If Lumpy is sanctioned for not turning over his phone records, is that not different from whether or not he violated the Sunshine Law? What penalties can a judge impose by "sanction"?

Bean, you out there?

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." - John Maynard Keynes

I know that they said on WBIR that not handing over the records is a violation of the sunshine law but I just don't see how it could be.

To be honest, KNS's lawyers may have an easier time getting his cell phone records than he would. He has Cricket. I used to have Cricket and IIRC, it was almost impossible to get your own records. I don't think they even keep records of calls back then. Most cell phone carriers allow you to access your call list online, Cricket doesn't. It's one of their cost cutting measures.

Stackhouse mentioned that they could get his records since they had carrier and phone number. Maybe that was her way of telling them that he may not be able to get them but they can. I don't know.

I may be wrong, but I think what Stackhouse was saying is if the plaintiffs have Lumpy's phone number and all the other Commissioners phone records, all they have to do is look for Lumpy's number in those other records (incoming or outgoing), i.e. they don't need Lumpy's records to get the information they want which is calls between Lumpy and other Commissioners).

If Lumpy can get them, he needs to turn them over. The suggestion for other counsel may also be based on the fact that Lumpy is being singled out. Owings has to struggle with a conflict of interest from the outset, trying to represent everyone.

...or perhaps Dwight Van De Vate or Mayor Ragsdale.

Be interesting to see if cell or office phone numbers for those folks show up on any Commissioners phone records.

I may be wrong, but I think what Stackhouse was saying is if the plaintiffs have Lumpy's phone number and all the other Commissioners phone records, all they have to do is look for Lumpy's number in those other records (incoming or outgoing), i.e. they don't need Lumpy's records to get the information they want which is calls between Lumpy and other Commissioners).

I hadn't thought about that.

If the calls were placed/rec'd Jan 31 during the meeting recesses.

and Lumpy continues to refuse to attempt to get them, would it be considered contempt of court? CBT, I know you're a lawyer, so maybe you could answer this. If the judge does cite him for contempt how far could the punishment go? And might that have something to do with the advice to get a lawyer for himself from Owings?

_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

I don't know why Owings advised him to get his own lawyer. We can all speculate. I pointed out the fine line of conflict of interest Owings has to walk in representing 'everyone'.

The Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 37) spells out sanctions for someone who does not comply with discovery requests. It can range from monetary penalties (essentially a daily fine), to exclusion of certain evidence all the way to a judgment on the merits of the case. He's not my client, but it would appear to me if Lumpy had these records or could get them with reasonable effort, he should turn them over.

Cricket: what kind of cell service is that for a grown professional individual?

What Lumpy could be had for is contempt? What Hollow wants is default judgment against him. What Stackhouse is saying is that default is too much punishment. She could also be saying that they can tell from everyone else's records which commissioners he was talking to. The question is what the hell else is he hiding?

The other question is why hasn't Scoobie been told to get another lawyer?

And, finally, didn't those reporters clean up good for the witness stand?

pgs
Pam Strickland

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut

[redacted]

The bottom line is obvious. He must be afraid of something.
It does make the mind reel...

Lumpy simply will not take his lumps, I guess.

I should mention there are valid, legal objections to providing some information. Maybe some of those apply here. Right now, we're all just guessing.

There's also the issue of the KNS apparently not raising this issue until now. Didn't Comm. Lambert refuse to provide the records several months back, saying he dind't have them? Why wasn't a motion filed by KNS' lawyers to compel him to provide the information months ago? That's the usual procedure.

Just a curious question. As I said, we're all just guessing based on very limited information from news stories.

Mark Harmon testified today and shot holes in the testimony of Scoobie. Glad to see him there fighting for the truth. With the testimony presented so far, this jury must be seeing the obvious shenanigans of that whole appointment process.

I always find it interesting that there's this supposed "Sheriff's Faction". Other than the budget, what does Commission vote on which affects the Sheriff's Office? The KCSO essentially runs itself, same as the other fee offices.

two questions for candidates in the next Knox County election:

1. Have you ever served in any elected or appointed capacity in Knoxville or Knox county? (yes = "no" vote)

2. Do you or any members of your family work (or draw a paycheck) from any local government job? (yes = "no" vote)

There are legislators at all levels who group together for various, common reasons...homeowners, developers, religious reasons, economic reasons, etc. At the state level, block voting is a requirement for most Democrats. I suspect Commissioners often group together for various reasons as well.

My point was not that the former Sheriff is an influential political figure (he is, and I've said so repeatedly before), but I don't believe he plays near the role in all these various issues which come before Commission. To read the papers, it's as if the former Sheriff is on the phone to direct votes on every resolution. I don't believe that's the case.

it's as if the former Sheriff is on the phone to direct votes on every resolution. I don't believe that's the case.

Yes, but Lumpy won't turn over his phone records so we don't know for sure, do we?

(Bada-bing. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your bartenders and servers.)

Does it make any sense that the law department has proven two of their own clients guilty? I see that its a very tricky case to try, but I don't see the strategy. Are they trying to prove a few guilty, but protect the rest?

I'll also mention city 'county' commissioners v. 'county' county commissioners. That sometimes plays a role. As for Jan. 31, maybe some were not pro-Sheriff, but rather anti-Ragsdale.

