she might have an obligation to address it.

She put the horse before the cart.

You can't therefore allege violation of the CA without a finding of debt, right? Its just an allegation about actions of previous adminstrations right now.

This does not show that Corp Counsel can go rogue, accept an accusation about something as true without proof, and then use it to hold up her bosses initiatives.

I continue to content that the biggest problem is that she could have spent her energy finding the right legal way to make the CA enforceable -- she choose to torpedo it instea.

Insubordination. bye bye, there you go with no doubt a great fat pensions and benefits for life.

Keep in mind Collette didn't actually address the merit of the case. He ruled on who should file the lawsuit [[which is still questionable based on Section 7.5-209 of the Charter). If she failed anywhere, it's that she may not have provided a copy of the Charter violation to the Mayor, all of the City Council AND the City Clerk.

The charter doesn't specify a specific amount of debt that had to be in default. even if you ignore the revenue sharing and water bills, there's still the question of the other debts she included.

I don't think Ms. Crittendon is hardly incompetent when it comes to the law either, as she graduated from U of M's Law School, the same Law School our Governor and Judge Collette graduated from.

A person on the Detroit Free Press comment section who graduated fom Harvard's Law School had a pretty good analysis what happened in the court today.

Bottom line, how this played out in the end, especially given Collette's previous decisons in all of this and how fast this decision was made, seems fishy.

But it is what it is. If the city appeals, fine, if it doesn't, a decision, regardless of how suspect, was made by a court. Most of you, which has been demonstrated for the past 1.5 years, are just concerned with getting the finances in order, everything else, including the law, be damned.

[corktownyuppie]

But it is what it is. If the city appeals, fine, if it doesn't, a decision, regardless of how suspect, was made by a court. Most of you, which has been demonstrated for the past 1.5 years, are just concerned with getting the finances in order, everything else, including the law, be damned.

I'm less angry about the fact this went to court and more angry about how and when it was done. First thing is that even though I'm no legal scholar, it's clear that whether or not the State owed the city money is undecided. And, remember, it's only enough to get us through another 6 months anyway. But nonetheless, because it was undecided, the appropriate thing to do for people wanting to be pragmatic was to get some legal opinions on whether or not the city was really owed the money. And that process should've happened 8 years ago. Not 8 months ago or 8 days ago.

The fact that it is showing up right now would be like you and me negotiating a real estate transaction for the last 9 months. And just as we get to the closing table, I threaten to void the transaction because I contest that both you and I were not of sound mind and free of duress at the point where we made the deal.

I mean, sure, it's a fair legal question. And it definitely needs to be decided. But if I was so concerned about our states of mind for the last 9 months, then WHY the hell am I waiting until now to say something??

===

Lastly, a word about democracy. Democracy exists in a whole spectrum and range. Sometimes more democracy is good. Sometimes less is good. I will not comment on that, other than to say it's worth debating. For example, Moroun's "Let the People Decide" campaign is a way to force the bridge debate to a referendum...which is technically, more democratic than having our legislature seal the deal. Or have our legislature give the the Governor the authority to seal the deal on his own.

How much democracy is good? At what point is too much democracy bad?

I was involved in a real estate transaction whose negotiating process took over 3 years because it was with a church. And the church's bylaws stated that 100% consensus of the congregation needed to be reached about the entire contract before they would enter into it. As you can imagine, this was not a slow process. We would make an offer on Monday, have to wait til next Sunday service, and then maybe on Monday we'd get a yes or a no.

[[We'd never get a counteroffer, because that would mean that the congregation would have had to argue among themselves and unanimously agree.)

So what finally pushed it through? They finally hired a real estate agent whom they trusted. Then 3 months later they added a real estate attorney. Then their agent and attorney set up a series of 4 meetings face to face with our committee and we hashed out a deal.

I'm not saying everything else including the law be damned. But our situation is dire. We elected a City Council. We elected a mayor. The two bodies voted to enter into this consent agreement. Our people are appointing experts to a board who can be sheltered from the politics....our voices will be heard at the table.

That's democracy.

The other version of democracy? The one where everyone's voice needs to be heard. And where the loudest voices are also the least informed and most ignorant? That shit just needs to end.