Late last month I published an article in this space, reporting that I'd stumbled upon a filing in The US District Court, entitled Moyes v. Ogden, et al., wherein our clownish local citizen-activist-type, Don Quixote, aka Mitch Moyes, and two other citizens of Ogden, were seeking injunctive relief and damages, with the object of delaying or stopping the downtown Recreation Center project. I remarked in a later update that I'd since met with one of the plaintiffs to review the complaint, and opined that these plaintiffs' "action" would be quickly and unceremoniously dismissed, because their ineptly-drawn pleading fails to set forth any cause of action against any of the named defendants. I further expressed my hope that the assigned federal judge in the case, Hon. Judge Ted Stewart, wouldn't impose heavy sanctions against these plaintiffs upon dismissal of this facially-inadequate filing, which appeared to me to be entirely frivolous. It appears, however, based on new information, that these plaintiffs now face a far greater array of problems with respect to this lawsuit than even I imagined.
Yesterday afternoon, I received a report, from a reliable source within Ogden City government, that the named defendants have now retained an eminent Salt Lake City law firm to vigorously represent their interests in this lawsuit. This law firm, an experienced federal litigation specialist, has reportedly recommended, and agreed to pursue, if necessary, an aggressive course of litigation, which will include not only the defensive action that I predicted earlier, but also the assertion of additional claims for further affirmative relief against these plaintiffs -- to include a very substantial claim for money damages. My source did not provide all the details, but I'll logically infer that defendants' counsel is now "upping the ante," and is in the process of preparing a separate counter-complaint in this matter, to possibly allege claims against these plaintiffs for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, or other similar tortious misconduct.
If that is indeed the case, then it would seem to me at this juncture that our three local knights-errant have blindly blundered into a situation where they find themselves sitting directly atop a virtual legal hornet's nest. These plaintiffs are in federal court, without even so much as the benefit of legal representation, and are thus highly vulnerable, especially in a circumstance where thay will be faced with serious opposition from an experienced team of professional litigators. What's important for these plaintiffs to recognize is that federal courts are a venue with a pronounced dog-eat-dog atmosphere, even in the best of circumstances, where all parties are adequately represented -- which is clearly not the situation here. To compound the plaintiffs' problem, federal judges take a very dim view of frivolous "recreational" litigation generally, and are usually inclined to deal with it harshly and punitively. To further complicate things, their case is assigned to Judge Stewart, an experienced federal judge with a reputation for being particularly "old school." Judge Stewart isn't someone who'd be fairly characterized as a "bleeding heart," in other words. He's definitely not the type of judge who can be expected to take these people under his wing because of their obvious legal incompetence, and it's unlikely that he'll cut these plaintiffs any slack at all. If these plaintiffs desire to "play" in his federal courtroom, you can bet your bottom dollar that Judge Stewart will insist that their performance conform to the same high standards as are practiced by everybody else who appears before him. If they fail to do that, you can expect that they'll suffer the inevitable consequences.
However noble these plaintiffs may have imagined their own motives and goals to have been at the beginning, these people appear to be now hopelessly outmatched. The hammer appears ready to fall on these plaintiffs. When it does, it'll fall down hard and fast; and these plaintiffs will feel the pain in their wallets, among other places.
If any of these plaintiffs had the sense that God gave a goose, they'd drop this lawsuit right now. They're already well over their heads. At minimum though, common sense and good judgment would at least seem to dictate that they consult a neutral local attorney, to explain to them how really lame their lawsuit really is. These people have gotten all caught up in their cause; and like all zealots who are mindlessly locked into their "stuggle," they seem to have lost all reasonable perspective in this situation. Good judgment comes from experience, of course, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. Let's hope for the sake of these ordinary citizen plantiffs, that they won't have to develop good judgment "the hard way."
If my source is correct (and I believe it is) these plaintiffs are presently faced with insurmountable technical pleading and proof problems, among other things. My perception is that they have absolutely no idea what they're up against. I'd hate to see any of these plaintiffs get hurt; but hurt is what they'll soon be, unless they immediately undertake some sensible corrective action. As the situation apparently now stands, they've come to rest on a hornet's nest; and they're sure to soon experience the hornet's sting, barring a quick and circumspect re-evaluation of their present predicament. An immediate exit strategy would be by far the best option.
That's my opinion; and I'm sticking to it.
Comments, anyone?
06/10 5:05 p.m. update: My source reveals that the defendants' attornies will "stand down" until the defendants' Motion to Dismiss can be argued before Judge Stewart, and that they'll be called off permanently if the lawsuit is dismissed, which is the result that anybody with at least half a brain would expect. I've independently confirmed with the Federal Distict Court of Utah that such a motion has been filed with the Court, and that argument on this motion is calendered for 06/24/05. This would seem to be an ideal point for these nitwit plaintiffs to make a graceful and painless exit, and I strongly suggest that they do just that.
