Saturday, November 14, 2009

Hanks's suit

It fits him quite well. -- Jim

From a reader (lack of formatting is due to my laziness -- but it is what it is):
CIVIL CASE DETAIL


CASE NUMBER TYPE of CASE STATUS DATE FILED

09 CV 016429 OTHER CIVIL ACTIVE 11/03/2009

JUDGE COURTROOM

KIMBERLY COCROFT COURTROOM 7A
369 SOUTH HIGH STREET
7TH FLOOR
COLUMBUS, OH 43215

PLAINTIFF(S)

Name Attorney
TULLER SQUARE NORTHPOINTE LLC EMILY J JACKSON

DEFENDANT(S)

Name Attorney
DELAWARE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NO ATTORNEY ON RECORD
DELAWARE COUNTY AUDITOR GEORGE KAITSA NO ATTORNEY ON RECORD

CASE SCHEDULE

Date Description
11/03/09 CASE FILED

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

It will be the county on the line for this one. The former commissioners are just as much to blame for this situation arising. If they knew it was an illegal lease, they should have done something about it. Mr. Yost also had a copy of the lease, and said nothing. (notice Mr. Hanks is not labeled as the Defendant)


If you choose to use the space, you better pay the bill. It is unfair to claim the lease is invalid just because you do not need the property anymore. As the property owner I would sue the county too.

Anonymous said...

Hanks getting us sued is unacceptable!

We the people of Delaware County are holding you responsible!

Anonymous said...

8:58 PM,
To be fair many people played a role in the county getting sued.
-Mr. Yost
-The former commissioners, for validating the and confirming the illegal lease
-commissioner O'Brien (When he refused to allow the county to pay the bill or work out an agreement. His deciding vote, out of two, brought the breech in the lease.)
-Mr. Hanks for not having the authority

There are many people on the line for this case entering the legal arena.

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone vote to pay on an illegal lease? Mr. Yost has made it clear Hanks didn't send it to his office. The past commissioner have their defense ready and will not cover for the toad.

Maybe Tommy Thompson can answer that one since he voted to stand with his buddy Kabealo's $3.13MM $hit Landfill against legal advise.

Toad you are amusing but you're not getting away with this one.

Anonymous said...

11:09 PM,
You would pay the lease because you used the space. If you used space and didn't pay, it would be a windfall.

You would also pay if the legal process would cost you more money in the long run. That would be the fiscally responsible thing to do, but I guess you don't care about that.

You work with people when there is an amicable solution to be had. You don't press everything into court when it is unnecessary. A lot of people had a problem with the last board for getting sued all the time. But I guess O'Brien wanted to push it into court instead of finding a more cost efficient solution.

How deep does your hate run for Hanks that it would cause you to support such an illogical position?

But I like Jim's perspective on it; it is a mess and we will see what happens. Too bad you cannot be that reasonable.

Anonymous said...

My goodness. The Toad really has stepped in it now.

Can't wait to see Toad's defense on this one.

Toad--you really need to step down. For the good of the county. For the good of your Party. It's one thing to bow out of a re-election bid. It's entirely another to lead your Party down the road of re-election and you getting your head handed to you by your Democrat opponent. If the Party were smart they would endorse you as the formality of having to do so, but vigorously support someone else in the primary. That's the humane way to put a terminally wounded political horse like you down.

Anonymous said...

I saw the title and became excited, only to read it and see that it's about a LEGAL suit.

For a second there I thought he was being fitted for an orange jumpsuit.

Left to his own unethical fetishes that shouldn't be far off. I have to remember to be patient.

Hey, Toad: have you thanked Ken O'Brien today for saving you from hanging yourself on the ST eGe deal? Go ahead and call him, now, you hear?

Anonymous said...

If anyone needs a jumpsuit, it would be O'Brien for trying to steal money from the property owner. He is the one who does not want to honor the lease that the previous commissioners validated by paying it. That is a stronger legal position that the property owner will succeed with. And Ken will be the fool who wanted to use property and not pay for it.

Anonymous said...

This lawsuit was not necessary. The majority legal opinion in Ohio will support the property owner.

When the commissioners first payed the lease, they confirmed their legal approval of the lease. To stop paying the lease is a breach of contract, and the county will likely be liable for any damages the property owner incurred.

When the commissioners chose not not pay they lease, regardless of their ill-informed understanding of the leases legality, they made a lawsuit inevitable.

Why did they risk more taxpayer money? It was an irresponsible decision that will inevitably cost the taxpayer, and why? Was it so one man could claim to uphold the law while breaking it? What good does that do? It is shameful that one commissioner has put the taxpayers in that position.

You can try and pin this problem on Hanks, but the majority opinion in Ohio does not support that claim.

Anonymous said...

I read this insane spin and laugh, then realize how sad it is that the Republican Party appointed Todd Hanks.

County prosecutor Dave Yost said his office did not review a contract to lease a former Bureau of Motor Vehicles office in Lewis Center.

Former auditor Todd Hanks opened the BMV center in the Tuller Square Northpointe shopping center in Lewis Center in April 2005. The Ohio Department of Public Safety ordered it closed June 27, 2009. (net loss of about $214,000 over its first three years)

Yost said Hanks did not have the authority under Ohio law to enter into the lease and declared the lease invalid.

Yost also said it's not his fault he didn't review the lease. He said, "You'll have to ask (the former) auditor" why that happened.

"We review hundreds of contracts every year for many county offices," Yost said. "We have a procedure to avoid this kind of thing that we either sign the contract approved as to form or, if it requires comment, we issue a letter, one or the other. If neither exist, this office did not review or approve any contract."

The lease should have been reviewed by the prosecutor's office and signed off on by the county commissioners for it to be valid.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is that the reason why we're in this mess is because of the arrogance and poor judgement of Toad Hanks. He hit the trifecta of reckless irregard for both the law and the spirit of it.

ST eGe
CEC-Village of Sunbury
BMV

What next?

I don't want to see a "what next?". Toad Hanks should go now before another gem of misconduct is pulled from the closet. He should go now to own up like a man to the mistakes he has made and atone for them. Staying in his seat for a paycheck is disgraceful and a slap in the face to each DelCo resident.

Anonymous said...

I agree that this lease is invalid, but here's the thing. The commissioners made good on payment of this contract until they decided to close the facility. That, in law, shows that there was validity to the contract. O'Brien is costing the county MORE money by going the "high road." Just pay the lease and get out of the contract rather than losing my money in a frivolous court session. Stop wasting my money.

Anonymous said...

Actually it is your ignorance, actual or feigned, of the law that is laughable. If you had any clue about legal theory and actions taken in scenarios like this, you would not be so arrogant and incorrect.

Yost was emailed the lease and should have reviewed it.

The commissioners validated the lease when they first payed the bill.

The grandstanding O'Brien is at fault for this going to court. He is truly the one who deserves the shame.

But you cannot accept the truth because it does not fit your preconceived ideas and agenda. Just ask Bill Owen if your case against Hanks and the lease holds water.

Anonymous said...

12:23 AM,
It is ironic that you are the one complaining about spin.

-Mr. Yost cannot declare that the lease was invalid due to Mr. Hanks lack of authority to enter into the lease. This is a question that can only be answered by the court.

-However, the strong legal argument would be that the lease was valid due to the commissioners validating it when they payed for it. But you either ignore this fact or you are ignorant of it. Either way, you are not in a position to be so judgmental and certain about your opinion.

-There is also email proof that Mr. Hanks emailed the lease to Mr. Yost.

-In the end, what is the purpose of the lawsuit? For the property owner to get what is legally his. The only outcome is restitution plus damages. (a lot of money)

-The best solution would have been to work out an agreement on the outstanding lease. But instead, Mr. O'Brien had to be antagonistic. This will likely cost the residents more money in the long run. (use of the prosecutors office,and settlement money) This is not fiscally responsible, and Mr. O'Brien caused this outcome.

Clearly, there is no spin here. You are just uncomfortable with the outcome and the implications. You want to blame Hanks for the entire situation, and that is just not true.

Anonymous said...

"-Mr. Yost cannot declare that the lease was invalid due to Mr. Hanks lack of authority to enter into the lease. This is a question that can only be answered by the court."

Are you for real? It doesn't take a court to know what's in ORC. Assistant County Attorney Betts has it exactly right in his opinion to Kaitsa.

"-The best solution would have been to work out an agreement on the outstanding lease. But instead, Mr. O'Brien had to be antagonistic. This will likely cost the residents more money in the long run. (use of the prosecutors office,and settlement money) This is not fiscally responsible, and Mr. O'Brien caused this outcome."

So, it's O'Brien's fault that you committed the taxpayers to pick up the tab for office space that you were not authorized to lease...HELLO?

"-There is also email proof that Mr. Hanks emailed the lease to Mr. Yost."

Of course--it's in YOUR INBOX.

Toad: Why do you try to defend the indefensible? Why do you take us all for fools? You are a scumbag. S-C-U-M-B-A-G. Scumbag. Scum. Bag. Scumbag.

Do us all a favor and resign. Then disappear.

Anonymous said...

How do you know what O'Brien said in executive session? You must be either Hanks or Thompson or just a liar.

By the way Tommy you can't change ORC Sunshine Laws to suit yourself. You were amusing trying that in todays meeting. Just quit meeting and talking with Hanks in the dark, then you won't be violating the law.

The best solution would be for Hanks to man up, take responsibility for his actions. Pay back all tax money he wasted on his BMV pie in the sky dream.

Hanks will be held accountable for every penny he lost in the 3+years his project didn't make a profit. All tax dollars he weaseled for seed money. He will also be held responsible for the lawsuit.

You cannot put the blame on anyone else. Hanks is the only one responsible!

Your defense is weak and delusional!

Anonymous said...

Here we go:
Are you for real? It doesn't take a court to know what's in ORC.


***It does not take a judge to read the ORC and try and apply it to a situation. And it is accurate to say that Mr. Hanks did not have the authority to sign the lease.


***BUT this is not that simple. AS I have previously stated, it is likely that the commissioners validate the lease when they paid the bill over and over and over.


Assistant County Attorney Betts has it exactly right in his opinion to Kaitsa.
***Not quite. Mr. Betts was asked to write an opinion based upon declaring the lease invalid, he was not asked about the strength or weakness of the argument. There are two sides.

***So when you look at the entire situation, it is more complicated and it would take a judge to determine the legality of the lease. And it is likely, based upon jurisprudence, that the judge would find in favor of the property owner.

***Your lack of legal knowledge is obvious in your comments and position on the simplicity of the issue.



So, it's O'Brien's fault that you committed the taxpayers to pick up the tab for office space that you were not authorized to lease...HELLO?


***First of all, I am not Todd.

***And the issue did not need to go to court at all. The issue could have been handled out of court ahead of time. We did not need one commissioner on a personal agenda ensuring litigation.

***If the court finds in favor of the property owner, which is likely, it will cost more than an amicable settlement would have. But due to Mr. O'Brien's hasty move, it could cost the taxpayer more money.

But your antagonism and lack of integrity in your arguments show how myopic you are. You cannot see that this problem was caused by many people. When a football team loses a game, it is not the fault of just one man. Many people make mistakes and all play a part in the loss. And it is the same here with the lease issue in the county. (and that is a fact, not just an opinion)

This problem could have been stopped by many people, but it was not. Take a step back from your hate and see that the issue is more complicated. In court, the county loses and so do the taxpayers. And yes, Mr. O'Brien was part of the group that made this a legal issue. If you wanna talk intelligently about the law, you should study up.

Anonymous said...

9:17 PM:


No one said anything about Ken's position in executive session. Where did this even come from? <--------------------How sad your attempts at distraction have become. Are you that insecure about your own position? So you try an introduce hysteria with made up impropriety. How pitiful!

Anonymous said...

You state over and over that "O'Brien is at fault." You stated O'Brien is trying to steal money."O'Brien is costing the county"

I watch the meetings and this lawsuit has never been discuss in public session. So you must be the Toad or Tommy to have inside info that could only have come from an executive session.

Oh wait I know you must be Toads Mom! You must be, it was you that walked into the St eGe meeting at 2 o'clock and knew all about Kabealo Thompson and Hanks Landfill. Tommy called you to the mic to defend that $3.13MM contract.. What is your name Toads Mom? How do you have information that could have only came from executive session?

Catch a few flies with that tongue Toads Mom?

Anonymous said...

Public moneys in the hands of the county or belonging to the county, are about to be or have been misapplied, or any such public moneys have been illegally drawn, or that a contract, in contravention of law, has been executed or is about to be entered into, or that such a contract was procured by illegal means, or is being illegally used or in violation of contract, or that the term of a contract made by or on behalf of the county are being or have been violated, or that money is due the county, civil action in the name of the state, apply to a court of competent jurisdiction, to restrain such contemplated misapplication of funds, or the completion of such illegal contract, or to recover, for the use of the county, all public moneys so misapplied or illegally drawn from the county, all public moneys so misapplied or illegal contract, or to recover for the benefit of the county, damages resulting from the nonperformance of the terms of such contract, or to otherwise enforce it, or to recover such money as is due the county taxpayer.

Again Toad your defense is weak and delusional!

No Spin here Toads Mom! Resign Toad!

Anonymous said...

