Thursday, April 26, 2012

Ogden For Judge

Marion County judicial candidate Paul Ogden has launched an ad for his campaign touting his experience and the fact that he did not pay a $12,000 slating fee to party bosses in order to run for office as the twelve slated Republican candidates were required to do, a process Gov. Mitch Daniels has derided as a "travesty."

7 comments:

Indy4u2c said...

How much has Paul cost us taxPAYERS in defending or having frivilous law suits dismissed?

Paul K. Ogden said...

Indy4u2c, I wonder what lawsuit you're talking about. No lawsuit of mine has ever been declared to be frivolous. In fact I don't recall a single answer filed by my opponents saying that any of my lawsuits was "frivolous." Perhaps you don't know what that term means? Getting a case dismissed on a technicality, or mootness or lack of standing, for example, doesn't mean the lawsuit is meritless. Far from it.

I've taken on a number of public interest cases, such as the Pan Am lawsuit where taxpayers were cut out of $6 million by a deal between the outgoing Peterson administration and the Sports Corporation and the lawsuit against the Traffic Court for violating people's constitutional right to a trial. I am glad I filed those lawsuits. I think we need more attorneys willing to stand up for taxpayers and little people who are being harmed by things such as what was going on in Traffic Court.

Indy4u2c said...

In the Pan Am lawsuit the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the City.

...and how about the disgraceful law suit involving "Bones" Ackles, the coroner who couldn't demonstrate requirements for office?

...how many lawsuits has Ogden filed against our city, that we taxPAYERS have to defend??? Do any of them have merit?

Gary R. Welsh said...

As disgusted as you may have been by the Ackles lawsuit against the county, the fact was that the city council violated the state's Wage Payment Statute and Ackles' due process rights by withholding his pay based on a new state law that was retroactively applied to his office. The council was warned that applying the new state law to his situation would result in a lawsuit it couldn't win and did so anyway. As a consequence, the county was required to pay his back pay, statutory damages and attorney's fees. The county settled the claim because it didn't have a prayer of prevailing. So Ackles wound up getting paid double his regular salary for being a completely incompetent elected official. Blame the council for passing the ordinance and Mayor Ballard for signing it.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Indy4u2c,

You obviously didn't follow the Pan Am case because you don't seem to know too much about it. Personally I think its disgraceful that the taxpayers lost out on $6 million because the Peterson administration decided, in late December when it was going out of office, to change the terms of a 23 year old deal so the Sports Corporation could quit the plaza requirement early and sell it for a profit to Kite. (Sports Corporation had not paid a dime for the Pan Am plaza property.)

What is worse though is that the Ballard administration used taxpayer funded attorneys to defend the Sports Corporation's stiffing of taxpayers.

As far as the Accles lawsuit, Gary is absolutely right. The law is crystal clear. You can't refuse to pay someone who has worked. Period. If you do, it's treble damages and attorney's fees. I don't know what attorney advised the Council members that they should take this course of action, but it was extremely foolish. How was that case without merit since it was settled in Accles' favor?

Cato said...

Cop-loving, authority-staters like Indy are doing everything they can to show that the Republican Party is the greater of two evils.

Instead of giving consideration to this blather about the greatest need of the country being a refusal to reelect Obama, we ought recognize that our greatest need is keeping candidates that are satisfactory to the likes of Indy from getting anywhere near the public trust.

Indy4u2c said...

Paul:

As for "Bones" Ackles: I considered him suspended without pay for incompetence. If he did any "work," I demand to see the work product. If he had done "work" it was with full knowledge that the council told him not to report until he complied with the law.

Cato: -never worth a reply to her leftist ignorance.