I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned, these amateuristic dopes are certainly the last ones on the planet whom I'd select to represent my interests as an Ogden taxpayer.
I keep hearing a voice in my head repeating the question: Why won't they just GO AWAY?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
12 comments:
If this whole thing weren't so damn sad, it would be amussing. Having been witnesses to many of Moye's tirades and accusations, regarding the Mall Recreation Center, along with his being unceremoniously tossed out of several City Council meetings, it's no mystery to me said lawsuit would be so frivolous and time wasting. Moyes seems intent to stop at nothing in order to stop this recreation center, and even though the city administration is taking a strange, meandering approach to re-building downtown Ogden, his actions and methedology are obstructionalist, offering no viable alternative or positive course with the stake of downtown Ogden on the line.
What is it that so drives this character in his quest to stop any downtown progress? Why no alternative? What, even, is his motive for being so extremely anti progressive? All I seem to hear from Moyes and his group is "Stop!"
We need to move forward in,order for Ogden to survive, and if a person has the brass to try and stop what progress there is, they should also have the intelligence and moxey to offer up something to replace that which they are attempting to stop.
I am glad to see that the defendants aren't just letting this slide by. It is good to see them try to grab the bull by the horns. I have also been witness to Mitch's tirades and actually don't dislike him. However, his and others' actions of late have not only alienated any support they could have drummed up from residents, and has proved that they really do not want good for Ogden, but rather just have a dislike for a certain idea, but it has most importantly given them an extreme lack of credibility.
Utmorman: you just hit the nail on the head with your "extreme lack of credibility" statement. This result, that so often arises when someone of Moyes ilk who moves in the way that he does, is the dangerous collateralism that is then perpetrated on us all, including those of us who protest with legitimacy.
Did it ever occur to any of you people that this Moyes character might simply be working secretly for the Mayor's office? What better way to protect the status quo than to set up a shrill, wacko strawman, to make the current government appear steady, reasonable, and sane by comparison? Stranger things have happened.
I must comment on your diatribe against Mitch who has a Bitch with the fair city of Oz.
I will address your piece from the top - to wit:
I can buy you associating Mitch with Don Quixote, but why do you have to demean him by also calling him "clownish", "nitwit" and cheap shots like that? I think he means well and is frustrated that the city appears to be run by a very arrogant cartel of the Mayor and five lock step council persons who vote for what ever the bishop/mayor tell them to. A whole lot of people in Ogden have the same frustration with this administration.
I think that Mitch's motives are pure but his methods appear to be a bit self destructive. In any event as you point out his complaint appears to be faulty which brings up another interesting point vis-a-vis your premise that the city is about to smash them with a sledge hammer.
The point is that the mayor has already won the battle of public perception with Mitch. Mitch is a non factor who has been generally discredited. The mayor could send his least expensive and least competent staff attorney to federal court with a request to dismiss and it most likely will be granted because of the bush league complaint.
This begs the question of why would the mayor go to the expense and trouble to hire a big shot legal firm from SLC for thousands and thousands of tax payer dollars to persecute Mitch, Sharon and Rulon? It would be blatently vindictive of the mayor to publicly humiliate and punish his already defeated opponents - who of course defeated themselves with their own inept script.
It would be a very mean spirited and nasty vindictive mayor who would do something like that to some relatively harmless schleps who mean well, wouldn't it?
I think it would be a huge PR mistake for the mayor to do that. His past PR savy has been the most dismal I have ever seen, so I wouldn't be suprised to see him do it. It will make for some very good fodder for the grist mill come election season, so I hope he does!! We can add vindictive to his already well earned title of arrogant.
I can't see any federal Judge going along with a vindictive mayor who wants to punish these people for trying to exercise their rights to protest percieved innequities in the city administration. they might be clumsy and inept in their legal attempts, but they certainly have some valid complaints about the petition system and the whole mix of Ogden city business involvements. I mean the mayor's family did interfere, etc. so thier complaint against Ogden is not totally groundless, just fatally flawed. If they are forced into a corner and have to hire a real lawyer, then all of the city, mayor, council actions will be fair game for discovery, and they sure as heck ain't purly white in their own actions as far as what I know from the papers.
I am wondering if this vaunted and eminent SLC law firm is that same gang of sharks that our esteemed speaker of the house recently joined. You know the ones that are infamous for using the legal system as a weapon to batter down opponents of city RDA efforts.
