Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Guess Who Is Financing Da Queen's Legal Defense Team --- YOU ARE!

No TruthTellers, da title of this blog is not a typo.

When da Queen decided to tell da world that Manalapan Police Chief Stu Brown was "a threat to women," among the other things she said during a televised Township Committee meeting, it seems, at least for da moment, she won't have to worry about being held personally accountable for her actions. Instead --- YOU WILL! Manalapan Township will be picking up da tab for her legal defense team in da defamation case of "Manalapan Police Chief Stu Brown vs. Michelle Roth."

And, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

In a news account by da News Transcript, actual and very qualified reporter Mark Rosman quoted da Manalapan Township Attorney Roger McLaughlin-all-da-way-to-da-bank when he said "Manalapan’s ordinances “provide for the full defense of officials and employees having to do with their position or employment. There is no issue. The township is obligated to defend and indemnify (Roth) to the fullest extent of the law. That is what is being done in this case."

So, as it appears, da Queen will have da very best legal defense team YOUR MONEY can buy - because, as da township attorney said "There is no issue. The township is obligated to defend and indemnify (Roth) to the fullest extent of the law. That is what is being done in this case!"

Now, to be fair, some have called this case a "frivolous" lawsuit filed by Chief Brown and his attorney, none other than da Mosked Man.

Maybe we should investigate this:

ISSUE 1: WHERE WERE DA STATEMENTS SAID?

Da statements, more than 7 minutes of them, happened at a September, 2009 Manalapan Township Meeting. It is interesting to note da statements came as an off-topic statement initiated by da Queen, because as far as anyone knows they were not on da agenda as a topic of discussion to be voted on, and at no time did da then-township attorney make any motions to have her stop her statement in any way.

ISSUE 2: WHAT WAS SAID?

Here is just a small sample of da comments da Queen made during her 7-or so minute speech.....

"Sexual harassment, verbal abuse and abuse of power by Manalapan Police Chief Stuart Brown..."

"Chief Brown has a history of verbally assaulting and threatening women."

"Chief Brown’s attack last September on me..."

"Chief Brown’s rage."

"Chief Brown and his repetitive abusive behavior toward women."

"His demeaning language and threatening behavior."

"I do not want any other women to be victims of Chief Brown’s rage
."


There is nobody claiming that she didn't say any of this. However, for da sake of evidence, if you have any doubts you can watch da whole Roth-O-Gram on YouTube - which is definitely "must-see TV."

ISSUE 3: HOW WERE THE STATEMENTS MADE?

This may be a serious question that has not been raised, and maybe should be. If you watch da video very closely, if you watch da entire video, stay fixed on da Queen. You will see her look down more often that we can keep count, meaning, it gives da appearance that either she has either has a serious neck issue and should see a doctor which should be covered under her paid-for-by-da-township health care plan (we're giving her da benefit of da doubt here), or she may have been reading off a prepared text.

Now, for da sake of argument here, if da Queen was reading off a prepared text, that could be construed as meaning she wrote out what she was going to say before she said it at da meeting. Webster's definition of "premeditated" is, "characterized by fully conscious willful intent and a measure of forethought and planning."

Now, again solely for da sake of argument, and to be fair, let's take this a step further. Let's say, only for da sake of argument, that da Queen wrote her speech that she was looking down at a lot prior to da meeting while at home a week prior while eating a nice homemade dish of pasta. If that were situation, then that means da statements she said were thought of prior to da meeting, which would give da appearance that those statements, including "Sexual harassment, verbal abuse and abuse of power by Manalapan Police Chief Stuart Brown...", and "Chief Brown has a history of verbally assaulting and threatening women." were not just off da top of her head and thought of ahead of time, henceforth, da thought of a premeditated act.

ISSUE 4: "PREMEDITATED ACT?"

Webster's definition of "premeditated" is, "characterized by fully conscious willful intent and a measure of forethought and planning."

This begs an interesting question - if, and this would have to be determined in a court, if the act of alleged defamation by da Queen were a premeditated act, and if that were found to be daTruth, then should da taxpayers of Manalapan be made to use their hard-earned tax money to pay for a premeditated act? What type of precedent does this set, and what kind of message to elected officials does this send?

Here's an interesting question that deserves an answer. For da sake of argument using a completely ficticious scenario, "Whatever Township Committeeman Horatio Shmoe is arrested for DWI while driving to a meeting of da state board of tax & spenders. Committeeman Shmoe was on township business at da time, even going as far as listening to a tape of a township meeting in a township car as he was pulled over, and following a breathilizer found to be above da legal limit, but only slightly above."

