.
.
.
.
First let me make it clear I am neither an attorney nor a current of former law enforcement employee. What I am wondering about comes from my viewpoint as an observer of local government and its machinations.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors and the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (AOCDS) have been in litigation for several years because the Board of Supervisors sued to try to get a decision of a prior Board to grant an enhanced retirement benefit to AOCDS union members reversed. Specifically, the Supervisors sought a court ruling that the prior action of the Supervisors was unconstitutional (the California Constitution) gift of public funds and also violated a requirement that the public must vote on whether local government can incur a debt.
When the Supervisors decided to turn to the courts on this issue the question was who should they sue? It was the Supervisors that made the decision (different people were occupying the Supervisors’ offices at that time in 2001) to grant the retirement enhancements, yet they could not sue themselves. The target selected was to sue the Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS) as it was the system issuing the monthly enhanced retirement checks going forward. So the Supervisors sued OCERS for following the Supervisors’ direction. Soon however the union representing Deputy Sheriffs (AOCDS) was added as a defendant with all parties agreeing to that. After all, AOCDS had the most to lose in this suit.
Press accounts have reported that when exploring whether to file this suit the Supervisors consulted several law firms and several of them told the Supervisors that they had no case and a suit would be futile. However, at least one law firm was willing to take on the suit – for appropriate legal fees of course. Whether that firm actually thought a win was possible we will never know, but we do know they at least saw it as a way to earn some money.
In February, 2009 the Los Angeles County Superior Court dismissed the suit in an action that appeared to tell the County it had no case. In spite of the prior legal advice the Supervisors received that it had no case, four of the five Supervisors voted to file an appeal. Early this year the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District (Division 1) in a decision I view as scathing, dismantled the County’s legal arguments point by point and while telling the county that “imprudence is not unconstitutional” ruled against the County. Not to be deterred, the same four Supervisors voted to appeal this case to the California Supreme Court, and early this month the press reported that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. This means the detailed decision of the State Court of Appeals stands.
Again according to press accounts, the County has incurred over $ 2 million in legal fees, and the AOCDS says it has incurred a like amount of legal costs. We don’t know about OCERS costs, but there has to be some. At this point it is likely that AOCDS and OCERS are assessing if and how to seek reimbursement of their legal costs from the County. In making that determination, these organizations might study the concept of punitive damages.
A quick Google search led me to this definition, which is one of the reasons that a court can find for punitive damages in addition to regular damages – “Malice means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.”
Supervisor John Moorlach is quoted in the Orange County Register of April 14 as making this statement in defense of the county’s lawsuit and appeals “We owe it to the Orange County taxpayers to try and get this figured out.” One has to wonder if turning to the courts against the advice of several law firms, and then pursuing appeals after losing at every level, was necessary for the Supervisors to figure it out. Perhaps the Supervisors were just doing their duty, or perhaps it was an act intended to outlast and outspend the defendants and/or to bring them to the bargaining table with a willingness to make concessions. Is there evidence of malice or some other basis for considering punitive damages? Something for AOCDS and OCERS to think about.
The punitive (exemplary) damages can be claimed only if the lawsuit was filed maliciously or frivilously. So if they can prove it they may get the damages it is totally in judges discretion.
However, governments can’t be sued for malice.
That is what you get if you will constantly thinking that COPs are your friends and that they are protecting you!
Cops are pigs and we should never approve these contracts they are getting.
The main purpose to have cops is to terrorize citizens and collect fines. That is all.
They have usually low intelligence and form deadly gangs like the Santa Ana’s dead squad SAPD13.
In Santa Ana they ale assassinating mothers in front of their children like Susie Young Kim.
Since Larry Gilbert is same idiot like COPs I would like to know comrade Vern what is his role in the OC? Is he co owner or just a moderator?
Please explain.
Stan.
The only idiot in your comment is the one who you see in the mirror if in fact you own one. My role in the OC is none of your business.
In fact, based on your non-stop attacks, I serve as your personal pinata.
Reason why I am asking is because you are not contributing anything substantial to this forum only copy a and paste crapola from Drudge and because of that you you have gained rights so you can rape my speech as pseudo-moralist and moron mongoloid.
I would prefer if your moderator’s rights would be removed.
I have started this blog with Pedroza and am the oldest commenter here.
Stanley.
For someone who claims to have started with Art can you tell our audience why you were barred from the Juice?
Let me also point out that I multi source material in most of my posts and to avoid challenges of altering text I reference the sources of my key points.
I was never bared!
I am still posting and Pedroza is not!
So who is barred.
Stanley.
There are a few of us who are still around who would testify that you were barred.
One is an avid SF Giant fan whose name shall not be mentioned today.
Stanley, to refresh your memory, re-read this very realistic post from three years ago:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/06/what-it-takes-to-be-a-blogger-in-orange-county/
That is how things were in June of 2008. This blog had you chained up in the basement for months, and all we could hear from down there was your hollering and dragging your chains around.
Vern Nelson at his best! Quotes from the above link:
Sarah Michele Spinosa had just been inducted a couple weeks before me. When I arrived for my appointment she was curled up on a sofa in the reception room, fitfully groaning and shuddering, still recovering from the experience. This did nothing to inspire my confidence, nor did the sound of shrieking and jibbering from the cellar downstairs. “Sorry, Mr. Nelson, that’s Stanley Fiala,” said the ostensibly gentle Art Pedroza as he ushered me into the work room. “I’ll go down and shut him up once we get started.”
…
Right around then Fiala started punctuating his screaming downstairs with what sounded like dragging his chains across a trash can, and Art said, “Will you excuse me, I’ve got to go look after the Gimp. Gilbert, it’s your turn.”
…
Fiala went on shrieking and cursing from the cellar.
And I was in!
Hmmmmm!
Obviously no other than lunatic could write such mentally disturbed story. However, it will serve as good evidence when you reach a psychotic disorder level characterized by delusions of persecution or grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason and extreme, irrational distrust of others as was Nativo Lopes, Latino activist, who was lockup in mental institution for the observation.
You are on that path – keep soliciting beer it may help.
Gilbert is already there!
I should ad that my jailer Pedroza apologized to me and all he hurt and tortured in his basement in his departing last post.
Read it….. Sad!
I should add that you should go raping your neighbors constitutional rights in your HOA.
Stanley. Funny you should mention our HOA. I just came home from the first part of their meeting in which a member of the OCSD was discussing neighborhood watch programs.
I expected to see you at the door in your brown uniform
Why would I appear in your HOA in support of your HOA meeting if I am against the HOA concept to start with?
It is clear that if you can’t copy and paste you are incapable to conceive any logical thought.
That is why you should resign the OJ.
Stanley.
The fact that I get under your skin is reason enough for me to continue blogging here
Never mind blogging – you are raping peach of others and you should resign for that.
The BOS of yesteryear was completely irresponsible and approved this rather than giove the deputies raises. Instead of the “modest” increase, the Board repeatedly elected to put of the compensation, The union, being far more savy than the elected shills at the county level negociated this 3 at 50 thing.
So the first ones to blame should be the elected officials that failed us.
Next we can begin to discuss the unchecked power we have allowed the unions to gain in our government. The bulldog tactics may be ok in private practice, but not in government.
I would love to see someone do some objective reporting on this. We certainly won’t get that from the union backed Voice Of OC or it’s little sisters at The Liberal OC. To see the other extremes one needs only to read the rants at The OC REGISTER or Red County.
The bottom line is: You get what you pay for, or in this case vote for.
The Public employee unions are always going to try and rob you. We need politicans tough enough to counter that.