Friday, September 05, 2014

Non-viable suit earns Journal editorial sanction

In Wednesday's Journal, link, the editors praise a judge for sanctioning a group of lawyers for pressing their case against the government after their case had been determined to be “no longer viable” however personally profitable.

The lawyers

 “continued the charade of proceeding forward with this matter, causing the taxpayers of Albuquerque to expend additional resources for attorneys’ fees in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs’ counsel knew or should have known that this case was over.”
The editors conclude that the sanctions will discourage non-viable lawsuits against taxpayers.

Paradoxically, the editors are manifestly unconcerned about non-viable defenses conducted at taxpayer expense.

Criticizing politicians and public servants
from the podium during a public forum,
is not grounds for a lifetime ban.  
It is not, no matter how many tax dollars
they're willing to spend in non-viable
litigation in an effort to prove that it is.

Consider their support for APS' Marty Esquivel et al, who have already spent three quarters of a million dollars and are planning to spend a half million more on their non-viable defense.

They have no evidence to support their defense.

The entire weight of an enormous body of evidence (videotapes of the incidents in question) is against them.  They have been told as much by a federal district court judge not just once, but twice now.

Their entire defense relies upon the manifestly conflicted testimony of the likes of Marty Esquivel, Winston Brooks, Monica Armenta, Brad Winter and of course, former APS chief of police Steve Tellez.

Yet Esquivel's personal interests in postponing the inevitable, and lawyers ready, willing and able to continue happily bilking taxpayers for as long as they are allowed, portend an expensive future for taxpayers.

They are being allowed by Esquivel's cronies at the Journal, the editors who enable him, through their relentless refusal to investigate and report upon the amount of money board members and superintendents spend on their own defenses; cost is no object defenses, long after their non-viability has been established, and without one iota of real oversight.

photo Mark Bralley

No comments: