#1 2009-11-24 12:30:33

A local tabloid writer has this on his online site:
"If, as the library lobby claims, a judge had all the financial information, found that nothing was amiss, and was required by law to share those financial documents with Town Counsel, why would the town still be asking for those financial records? Wouldn’t Town Counsel already have them? The truth is those financial records were never turned over during mediation. If they had been the town would already be in possession of them." (emphasis mine)

Here is an excerpt from the deposition of Brenda Eckstrom:

Q: Do you have any intention of looking through the records which were produced in this case?
A; Do I?
Q: Do you?
A: No. I don't have any intention of personally looking through any records.
Q: You are a part of this case, right?
A: I believe my name's on the paperwork.
Q: Okay. Now part of the action being against you personally, I mean, do you have any concern with not personally looking at the records that were produced to you?
A: I think that's the other side of the case. I think that as you just said, that Attorney Montgomery is defending me as a selectman and as an individual. In that, I'm only here defending myself. I have no interest in those records. Attorney Corbo is representing the town, and so you know what, the town, whether it's through the attorneys or accountant, treasurer, I don't know who would be--personally am I going to sift through and go through it? It really doesn't matter to me. I shouldn't say it doesn't matter to me. As an individual, that stuff--that's stuff for the town and that's the information that I believe Attorney Corbo, town accountant, those people would look at, not me as an individual.
Q: Is it your--I'm sorry. I'm trying to understand this. Is it your understanding that the town accountant's going to look through those records?
A: Well, I don't know who would look through them. I don't think -- I would think that counsel would look through them.
Q: Do you know if anybody other than the counsel's going to look through those records?
A: I don't know.
Q: You have no present intention to look through those records?
A: No.

As George Bernard Shaw had one of his character say in a play: "The truth is the truth and a lie is a lie." So simple yet so eloquent.  (Forget for a moment those of you who recognize the line that the speaker was a prostitute!!) Edit for typo. I do proofread eventually!!

Last edited by Nora Bicki (2009-11-24 13:38:01)

Offline

 

#2 2009-11-24 12:37:10

Hmm, so even when they had the records, they had no intentions of looking through them. Whew....this is big.

First, it's clear the original computer audit had nothing to do with the current library accusations.
second, when they had the records, there was no interest to review them.
Third, punch drunk reporter is a liar...wait...we already knew that.

Offline

 

#3 2009-11-25 12:33:32

At the beginning of the litigation, both sides' lawyers sent lists of documents/records they wanted to see to the other side. The lists from K and P to the library parties was extensive. As our lawyer says here "A lot of documents and records produced by the trustees" as well as the Friends and the Foundation, were turned over as required. Of course, I'm sure the non-existent two trustee informant snitches and the one Friend informant snitch knew about this but forgot to mention it to a certain tabloid writer who happens to be claiming otherwise!!!   

Here is what John Cronan had to say about those financial records. Understand that the depositions took place at the END of the two year litigation process.

Q: Do you know that throughout the course of this litigation a lot of documents and records were produced by the trustees, financial records, showing their accounts and the money which they hold? Do you have an understanding of that?
A: I understand records and stuff have gone back from lawyers to lawyers, but I have no knowledge of what it says.
Q: Did you yourself look at any records that were produced by the trustees in this litigation?
A: No.
Q: Do you know if any other selectmen have looked at any of the records produced?
A: I couldn't answer for them.
Q: Understanding that you're a party to this litigation, do you feel that you need to look at the records that are being produced?
A: I think that at some point I should, but right now there's lawyers handling all this stuff, so I stay out of it.

Also note: not all documents and records produced by the library parties were included in the deposition records. ONLY if a record was entered into the deposition as evidence by either side, would it be part of the deposition record.

Offline

 

#4 2009-11-25 13:05:39

Nora,
Just one question. If the financial records were produced during the 2 year litigation, then copy of those records would still reside with K&P? If that is the case, then wouldn't the selectmen still have access to these files?

What I am starting to understand is that the lawyers for the Selectmen and the judge reviewed the records and found nothing that even made them bat an eye. Why would a former trustee or friend say otherwise?

Offline

 

#5 2009-11-25 14:00:10

I am sure that if I was sued for millions of dollars by an individual or a group, and I knew I was being sued as a public official, and PERSONALLY, I wouldn't look at the case.
HUH?
First of all...that's my only case. I will know what I am charged with, what the accusations are, what the evidence is, what EVERY piece of paper looks like and my end result will be to discredit and destroy the alleged evidence and kick some-one's ass.
Of course, that's just me.
My opinion, of course.
If I didn't do what I described above, then I would consider myself to be an incompetent, self absorbed, completely irrelevant idiot.
In my opinion, of course!

Offline

 

#6 2009-11-25 18:17:01

Nora Bicki wrote:

Here is an excerpt from the deposition of Brenda Eckstrom:

Q: Do you have any intention of looking through the records which were produced in this case?
A; Do I?
Q: Do you?
A: No. I don't have any intention of personally looking through any records.
Q: You are a part of this case, right?
A: I believe my name's on the paperwork.

I swear that this little exchange in Brockton Brenda's deposition reads like the trustee's lawyer is asking Brenda if she did her homework.  Finally, just like in school, Brenda has to admit that she did not do her homework.  She actually had no intention of doing her homework.  She hired the smart kid in class (K&P) to do her homework.  Except this smart kid can't be bought off with a pack of bubblegum.  Unbelievable.

What gets me about Brenda's and Little Cronie's answers, is they hired K&P.  They are supposed to be riding herd on K&P so the town doesn't incur any more legal costs than is absolutely necessary.   I'm absolutely floored by their lack of involvement.  And here I thought that relentlessly pursuing a vendetta meant that it consumed you, requiring you to tap into vast quantities of creative energy to relentlessly pursue your cause.  Brenda and Cronie have managed to put a slacker's spin on the art of retaliation.   

Perhaps after next week's BOS meeting, Brenda and Cronie can stay after school for detention.  That's the only way they'll do their homework.

Last edited by 128Commuter (2009-11-25 18:18:10)

Offline

 

#7 2009-11-25 18:35:20

128Commuter wrote:

Brenda and Cronie have managed to put a slacker's spin on the art of retaliation.

hehehe, slacker's spin...


P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.cruelery.com