U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-16-2014, 06:18 PM
 
Location: long island, NY
24 posts, read 43,436 times
Reputation: 27

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveWaxhaw View Post
Welcome, hope you enjoy the new school we built for you and the seats our kids kept warm for you while we get bussed 12 miles away to school when we are closer to your school than you are. SMH!
Thank you for your warm welcome. If your rude remark is supposed to scare me away from moving to Waxhaw, you failed. I'm from NY, I can handle rude just fine - thank you. I thought I was moving to a place where people showed Southern Hospitality? I was actually excited about meeting sweet people who would welcome us to a place where we don't know anyone.

It's not my fault that you are having issues with the school. You don't need to lash out on me. From the private messages I rec'd I'm guessing you are not a fan favorite on this site. Not everyone shared your welcome, many wished me good luck & provided tips. (Thank you to them)

Good luck to you & I hope that moving my family to NC to provide a better life for them doesn't affect your life as much as you think it will.

 
Old 04-17-2014, 08:11 AM
 
547 posts, read 536,800 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooLogical View Post
Are there any active lawsuits right now? CAPS initially filed the restraining order and the expedited disclosure claims but was there another filed at the same time for the open meeting violation? Or did they need the disclosure details before they could determine if they pursue that last part? The restraining order was declined and CAPS/BOE settled the disclosure out of court, hence my question if anything else is actively filed at the moment. My understanding was that no one had officially asked for the injunction yet.
My understanding is that they didn't get the temporary restraining order, but they are still seeking an injunction based on alleged violations of the Open Meetings law. Even if there were violations, the judge doesn't have to give them an injunction. Even if an injunction was granted, the Board could just go back through the process again without any violations. The result is the same---Redistricting. CAPS simply hopes to gum up the works and delay because they mistakenly think they can take over the BOE with anti-redistricting candidates in November. Even if they somehow could take over the BOE, their candidates would soon realize that redistricting has to occur. The result would be the same---Redistricting.

Here is the statute on the subject...


143-318.9. Public policy.
Whereas the public bodies that administer the legislative, policy-making, quasi-judicial, administrative, and advisory functions of North Carolina and its political subdivisions exist solely to conduct the people's business, it is the public policy of North Carolina that the hearings, deliberations, and actions of these bodies be conducted openly. (1979, c. 655, s. 1.)

143-318.16. Injunctive relief against violations of Article.
(a) The General Court of Justice has jurisdiction to enter mandatory or prohibitory injunctions to enjoin (i) threatened violations of this Article, (ii) the recurrence of past violations of this Article, or (iii) continuing violations of this Article. Any person may bring an action in the appropriate division of the General Court of Justice seeking such an injunction; and the plaintiff need not allege or prove special damage different from that suffered by the public at large. It is not a defense to such an action that there is an adequate remedy at law.
(b) Any injunction entered pursuant to this section shall describe the acts enjoined with reference to the violations of this Article that have been proved in the action.
(c) Repealed by Session Laws 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 932, s. 3, effective October 1, 1986. (1979, c. 655, s. 1; 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 932, s. 3.)

143-318.16A. Additional remedies for violations of Article.
(a) Any person may institute a suit in the superior court requesting the entry of a judgment declaring that any action of a public body was taken, considered, discussed, or deliberated in violation of this Article. Upon such a finding, the court may declare any such action null and void. Any person may seek such a declaratory judgment, and the plaintiff need not allege or prove special damage different from that suffered by the public at large. The public body whose action the suit seeks to set aside shall be made a party. The court may order other persons be made parties if they have or claim any right, title, or interest that would be directly affected by a declaratory judgment voiding the action that the suit seeks to set aside.
(b) A suit seeking declaratory relief under this section must be commenced within 45 days following the initial disclosure of the action that the suit seeks to have declared null and void; provided, however, that any suit for declaratory judgment brought pursuant to this section that seeks to set aside a bond order or bond referendum shall be commenced within the limitation periods prescribed by G.S. 159-59 and G.S. 159-62. If the challenged action is recorded in the minutes of the public body, its initial disclosure shall be deemed to have occurred on the date the minutes are first available for public inspection. If the challenged action is not recorded in the minutes of the public body, the date of its initial disclosure shall be determined by the court based on a finding as to when the plaintiff knew or should have known that the challenged action had been taken.
(c) In making the determination whether to declare the challenged action null and void, the court shall consider the following and any other relevant factors:
(1) The extent to which the violation affected the substance of the challenged action;
(2) The extent to which the violation thwarted or impaired access to meetings or proceedings that the public had a right to attend;
(3) The extent to which the violation prevented or impaired public knowledge or understanding of the people's business;
(4) Whether the violation was an isolated occurrence, or was a part of a continuing pattern of violations of this Article by the public body;
(5) The extent to which persons relied upon the validity of the challenged action, and the effect on such persons of declaring the challenged action void;
(6) Whether the violation was committed in bad faith for the purpose of evading or subverting the public policy embodied in this Article.
(d) A declaratory judgment pursuant to this section may be entered as an alternative to, or in combination with, an injunction entered pursuant to G.S. 143-318.16.
(e) The validity of any enacted law or joint resolution or passed simple resolution of either house of the General Assembly is not affected by this Article. (1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 932, s. 1; 1991, c. 694, s. 8.)
 