By the way I don't know where you got your info on Judge Stewart. He is not an experienced federal judge with a reputation of being old school. He is a recent appointee and an old political crony of Sen. Hatch and Governor Leavitt. He had no legal or court experience as I recall. His career had been in business and government. It was controversial when he was appointed but he got in with some political tradeoff's by Hatch. He is also reputed to be an agent of our 800 pound friend.
So why is every one got their shorts all knotted up over this Mitch anyway? The reall bad guys are wearing suits, walkin the walk and talkin the talk! They are about to take us all on a very fancy hundred million dollar hay ride. Let's hope it's a good one.
From my own point of view it was encouraging, Ozboy, when I learned that the defendants in this matter had hired a top-flight team of litigators to represent the city's interests. Even more encouraging was the first version of that report, which said that these defendants were taking their own attornies' advice, and adopting an aggressive posture. As I pointed out in my original stream-of-consciousness rant, the federal court system is a tough venue. Finding themselves "invited" to litigate in such a venue, city officials became duty-bound, I believe, as custodians of the public trust, to hire the best legal representation available, not only to protect their own individual interests, but to assure that this matter be resolved quickly, decisively, and in a manner best calculated to avoid injury to the taxpayers of Ogden. Federal litigation is merely a civilized substitute for the ancient rite of trial by combat, after all. Although the lethal weaponry has been removed from the courtroom battlefield, the combat mentality remains virtually the same, especially in the federal court 'big league." Federal ltigation is warfare, Ozboy; and when it comes to warfare, recent history has clearly demonstrated that "shock and awe" trumps "soft and limp-wristed" every time. That's why I was happy to hear that our city officials hadn't hired "boys" to do the job of "men."
Judge Stewart's temperment certainly isn't the main story here, by the way. And while we could get into a semantic argument over whether five years' service as a US District Court Judge constitutes substantial judicial "experience," I'll submit that it does, and leave it at that. As for predicting how he'll treat the plaintiffs in this particular matter, an analysis of his background is a far better predictor than my crystal ball. My main point though, re Judge Stewart, is that he didn't arrive on the federal bench after an illustrious career in the area of individual civil rights advocacy, as this 1999 Washington post story clearly illustrates. His post-appointment judicial performance is also instructive. As you'll recall, he also ruled against the individual plaintiff's in the recent Main Street Plaza "freedom of speech" case.
As to your query "...why is every one got their shorts all knotted up over this Mitch anyway?," the answer should be self-evident. I've designed this site to be a forum for active discussion of current issues, and this story is squarely "on point." In the event that you've been off sleeping in a cave somewhere this story has been discussed here, here, here; and in various other local media reports.
And while this story has recently received wide locaal coverage, there was one element that I felt had been completely overllooked. Nobody had talked at all about the legal "downside," from the point of view of these possibly "well-intentioned" but pathetically-misguided plaintiffs. The downside is very substantial, in my view; and I thought that these people needed a "heads up." Consider it my effort to provide a public service, if you like.
And there's one other aspect here. These plaintiffs, in nominating themselves as a sort of "private attorney general," and purporting to act on the behalf of all the citizens of Ogden City, have a high obligation to conduct themselves competently. They've failed miserably in that regard, as even you so frankly concede. When I used the word "clownish," and other harsh words, that's what I was talking about. There simply are no other words to describe it, I believe. These people are an embarrassment to the good citizens of Ogden City; and I believe it's high time for them to "throw in the towel" and "clear out."
Thanks for your comments, Ozboy. This joint can become a pretty interesting place if everybody participates, I think.
I would like to add to why people get up in arms over Mitch Moyes and CBCOF. It has only been in recent weeks that they have lost credibility as an organization. Up until the failed petition drive, subsequent accusations of wrongdoing, questionable lawsuit, and questionable credit report on one of the possible tenants of the rec. center people still sided with them and viewed them as viable. Though they seem to be on the downswing, they could have certainly had a rather large say in the progress of the mall project. For this reason it may be essential to go after them hard. Understand, though, that this is only my opinion.
Yo Rudi:
I can see your point with "shock and awe". Glad to see that you are an ardent supporter of it. It sure did do a quick job of cleaning up that little problem in Iraq, didn't it! Can you imagine what a mess it would be now if we hadn't slammed em hard right in front with Apostle Rumsfield's "shock and awe"?
Tamed them unruly rug heads right down didn't it?
I am also mighty proud to see our "great" city leaders using such a tried and true method of conflict resolution to destroy that Mother of all evil terrorist cells consisting of Mitch, Rulon and Sharon with all their silly notions about voter rights, democracy, political accountability and other foolishness rooted in some ill conceived ideas of "the American way".