Question - Does Committeeman Shmoe deserve to have his legal defense paid for by township tax dollars because he was an elected township official at da time of da incident?

From a legal standpoint, an argument can be made that according to the statement made by Manalapan Township Attorney Roger McLaughlin-all-da-way-to-da-bank to actual reporter Rosman, "provide for the full defense of officials and employees having to do with their position or employment. There is no issue. The township is obligated to defend and indemnify to the fullest extent of the law," then one might be led to believe that fake Committeeman Shmoe's legal defense would have to be paid for by da town.

In this completely fake scenario, Committeeman Shmoe consumed alcohol prior to getting into da township car - a premeditated act, and going to represent da township. Da case could be made that as a township official, Committeeman Shmoe, within da confines of township business should have legal representation by da taxpayers.

Da question is, if an act - any act - made by a township official which could lead to a legal challenge, should that challenge be paid for by da taxpayers of Manalapan?

We would all be curious as to how this would stack up, even in a college Moot Court.

ISSUE 5: DO TAXPAYING CITIZENS HAVE ANY RECOURSE?

From a legal standpoint here - not much.

According to da current events in this case, if da elected officials vote to have da Queen's legal bills paid by YOU DA TAXPAYER, then that's da final story.

As for recourse, from a legal standpoint, there may not be any. You can always vote da people out who approved this measure, but that can take a year or two, and in da end you're still going to pay for da Queen's Legal Dream Team - and, legally, even if da person is voted out of office and da case is still in continuance, da TAXPAYERS will still be on da hook to pay.

Can citizens mount a class-action lawsuit to have da Queen pay her own bills? We can bet you'd find a lawyer in this state who would take a case like that, however, it would not only be costly to those taxpayers, but da Queen's legal defense (YOU DA TAXPAYERS) would be paying for her legal defense here too based upon da current situation.

ISSUE 6: HOW LONG WILL THIS GO ON - AND HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

Here's what daTruthSquad believes - - This case will be settled out of court, and that will happen before this year ends. The reason here is simple. Da Queen's reign on da Manalapan Township Committee ends at da end of 2011. Next year is her election year, and would you want a court case like this hanging over your head if you were running for reelection? If you're da Chief or his attorney, you can raise da bar high because da longer this case drags on, da more likely we believe it will be settled before it reaches a court of law and a jury, and let's face facts, if you're da Chief and his attorney, that YouTube video might just be "Exhibit A."

As for da cost - we probably will never truly know. Da settlement in a case like this can be sealed by an order of a judge if one of da parties seeks it, and therefore both parties will be locked into keeping da final outcome a secret, even though taxpayers are footing da bill. Any settlement will be paid for by da insurance carrier, unless it breaks a threshold, minus any possible deductible depending on da language within da contract of da carrier. As for legal fees, we probably will never know, even if we submit a claim through da Freedom of Information Act, because as of late, it appears some legal bills for da most part aren't itemized, so we will not know for any absolute certainty how much was really billed by da Legal Dream Team of lawyers who will be a part of this case representing da Queen and paid for by YOU DA TAXPAYER.

DaTruth is, a case like this, it's in da best interest of da Queen to end it before her reelection campaign begins again next year, and a settlement is also good for da Chief as long as it contains language showing he truly was da victim in this case. In addition, a wild-card here is also da fact that da Queen made statements about both da Chief's work performance and also that he was being investigated. Da problem there is - under law you have to notify someone that they are being investigated, which is a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act, if that point is proven in a court of law.

In addition, there's da question of da Queen's claims of da Chief being investigated. As we know so far, absolutely nothing has come out of any investigation over all of these months, if one was being done at all. And, you would have to think that this puts da Queen in a very bad situation.

(1) -- If there was an investigation, and if we are to believe da Queen, then if an investigation yielded nothing, da Chief's case is that much better, and da Queen will obviously face questions of character for that for not letting da women of da township know they are safe from da "Chief's rage" and da Chief's "history of verbally assaulting and threatening women."

(2) -- If it actually yielded something, and nobody was told, then women aren't safe - and haven't been safe - and that will fall on da Queen's shoulders. However, we don't put much stock in that scenario - and of course, there would be questions as to why da Watergate investigation was shorter than da invstigation into da Chief that he apparently didn't know about.

(3) -- Worst case scenario - da safety of women has already been jeopardized, much akin to da person who cried "assault." If you claim something that didn't happen, then you have now made it that much harder for da next person who really was "assaulted" to get people to believe them.


