Freedom of speech? Hello???

After the big show on January 2 when Bill Street took over, we asked for an extension so that he could be caught up on all the legal mess of the past couple of years. To say his arrival on the scene was well received by the other side that day was a huge lie. They were PISSED. As Phil snapped his fingers and commanded his group to reconvene outside the courtroom we all looked on as they shuffled out. This was big news to them. They had expected an entirely different agenda that day.

Anyway, after much debate and calendar checking a new date of Jan. 29th was selected and we all left. The other side wasn't happy. They had expected to move quickly on the MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPHINE S. LEE SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATING COURT ORDER. Sounds like fun!

Our other attorney received a subpoena to appear as a witness at the hearing scheduled before Judge Borchard on Thursday, January 29, 2009. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? We had heard in court that an "out of town" witness was to be called as well.. The caretaker for the association. WHAT? Nice, this was shaping up to be a pretty exciting time in court.

Ok, this gap in court proceedings allowed Bill and the rest of us to meet, discuss and work out the defense. In a long, detailed account of mother's "contempt" of court orders, Bill responded; "7. is also denied in its allegation that defendant 'published' this photograph on the internet. (referring to the Sheriff deputy handing mother the orders). These two allegations are not well grounded in fact, are intended to harass defendant , bias the Court, needlessly increase the cost of this litigation, and are frivolous claims warranting imposition of costs and sanctions. On information and belief, the photograph, and some commentary critical of plaintiff David Symons' boorish behavior towards his sister at Christmas time was posted briefly on a web site called 'The Red Door Journal' blog spot, but much of the criticism was taken down. It was not posted by the defendant, (defendant rarely utilizes the internet except for e-mail communications). Plaintiff David Symons filed the instant lawsuit, injecting the issues in this litigation and his own needlessly litigious character squarely into the public domain. The blog posting of other people, and other people's commentary over the internet as a communications medium that is critical of plaintiff David Symons' treatment of his own sister during the Christmas holiday season, is not evidence of contempt of court. It is protected free speech. (US Const Am I and XIV; 1963 Const art 1, paragrahp 5.

Oh.. the other side, besides wanting mother punished by the "wearing of orange" also wanted money. Yeah. Oh, they were so damaged!!! More to come...