Old 04-17-2014, 08:26 AM
 
44,981 posts, read 17,891,137 times
Reputation: 18859
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooLogical View Post
Are there any active lawsuits right now? CAPS initially filed the restraining order and the expedited disclosure claims but was there another filed at the same time for the open meeting violation? Or did they need the disclosure details before they could determine if they pursue that last part? The restraining order was declined and CAPS/BOE settled the disclosure out of court, hence my question if anything else is actively filed at the moment. My understanding was that no one had officially asked for the injunction yet.
They did ask the court for an injunction to stop the redistricting, and the judge flatly turned them down. He citing failure to demonstrate any "harm" being brought upon the kids by being reassigned to a different school. Without that, the other legal theories being pursued, IMO, seem dubious at best.

Nobody here seems willing to state or knows definitively if there is any pending court action. (pending meaning a court date) I suspect there isn't any.

I find it unfortunate the taxpayers are being burdened by the affair. The money being wasted could go to much better use.
 
Old 04-17-2014, 10:45 AM
 
527 posts, read 637,573 times
Reputation: 267
Again, facts and stuff... The court was never asked to issue an injunction. The previous ruling was on a 10-day restraining order, not an injunction.
 
Old 04-17-2014, 04:54 PM
 
44,981 posts, read 17,891,137 times
Reputation: 18859
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaxhawMike View Post
Again, facts and stuff... The court was never asked to issue an injunction. ....
Not only did they ask for an Injunction, but a "Preliminary & Permanent" one. Of course it did not happen.


Directly from the lawsuit:

 
Old 04-18-2014, 09:10 AM
 
527 posts, read 637,573 times
Reputation: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
Not only did they ask for an Injunction, but a "Preliminary & Permanent" one. Of course it did not happen.
Is this real? I said the court was not asked to issue the injuction, not that one wasn't a part of the lawsuit.

I can't see your link... but, as every educated person knows, there are many parts, requests, and motions to a lawsuit. The suit itself (on page 21) asked for:
  1. Temporary restraining order
  2. Preliminary and permanent injunction
  3. Related to records
  4. Stop any further redistricting acts
  5. Declare redistricting null and void
  6. Declare no administrative remedy is exists
  7. UCPS BOE reimburse plaintiffs
The judge has only ruled on #1. The rest of the suit is still outstanding as they go through discovery, as UCPS and the BOE have agreed to turn over records and participate in depositions. The preliminary injunction hearing will come after discovery.

The lawsuit is still in play, it's the next hearing date that has not been set.
 
Old 04-18-2014, 10:47 AM
 
44,981 posts, read 17,891,137 times
Reputation: 18859
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaxhawMike View Post
The judge has only ruled on #1. ....
They asked for a preliminary injunction and didn't get it.

You questioned me on my knowledge of civil lawsuits, but even the dullest person should know you don't file a multipage lawsuit and then tell the judge you only want Item 1. considered. LOL.

You were wrong. Just admit it and move on and accept that this "battle" is done.
 
Old 04-18-2014, 11:06 AM
 
527 posts, read 637,573 times
Reputation: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
They asked for a preliminary injunction and didn't get it.

You questioned me on my knowledge of civil lawsuits, but even the dullest person should know you don't file a multipage lawsuit and then tell the judge you only want Item 1. considered. LOL.

You were wrong. Just admit it and move on and accept that this "battle" is done.
Semantics, but you know what, I give, you got me. The judge ruled against the plaintiffs and then UCPS agreed to discovery . I'm now following Mikey's advice. I'm. Done. With. Kitty.
 
Old 04-19-2014, 02:14 AM
 
44,981 posts, read 17,891,137 times
Reputation: 18859
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaxhawMike View Post
Semantics, but you know what, I give, you got me. The judge ruled against the plaintiffs and then UCPS agreed to discovery
Semantics? We are having this discussion because you choose to split hairs over the difference between "restraining order" and "injunction". Apparently you didn't realize they asked for both. Likewise, no restraining order was granted, no injunction was granted.

There was no "agreement" for Discovery because no Discovery was ever granted by the court. IMO, Discovery was never necessary because the BOE has maintained they will provide the information, but they lack the staff to provide the massive amount of information demanded in the time requested. (again a huge burden on the taxpayers).

The only definitive thing the court seems to have done is to rule against the plaintiff's on the only point that mattered. Stopping the redistricting. There was no restraining order, there was no injunction, the "discovery" hearing canceled. It's done, it's over.

(of course if you wish to claim that the lawsuit is full of semantic errors because you maintain there is no difference between restraining order and injunction except semantics, then of course please tell us more. )

Last edited by WaldoKitty; 04-19-2014 at 02:53 AM..
 
Old 04-19-2014, 08:18 AM
 
527 posts, read 637,573 times
Reputation: 267
For those keeping up, I don't want to argue with the cat but do want the truth out there. Latest update from CAPS...

Quick update for Union County parents re: the BOE lawsuit:

++ Received one box of 2,750 pages of documents. Almost a week late. Early initial review indicates that BOE/UCPS probably did not comply properly with the request, i.e. they did not properly submit the information that the Judge told them to submit.

++ Reviewing these documents over the next 3-5 days.

++ Dates for 1] depositions of BOE and UCPS people, and 2] the court hearing for the injunction against the redistricting, have not yet been set. My guess is that will happen late this week or early next week.


-----------------------------------------------

but, but, the judge already ruled against the injunction... LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top