***The lawsuit cannot be spoken of in session, that is why O'Brien was not allowed to speak about it the other day.

BUT before the suit was filed, in public session, Ken talked about trying to recoup the county money. He said so when HE voted not to pay the lease. You can go back and watch the public session and see that for yourself

----Once again you are just spinning lies and making assumptions without all the facts. It just shows more and more how poorly informed you are.

It is the same story when you ramble on about damages and money spent. The county used the building, so they should have to pay for it.

Your fixation of certainty about the lease and Hank's culpability is laughable. You have no understanding of legal issues and how they are solved. You just spin what you think is true, and continue to show how foolish you are.



----Keep it up, you are making a great argument against yourself and your point of view. It is likely that you will lose this one.

Anonymous said...

"You cannot see that this problem was caused by many people. When a football team loses a game, it is not the fault of just one man. Many people make mistakes and all play a part in the loss. And it is the same here with the lease issue in the county. (and that is a fact, not just an opinion)"

See, this is where the sophistry begins. Allowing that rationale takes Toad off the hook. Let's play the "Spread The Blame" game.
Ken O'Brien, Tommy Thompson and their predecessors, Dave Yost or anyone else is not to blame. They did not exceed their statutory limits and lease office space. Todd Hanks did. To suggest that blame lies elsewhere shows your lack of integrity and, for that matter, maturity.

Stop the charade, Toad. You fool nobody here. You persuade nobody here.

I can't wait to see you defeated.

Anonymous said...

2:12 AM,
Your childlike repetition proves that you do not understand the larger context of this legal matter. It is not a single issue of and auditor's authority.

It has been posted over and over that there is a larger issue at hand. It has even been explained in a legal context.

Your juvenile regurgitation of your Internet findings on monetary flow was a cute attempt, but it lacks context and depth. It looks like you cut and pasted words without totally understanding how they all fit together.

You can keep grabbing at straws, and trying to defame people with lies, but that will all burn in the end. All one has to do is watch the public meeting when Ken talked about the county having to try and get back money from the property owner to see how uninformed or full of garbage you are.

Anonymous said...

"See, this is where the sophistry begins. Allowing that rationale takes Toad off the hook. Let's play the "Spread The Blame" game."

This quote shows your bias against Hanks. It is no game to explain that many people had a hand in this debacle. Your inner desire to see Hanks fry is overwhelming any sensibility you may have. You cannot handle the fact that many people played a role in the lease and the lawsuit that was filed. (especially in light of the legal argument that the lease is valid due to the commissioners authorizing payment)

Anonymous said...

"This quote shows your bias against Hanks. It is no game to explain that many people had a hand in this debacle. Your inner desire to see Hanks fry is overwhelming any sensibility you may have. You cannot handle the fact that many people played a role in the lease and the lawsuit that was filed. (especially in light of the legal argument that the lease is valid due to the commissioners authorizing payment)"

No. You don't understand. If Toad Hanks had not exceeded his statutory authority we wouldn't be talking about this. The blame is not on Boss Hog or Don Evans, O'Brien, Thompson, Yost, or anyone else. The sole touchpoint for the illegal leasing of this office space is Toad Hanks.

Your sophistry is not changing anyone's mind here. I have no irrational dislike for Toad Hanks. I've never met him. But I keep reading about him and the unethical and reckless things that he does as my commissioner, and I don't like it. Why is it that we keep seeing article after article being written about him, on controversies that were caused by his poor judgement and unethical actions? Are the local papers biased, too? Do they have an irrational dislike for Toad Hanks, too?

Anonymous said...

8:12 AM,
Your ignorance comes from thinking this is an iron clad case solely against Hanks. You continue to pepper your retorts with lies about what has been said and done. Your paranoia and utter ignorant rages show how twisted your logic is. But all in due time, you will see how wrong you are.

Anonymous said...

As I sit here and read comments, I have to chuckle at some of the "arguments" being made.

"Your sophistry is not changing anyone's mind here."

-Yet responses come quickly. I would think that if the arguments are so ineffective, no one would see the need to retort so quickly and in such a nasty manner. Sounds like someone is worried that another perspective is being given and possibly considered.


"Are the local papers biased, too? Do they have an irrational dislike for Toad Hanks, too?"


-Another fine example of faulty comparison being made here. You would have the gull to compare your comments that consist of some facts, baseless accusations, and outright lies to be on the same playing field as the Gazette or the Dispatch? They have journalistic standards that they try to comply with. You however have no accountability. You twist facts into your lies and baseless speculation. You lack serious integrity, and people know it.

Thanks for further examples of poor logic, lies, and accusations. Too bad you can't or won't see the entire picture.