02-09-2025, 10:11 AM
Thanks again to Patricia and Julie for posting the documents. I found Patricia’s website to be convenient, with all the documents there in the same place. If you are wanting to know what’s going on with these lawsuits and don’t want to wade through all of the detailed legalese, this is a good way to do that. They are SUMMARIES of the case written by the attorneys of the 3 parties, so they have tried to make them clear and concise, and you get a good picture from all angles. It’s still not the most pleasant way to spend a Sunday morning, but way easier than sifting through the previous docs.
Julie - ”…on the 5% issue, my opinion is that I think it is unwinnable for the Plaintiff as the bylaws do clearly allow for “up to 5%” to be transferred for non-road use and they really have no specificity as to what the 5% can be used for in any and all non-road matters. Again, that’s MY opinion.”
Bylaws have to have legal foundation or they are null and void. I can’t stress this enough. It’s amazing how many people don’t get this and think that they can make law in the boardroom. I believe Plaintiff has quoted another section of the bylaws that says that the road funds are for roads only. So there is a conflict within the bylaws. I wondered about this, and why she didn’t just go straight to the road fee judgment for foundation for her argument. That judgment is strictly for roads, nothing else, and to my knowledge there has never been any modification or additions to it. So MY opinion is that Defendants will have a difficult time showing legal foundation for the 5% rule.
”Now, if say 2,000 plus HPP residents could get a letter writing campaign going to the Judge….”
Is that legal? Aren’t judges supposed to rule on what’s presented in the courtroom and not outside influences? Trying to influence a jury is called tampering, wouldn’t it be the same for a judge? I’m asking in all seriousness.
I agree, going to court is a “crap shoot”. I think the judge is more likely to rule on points of law, which would favor the plaintiff and Watamull. It’s harder to guess what a jury might do.
Julie - ”…on the 5% issue, my opinion is that I think it is unwinnable for the Plaintiff as the bylaws do clearly allow for “up to 5%” to be transferred for non-road use and they really have no specificity as to what the 5% can be used for in any and all non-road matters. Again, that’s MY opinion.”
Bylaws have to have legal foundation or they are null and void. I can’t stress this enough. It’s amazing how many people don’t get this and think that they can make law in the boardroom. I believe Plaintiff has quoted another section of the bylaws that says that the road funds are for roads only. So there is a conflict within the bylaws. I wondered about this, and why she didn’t just go straight to the road fee judgment for foundation for her argument. That judgment is strictly for roads, nothing else, and to my knowledge there has never been any modification or additions to it. So MY opinion is that Defendants will have a difficult time showing legal foundation for the 5% rule.
”Now, if say 2,000 plus HPP residents could get a letter writing campaign going to the Judge….”
Is that legal? Aren’t judges supposed to rule on what’s presented in the courtroom and not outside influences? Trying to influence a jury is called tampering, wouldn’t it be the same for a judge? I’m asking in all seriousness.
I agree, going to court is a “crap shoot”. I think the judge is more likely to rule on points of law, which would favor the plaintiff and Watamull. It’s harder to guess what a jury might do.