DaTruth is, this should have never gone as far as it already has. You have da Queen saying one thing, da Chief saying another, and even innocent bystander Committeewoman Susan Cohen saying da Queen's version isn't exactly on da level, and as far as anyone knows, we don't even know what Tara Tiara's version would or could be.

Da only thing we do know for absolute certainty is, we have before us a "She said, He said, another She says something else, and yet another She hasn't said anything - and nobody seems to know who is paying for da investigation into da Chief that he apparently didn't know about and what da outcome of that alleged investigation is." And, we also know perjury is against da law, and something has to give, and as for giving, that would be YOU DA TAXPAYER because it is YOU DA TAXPAYER that will be paying for this scenario to be played out!

And that's daTruth!

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

My opinion - GUILTY!

Anonymous said...

I don't necessarily agree here. While I watched the video of the committeewoman, it's clear to me IMHO that she was reading off a prepared script. However, I think she should be covered by the township in this lawsuit.

However, if there is a settlement and admission of guilt, then I believe she should pay the township back every penny of taxpayer money that was spent for her defense. That would only be fair and justice served.

Anonymous said...

What part of "frivolous lawsuit" do you people not understand. This is all being orchestrated by the attorney representing Stu Brown. Of course the township should pay for Roth's legal defense. Every penny.

Anonymous said...

Re: 'frivolous lawsuit'

If you're saying that an officer of the court with a spotless 30-year career and, by all accounts, an outstanding reputation should not defend his good name, you're loonier than the perpetrator.

Anonymous said...

As a taxpayer in Manalapan, I am absolutely furious that my tax dollars are going to pay for Michelle Roth's legal defense. After watching the video, it's pretty clear to me what she said was horrible, and she said it clearly to defame the Chief in my opinion, and probably that of others.

There has to be something we as taxpayers can do, other than vote these losers out of office. Please, somebody come up with a plan here!

Anonymous said...

I have no idea when Michelle Roth is up for relection, but when that time comes, she won't get my vote.

I will also not vote for anyone this year who is a sitting member of the Manalapan Township Committee. That will be the way I protest what is going on. If there are independents, I will vote for them.

Anonymous said...

he defended it in the suspension proceeding and he LOST, so thence came the spots.

Anonymous said...

The suspension proceeding was one tiny case from one instant among the many Roth spoke of. That many included the grandiose and sweeping statment that the Chief posed a danger to all women in the township and especially those he worked with.

That is calumny and libel of the first order, as a large number of prominent personalities came forward right away to affirm.

Anonymous said...

Once again, Michelle's dishonest supporters (I know, that's redundant) are spreading garbage to protect the most vile township committeeperson ever. The chief did NOT lose the suspension hearing. He never lost a day's pay, he never lost a day's work. The taxpayer's had to pay $40,000.00 in legal fees for Michelle's year long crusade to destroy the Chief which ended with her crawling out of court with her tail between her legs as the settlement was reached providing no punishment whatsoever for the chief. The Chief didn't lose. Michelle Roth lost. And the taxpayers who have been paying for years for her mistakes lost. His record remains spotless.

Anonymous said...

The limitation on liability privilege applies to bar claims for tortious conduct other than defamation. Peterson v. Ballard, 292 N.J. Super. 575, 582 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 147 N.J. 260 (1996) (citing Rainier's Dairies, supra, 19 N.J. at 558). The township attorney should have required an indemnification clause if defamation is found or a settlement[to avoid litigation for such] was reached.

Anonymous said...

With all the taxing and taxpayer paying legal bills we must set Manalapan free VOTE JOEY D !

Anonymous said...

While I agree that the town attorney should represent Michelle Roth or any elected official who is sued, and they should get the best representation possible, there has to be limits.

If a judge finds that Roth is guilty of defamation, then I believe she should be made to pay all the money back for her legal defense.

If the lawsuit is a frivolous one, then the person who started the lawsuit should be made to pay back the township for legal expenses. At least that would be fair on the taxpayers who are paying for this. It also might deter others if the lawsuit is frivolous from trying something like this again.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

I would have to doubt the Chief, probably the best police chief this town has ever had, would do what he is doing if he weren't wronged in soem way. And you have to give Roth credit. She made that speech during a meeting, so it becomes town business and now we all have to pay for her arrogance.

Anonymous said...

I hope someone like a Joey D or someone else runs as an Independent. I'm certainly not voting for Andrew due to his political cronyism. I don't think you can trust any of these people running, so if an Independent runs, they have my vote because they're not beholden to anyone, and they will work for us.

Anonymous said...

Joey D to the rescue ! NO higher TAXES VOTE JOEY D!!

marion said...

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Alena

http://smallbusinessgrant.info