An interesting series of articles came out in the Miner this last week. I am linking to parts one and two today. I read part three in the old fashioned hard copy this morning and will update this post when it is available at the KDM website.
The gist... a local developer sued an out of town developer. The judge presiding over the case found in favor of the local developer. While the case was being heard... the judge appeared to be part of a consensus of County officials that recommended purchasing a multi-million dollar building from the local developer.
The details are better explained by the journalist, who by the way has done a fabulous job with her reporting. Please read all of the links below.
Part one: Controversy dogs county's Probation Department move
Part two: County manager raises questions about deal
Part three: Dunton questions handling of deal
Update and correction...
Earlier I posted in error. The Judge in the case did not find in favor of the plaintiff in the local developer vs. out of town developer. A jury did. I apologize to anyone that may have been offended by my remarks.
It is still my opinion that most people in the area would be a little leery as a defendant being sued by a plaintiff in a court with a presiding Judge that is part of a consensus of County officials that is backing a recommendation to pay the plaintiff millions of dollars for property while the trial is taking place.
No comments:
Post a Comment