Comments on: Ann Arbor to Judge: We’re Not in Contempt it's like being there Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:56:38 +0000 hourly 1 By: Dave Askins Dave Askins Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:28:48 +0000 Re: “…briefs were due…”




By: David Cahill David Cahill Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:17:27 +0000 I think briefs were due from both sides today on how to protect the integrity of the voting process in the Third Ward on August 5.

Any word on that?

By: John Q. John Q. Thu, 24 Jul 2014 02:48:25 +0000 I don’t read that as passing the buck. The explanation fits with what has been previously disclosed. I doubt the Judge wants the city to simply say “we screwed up” without explaining how it happened.

By: Mark Koroi Mark Koroi Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:36:08 +0000 What I find disturbing is the tendency of the City Attorney’s Office to “pass the buck” and blame vendors and other third parties that Judge Zatkoff expressly cited in his show cause order. That show cause order also cites the possibility of fines being assessed against the City of Ann Arbor.

That possibility of court-imposed fines is over and above the $30,000+ settlement that the City of Ann Arbor reached with Mr. Dascola’s counsel as the prevailing party under 42 USC 1988. It is also over and above the costs and attorney fees recently awarded to Mr. Dascola that has yet to be liquidated as a result of being the prevailing party in the recent post-judgment motion.

The defense of this particular federal civil rights suit has been one of the most embarrassing episodes in the recent history of the City Attorney’s office. It has become the talk of members of the local bar. The only redeeming conduct of the City Attorney thus far is his decision not to the undertake an appeal of the judgment obtained by Mr. Dascola – that deft decision likely saved the City of Ann Arbor tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fee exposure in the event the appeal failed.