I read last week in the News Herald that the lawsuit between Sgt Kaminski of the LPPD and the City of LP has been settled.

Once again the city's insurance company settled a lawsuit brought against the city.

Sgt Kaminski brought a suit against the city. According to the News Herald, he claimed Mayor Brown retaliated against him and prevented him from being promoted from sgt to Lieutenant.

According to the News Herald "Attorneys for the city and Kaminski recently agreed on a settlement amount, keeping the matter from going to trial"

The article goes on to say "A confidentiality clause was built into the agreement; however, keeping both sides from talking about the dollar amount settled upon"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Five Year Millage? Yes
A non-limited Millage? Never
Vote NO on Proposal R

  Submit to Quotes         

Veritas Scriptor (09-02-05), TheGirlNextDoor (09-02-05)

Sounds to me like Mr. Kaminski got no where near the money he wanted. If he had, he'd be willing and wanting to yell it from the rooftops to show the world that he succeeded.

  Submit to Quotes         

From what I read, there is a gag order in place. I would say the gag order was something the city wanted. They did not want the voters to know how much the city had to pay for the Mayor's screwing up.

  Submit to Quotes         

Veritas Scriptor (09-02-05), TheGirlNextDoor (09-02-05)

If he received a settlement, he succeeded. The check is their apology.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Accountability for all, big or small, is what's needed this fall.

  Submit to Quotes         

and admitance of guilt.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Arctic Cat Thundercat Test Pilot

  Submit to Quotes         

TheGirlNextDoor (09-02-05)

There is a built-in contempt of court clause attached to settlements. That is why someone receiving a settlement doesn't "yell it from the rooftops". Believe me, I bet he wants to!!!

  Submit to Quotes         

I would guess that Charlie will be "Moving On Up" I doubt he will be living in Lincoln Park after he cashes his check.

Lincoln Park can put all the spin they want on this, the fact is they screwed up and had to pay for it.

Like GND said, the check is the city's apology

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
recordar la yocorazon

  Submit to Quotes         

TheGirlNextDoor (09-02-05)

Sorry to keep going on about this subject, but I have first-hand knowledge of how this all works. Sometimes I'm afraid to share it with all of you, as what I've learned is very disheartening.

The justice system is not interested in our cry against corruption. The courts want settlements, due to the enormous amount of backlog.

The lawyers play games amongst themselves, all of it in Latin, of course. You wait, and wait, and wait for justice. In the meantime, the machine degrades you and your family. Your family has no idea why you continue to stand and fight with all the added stress that comes along with it.

The Council sits back and pretends they know nothing. When Council is confronted by citizens, they use the "it's in ligitgation" excuse built in from our city attorneys. While all this is going on, the local rag picks up on it, and prints half truths causing more frustration between the City and it's citizens.

Right before you go to trial, the Courts force you to go thru settlement conferences. While face to face with your Judge, the lawyers debate and drool for settlement. When the lawyers are happy with the numbers, the Judge looks at you for an answer. Talk about intimidating!!! Tell the Judge "No"??? Let me tell you from experience, a federal judge means business. The settlement conferences are mandatory. They talk to you about how much a trial "costs" taxpayers. Next thing you know, you start to feel guilty for wanting justice. You realize that the justice system is not interested in holding them accountable, just eliminating backlogged cases.

So next time you hear "settlement", know what a person has been through to get that far. It's a lot harder to sue "City Hall" than you think. And if you are an employee, the retaliation factor makes it all the worse.

  Submit to Quotes         

One difference in this lawsuit than the Shooting lawsuit.

The Insurance company settled without talking to the shooting dor the Shooting Lawsuit.

According to the News Herald, the City Attorney's negotiated this settlement.

Here is a quote from the NH by one of the city's attornies. "Everything in that lawsuit is plainly contrary to the facts" If the claims were so untrue, why did the city give Charlie the dough?

Sorta like a boxer who gets knocked to the canvass and looks up at the guy standing over him and says "Have you had enough?"

  Submit to Quotes         

TheGirlNextDoor (09-02-05)

Yes, Don, that is different. Makes you wonder why?

In the Allen Park cases, the Mayor said the suits "had no merit".

  Submit to Quotes         

I hope it's not an admittance of guilt. Otherwise, the city admitted 1.8 million times that they did something wrong when they shot and killed that man at Fort and Arlington.

  Submit to Quotes         

That's exactly what they did!

  Submit to Quotes         

Let's say the city paid Kaminski $25,000 in the settlement. And let's say they knew it would cost $40,000 in attorney's fees to fight the suit. Doesn't the city come out ahead in settling instead? I'm not saying it's right, but it's the sad reality of lawsuits, attorney costs, etc. Because of that reason, I don't automatically think of settlements as an "admission of guilt"

  Submit to Quotes         

In the shooting case, the city had no say so. It was a decision of the Insurance Company not to go to court.

The Kaminski case is different. The attorney for the city worked out the settlement. The city was involved and agreed to pay Charlie.

  Submit to Quotes         

TheGirlNextDoor (09-02-05)

In this scenario I would agree, Wolverine.

  Submit to Quotes         

Exactly! As a matter of fact I have heard of lawsuits against AP being settled for something like $5000. That is chump change. It is not any admission of guilt at all, it is nuisance money!

I have heard that the Kaminski suit fell into that category. Nuisance settlement. Pay a few grand and be done with it versus spending 10's of thousands of our tax dollars. Seeing as it was accepted tells you that the plaintiff knew they were pushing their luck with the case.

But that is just my opinion, others I'm sure, will vary.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Believe half of what you hear and none of what you read, especially in the News Herald!

  Submit to Quotes         

TheGirlNextDoor (09-03-05)

That's exactly what I heard about Kaminski's suit as well. I agree with you 100 percent .. and I love what they call it: a nuisance settlement. They settled a nuisance. Indeed.

  Submit to Quotes         

Yes, you are right, TGND. One of the suits did end with an amount of $5,000. But you are wrong on this one being a "nuisance" case. This was not a settled upon amount, this case went to an arbitrator. You cannot compare the two.

Otherwise, lawsuits settling for this amount I would consider being a "nuisance" too. It's suits like those that take away meaning of the real cases with real issues.

The Magistrate in my case commended me for my service to the citizens, then advised me to settle. I gave up on the justice system, and will take my case to the community, right where it belongs!!! I'll let the citizens decide whether or not I serve them again in the next election. That's all that has ever mattered to me, the approval of my ultimate boss, the community.

p.s. You should not judge someone who settles until you've walked in their shoes. Settlement is relief for your family, which means more to me than any dollar amount. The community needs to hold their officials ACCOUNTABLE, thus saving tons of cash used to hide their guilt!

  Submit to Quotes         

I don't judge anyone who chooses to settle. I do beleive that someone who was truly wronged (as I beleive you were) would never settle for $5000. I am quite sure you did better than that! If someone was truly wronged I would tell them to take it all the way to the Supreme Court, but whe someone settles for a pittance it tells me a lot about the underlying lawsuit.

  Submit to Quotes         

TheGirlNextDoor (09-03-05)

Coming from you, TGND, means a lot.

  Submit to Quotes