Comments on: Shelton to Hear Motions in FDD Case it's like being there Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:56:38 +0000 hourly 1 By: Dave Askins Dave Askins Thu, 28 Aug 2014 03:28:49 +0000 Re: [3] The link to the news brief filed from Shelton’s courtroom is here: [link]

By: Mark Koroi Mark Koroi Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:16:48 +0000 @David Cahill:

Check the “Civic News Ticker”.

By: David Cahill David Cahill Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:13:29 +0000 Did the Chronicle cover today’s hearing? What happened?

By: David Cahill David Cahill Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:36:24 +0000 I am not impressed by the low signal-to-noise ratio in the filings by both sides. Tomorrow’s (Wednesday’s) hearing will tell the tale. What will Judge Shelton (known for his short fuse) do?

By: Frank Burdick Frank Burdick Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:16:06 +0000 Lawyer Games and Too Much Word Salad.

These two conclusions, are easily reached, after reading the attached motions from the City.

Why the continuing delay tactics to prevent the actual hearing of the case? Could it be because of Judge selections or even the timing of recent City Mayoral elections? Or could it be so more FDDP installations fall off the time table of the City’s weak “Statute of Limitations” argument.

Why does the City continue to keep relying on a “6 year Statute of Limitations” issue? By doing so, they are just begging for a Homeowner with a much more recent FDDP installation, to step forward and file their own lawsuit. Just read the 33 pages of negative comments from the SSWWE Survey, regarding the FDD Program on the City’s website. There are numerous upset Homeowners that could all be likely candidates that fall within the City’s “Statute of Limitations” time frame. Hence, the Statue of Limitations argument only delays the inevitable. Eventually the case will be heard by the Courts.

The Motions all attempt to address “ownership” of the sump pump and “private property” etc. The bottom line, however is this:

The City forced their way into many homes, paid for the work, inspected the work, but now, refuses to take any responsibility for the damages caused or for the devaluation of homes equity.

Secondly, the City needed to make their actions “legal” so they “made up a law” by creating an ordinance. This begs the next question, what’s the next Ordinance? Dangerous Crosswalks on busy thoroughfares that cause rear end collisions, etc, etc..