This is after all a "Republik" a fact which our great leader on 9 has repeatedly reminded us. Under a republik we don't have to fill our little heads with no high falluting ideas about participating in gummint. We got great thinkers like commisars Filiaga, Yorgansen and that clever and sassy Sasten to do our serious calculatin for us! What more could a happy and well mannered people want?
The people of Ogden are sure going to be a lot safer from these subversive ideas after Mitch and them are torn to shreds by our tax payer funded sharks from the big city! I know I'm sure going to sleep a lot better after I see pictures of Mitch's torn and mutilated corps and Rulon being shlepped off to federal prison for what possibly is a life sentence.
With them as an example I am sure we will not have to be assaulted by any more of this "constitutional rights" bull shit that people like Mitch, Rulon, Sharon, Dorothy, et al keep trying to throw in our face. Why should we have to be subjected to this kind of crap? Why can't we all just see the light as the lord gave us eyes to see that light? Why can't we all just go along, get along and sustain our leaders like our leaders have devinely taught us all these years?
Yes! I want to be there to see with my own eyes the drawing and quartering of these heretics! I want to witness their agony and hear their screams as the flesh is stripped from their writhing bodies. I want to be part of that great crowd that gives the lord mayor the thumbs down sign in support of his desicevely plunging his sword into these vile beasts that threaten our collective new way of life.
That was truly hilarious, Ozboy. I confess I was so moved by your dramatic rhetoric, that I put my American Kennel Club registered American Malamute dog onto her red-white-blue leash, marched two blocks down to the nearest American flagpole, saluted the American flag that would have been flying on any American school day, whilst whistling the Star Spangled Banner all the way there and back home!
What you you did, though, was switch topics. What you're talking about is an idealized fantasy world as you'd like for it to exist in your heart of hearts, where Jack always slays the giant, Jiminy Cricket always gets his wish, and fate can be controlled by simply "wishing on a star."
What I was talking about was the world of reality, where a group of local plaintiffs have filed what even you've frankly conceded to be a "faulty complaint" in the local US District Court, a place where experienced players play extremely rough. I don't know whether you've had a chance to examine this document as I have, but if not, I'd suggest that you obtain a copy and take a good look at it yourself. I've given it a lot of thought during the past week or so, and I frankly can't imagine how these plaintiffs will ever survive the Motion to Dismiss that's calendered for June 24 under the facts that they've pleaded, even if they were to somehow come up with a more comprehensible re-draft.
It was in that context that I posted the original article that sparked this interesting interchange of comments. Now that you've gone on to mention these plaintiffs by name, I'll also just go on to say that I'm fairly well acquainted with one of these plaintiffs. He's a man whom I hold in the highest regard. I honestly don't know how he allowed himself to get involved in this potential fiasco, and I wouldn't have even commented about the potential "downside" of this lawsuit, if not for my concern about his welfare. Having done that, I'm ready to move on to a new topic with my conscience clear, in the earnest hope that Judge Stewart doesn't somehow get it into his mind that this lawsuit has been filed in bad faith, and simply for purposes of delay.
And now that I'm on to "another topic," Ozboy, you may be surprised to hear that I'm in tentative agreement with you on the subject of the performance of some of the members of our current Ogden City Council. Although I'm by no means a regular attendee at the Tuesday night Council proceedings, I have attended at least 10 of these sessions within the last year, and I have the strong perception that certain members of the Council have essentially abdicated their duties as members of an independent legislative body, and have absorbed something of that "groupthink" mentality referred to by our new poster, UTmorMAN, on another thread.
I'll be posting something on this subject in the near future. Perhaps you can offer some of your additional thoughts in the meantime.
Thanks for playing, Ozboy.
Well, well, well. Seems that the intent of the WCForum blogsite, the encouragment of dialogue, is working. Rudizink, Ozboy, Anonymous, and Utmormon have expended thousands of sero=ious words, back and forth, about Mitch and the results/nonreults that his actions have caused. Quite passionate, all of you, in your positions, which have gone from Mitch to the blogsite to Judge Stewart to Baghdad to near heated debate.
Yes, the blogsite seems to be working, doesn't it? And all because of some maddness that Mitch Moyes took public and got all you guys so damn riled up about. Hope to see this same fervor and passion during the up-coming election season.
Hell yes! I agree with enthused citizen. I think this BLOG sit does owe its existance to Mitch's madness, so therefore I suggest the site be called Mitch's Bitch. Who the hell is this guy that every one is talking about anyway?
By the way, I'm learning more about Ogden politics here than I think I want to know.
Ogden politics, in a word, can be described thusly: MADDNESS! And by gawd, it's about time to Stop The Maddness!
New comments are not allowed.