14 Jul 08
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/14/harris.denied.water.cnn
A small black community in Ohio was denied public water for over 50 years, the pipes were laid back in 1958 but the town refused to run pipes to this small community of 70 residents. They just fought back and won an 11 MILLION dollar settlement. The town will appeal but the ACLU lawyer said the the verdict was unanimous, a clear case of racial bigotry, which means the likely hood of a reversal is slim to none. It appears there are lots of communities around the US with this BS going on. Now those 70 residents can BUY their own town🙂
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by sonhouseIntresting html...trouble is I can't see any Racial Bigotry..
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/14/harris.denied.water.cnn
A small black community in Ohio was denied public water for over 50 years, the pipes were laid back in 1958 but the town refused to run pipes to this small community of 70 residents. They just fought back and won an 11 MILLION dollar settlement. The town will appeal but the ACLU lawyer ...[text shortened]... communities around the US with this BS going on. Now those 70 residents can BUY their own town🙂
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by sonhouseWow!
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/14/harris.denied.water.cnn
A small black community in Ohio was denied public water for over 50 years, the pipes were laid back in 1958 but the town refused to run pipes to this small community of 70 residents. They just fought back and won an 11 MILLION dollar settlement. The town will appeal but the ACLU lawyer ...[text shortened]... communities around the US with this BS going on. Now those 70 residents can BUY their own town🙂
14 Jul 08
2 edits
Utter tripe, here's the real story:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/07/10/ap5203804.html
The residents were outside the water district and subsisted on wells, a common practice all over the country. The water district tried to get the residents to sign up and they continually refused, nobody denied them nuthin'. End of story.
I owned a house in Jacksonville Florida that had just such a set up, no big deal. It never occured to me to sue anybody.
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamApparently not. They won. unanimous decision.
Utter tripe, here's the real story:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/07/10/ap5203804.html
The residents were outside the water district and subsisted on wells, a common practice. The water district tried to get the residents to sign up and they continually refused, nobody denied them nuthin'. End of story.
15 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseIt's being appealed, they better not start counting their money yet. I don't know what percentage of the country uses wells, but in outlying country areas, it's substantial and commonplace. Nothing remotely racist about it. These people had a sympathetic jury of chuckleheads, it's unlikely they'll get a dime. If they win, there'll be countless millions of others hoping to jump on the bandwagon, and it ain't gonna happen.
Apparently not. They won. unanimous decision.
You saw in the video where these homes were, right? Cities can't possibly afford to run water and sewage lines out to infinity because someone built a home in the middle of noplace, and if they had water and septic tanks set up, what exactly did they expect?
From the article:
"A founding member of the water authority, who served for 11 years, John Montgomery said he was flabbergasted at the verdicts. He said the authority “walked up and down Coal Run Road to get people signed up and nobody would do it.”
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamWell maybe there is more to the story than in the news. For instance, just how far out of town is the community? Can this dude prove he or others actively tried to sign people up? Could it be the people actually tried to get hooked up but were denied? Why do you believe just that one dude who was an angel?
It's being appealed, they better not start counting their money yet. I don't know what percentage of the country uses wells, but in outlying country areas, it's substantial and commonplace. Nothing remotely racist about it. These people had a sympathetic jury of chuckleheads, it's unlikely they'll get a dime. If they win, there'll be countless millions ...[text shortened]... rity “walked up and down Coal Run Road to get people signed up and nobody would do it.”
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy do you believe otherwise?
Well maybe there is more to the story than in the news. For instance, just how far out of town is the community? Can this dude prove he or others actively tried to sign people up? Could it be the people actually tried to get hooked up but were denied? Why do you believe just that one dude who was an angel?
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOr maybe the jurors didn't get the whole story:
Maybe because more than one juror studied the issue, were charged with fairly deciding what happened and decided otherwise.
Again, from the article
"Attorney Mark Landes, who represented the county and water district, called the verdict disappointing. He said jurors were not allowed to hear defendants' testimony that neighborhood residents were offered water service years ago and refused it."
Gotta wonder why the jurors weren't allowed to hear both sides of the story.
15 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Sam The ShamMaybe the lawyer representing the losing side is latching on to that excuse to preserve his ego and reputation, and there's a good reason for their not hearing that evidence. Maybe not.
Or maybe the jurors didn't get the whole story:
Again, from the article
"Attorney Mark Landes, who represented the county and water district, called the verdict disappointing. He said jurors were not allowed to hear defendants' testimony that neighborhood residents were offered water service years ago and refused it."
Gotta wonder why the jurors weren't allowed to hear both sides of the story.
There's no way to tell, but it's not hard to see that the losing lawyer might be biased against the decision.
15 Jul 08
Does anyone honestly believe that a group of city administrators in this day and age sat down and said "oh, we won't give this bunch of people 5 miles out of town any water service because they are black"?
The notion is ridiculous.What's also ridiculous is that juries today are happy to appease any group that cries "racism", it's almost an automatic win for them, no matter how weak the claim.
15 Jul 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Sam The ShamDoes anyone honestly believe that a jury that's been checked out by both attorneys sat down and said "oh, we are going to lie about what happened because the people suing are black?" and that 100% of the jurors were cool with it?
Does anyone honestly believe that a group of city administrators in this day and age sat down and said "oh, we won't give this bunch of people 5 miles out of town any water service because they are black"?
The notion is ridiculous.What's also ridiculous is that juries today are happy to appease any group that cries "racism", it's almost an automatic win for them, no matter how weak the claim.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou definitely couldn't tell if there was a reason other than race from the cnn interview. What a piece of crap that was.
Maybe the lawyer representing the losing side is latching on to that excuse to preserve his ego and reputation, and there's a good reason for their not hearing that evidence. Maybe not.
There's no way to tell, but it's not hard to see that the losing lawyer might be biased against the decision.