One other thing. We've heard of calls by Moore to the Sheriff. They have every Commissioner's phone records (except Lambert's), so what do those show? How about calls to Ragsdale, Arms or Van De Vate? Dwight was at the Jan. 31 meeting lobbying hard for Ragsdale's choices. Surely calls and discussions were had before the meeting. KNS, do tell.

Calls to lawyers, sheriffs or even Ragsdale were not a violation of the sunshine law. ONLY deliberation with other commissioners is a violation. -- s.

That's true Sandra, but mention was made in the KNS story this week about Moore's calls to the Sheriff. If that's 'news', I'm just interested in who else notable they may have been talking to.

We're a long way from the finish line in this one, with a few turns and surprises likely. But, in the end, it's discussion v. deliberation. I may not agree, but I'll trust the jury on this one. They're rarely wrong (see thread on OJ for an exception).

Interesting perhaps, but not illegal. Not a violation of sunshine law. Don't understand why the chancellor is letting this case range off topic. Of course, the fact that Herb is involved could have something to do with that....
-- s.

Is this suit brought by KNS and 9 citizens, or is it McElroy and 9 citizens? If it is KNS, shouldn't the newspaper be reporting the news instead of making it? Every article in the KNS about this trial starts out with original material, then reverts back to the same old stuff. And they certainly present a rather one sided view. Please don't think I am siding with the commission, I'm not. Its just that McElroy has a rather public forum for his side of the issue, and I think he also has a responsibility to report the news, not make the news.

The name of the plaintiff on the lawsuit is McElroy.

The nine citizens joined the suit courtesy of Moncier and Fansler.

EDIT: The name of the plaintiff on original lawsuit is "JOHN McELROY, II, a citizen and resident of Knox County, Tennessee"

I found the PDF at the KNS:

http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/02052007kns_suit.pdf

We all know who is paying for the defense, I wonder who is paying for the plantiff's lawyers.
In the past, it seemed that KNS has always been pro-Ragsdale, is this what is driving McElroy?

WhitesCreek

"Why didn't McElroy let others take the commission to task, and cover the action from the sidelines, like newspapers should?"

I'm not Jack McElroy's confidante, so I cannot tell you what's in his head, but here's what it looks like to me:

Who are those "others" who can take the commission to task?

Of course, they can talk amongst themselves about upcoming issues. What they can't do in private is deliberate toward a decision -- like, say, make it possible for Chuck Bolus to magically appear on the dais all signed, sealed and ready to deliver the tie-breaking vote that made Lee Tramel a county commissioner (and one of the best-compensated double-dippers in these part).

The arrogance displayed by te majority of Knox County Commission at the January 31 meeting exceeded the limits of decency. Not only did they break the law that requires deliberation is to be done in public, they behaved like schoolyard bullies while they openly flouted that law and essentially dared someone/anyone to do something about it. The News-Sentinel is one of a handful of entities that has the wherewithal to take the challenge.

I believe McElroy sees his job as a public trust, and filing this lawsuit is a way of keeping that trust. An expensive way, at that -- I doubt he (and his corporate superiors) really wanted to spend all this money. And remember -- it was the newspaper that offered to settle this fight out of court, and it was the commission that declined that offer.

What you are suggesting, hoseman, is business as usual.

Who are the other 9 citizens that are in on this lawsuit?
And I am not suggesting business as usual. The meeting on Jan 31 was a big, steaming pile of manure. And what happened prior to that meeting was even worse. I ran into a term-limited commissioner who told me who his replacement was, and that was well before 1/31. Personally, I think the law should be changed. Replacing one commissioner that way may be acceptable, but more than one should involve an election by the people.
Reporters and newspapers have a public duty to report the truth, without bias. When the editor of a newspaper is the plantiff, the reporting is going to have a slant to it. You can't argue one way in court, and then report otherwise in a public forum. I am not arguing the merits of the case, as a matter of fact, I think the whole thing is a waste of time. I think the most the court can do is a "do-over". Big deal. They will simply repeat Jan 31.
Has anyone thought about what would happen if the commission won? If we think Jan 31 was bad, we haven't seen anything yet.

we're all better off knowing. If it takes a trial to get our attention, so be it! And it took the outrageous behavior of a few dim bulbs and 12 new appointments at once to really be newsworthy - finally.

Qualifications for office of county commissioner:
18 years old, resident, registered to vote.

(The state constitution disqualifies clergy, atheists, and duelists as representatives!)

Perhaps it's time to expect more from our County Commission:

They are responsible for Schools - they should at least be educated!

They are responsible for the Sheriff (I may have that backwards)- they should at least be law-abiding citizens without a criminal record.

"They are responsible for Schools - they should at least be educated!

They are responsible for the Sheriff (I may have that backwards)- they should at least be law-abiding citizens without a criminal record."

I agree completely. I will go one further.

How about that they not be able to sit on boards of non profits(seeking county govt. grants) and be a commissioner at the same time?

I will do you one more Mr. McBeavy... how about you can only collect one pay check from county government... be it commission, teacher, sheriff, street cleaner or what ever... one knox count pay check per employee period...

By the way Mr. McBeavy can you still make smoke come out your ears like you did on the Andy Griffith show???

"By the way Mr. McBeavy can you still make smoke come out your ears like you did on the Andy Griffith show???"

Sure can. But only when I see Ragsdale crying on TV about spending too much time reading to "our children."

Can you still make those "profits" and have those "investors" wanting to "invest" with you like you used too?

Mr. McBeavy... Huh...