Monday, January 25, 2010

Open Forum

The Open Forum is your chance to say something, report breaking news or ask a question -- on any issue. Any topic is fair game, although Blue Hill Today's comment policies still apply. (see bottom of left hand column.) Our first four Open Forums have had 24 comments including; the Mass. Senate vote, subpoena's, County Commisioners give themselve's a pay raise, bobcat basketball, citizen of the year, Haiti, good samaratins, child safety, tax deductions for pet owners, parking and personal property, academic achievement of local alum, local service man sends Christmas greetings, the health care debate, a birth announcement, quotes from Parker Griffith and Adrian Smith, Christmas eve church services, the Mayor, and trash disposal. Go ahead and sound off on anything. We are listening.A new Open Forum link will be re-posted every Monday (or there abouts) to keep it towards the top of the recent posts. Of course, your completed news article, news information, story idea, or suggestions to improve this site can still be sent to Blue Hill Today by e-mailing us at bluehilltoday@hotmail.com.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Webster County, through the corruption of the County Attorneys office is now faced with about $15,000 debt for malicious actions committed by Jerry McDole and Tim Schmidt. Malicious prosecution is a crime.
Webster County is not responsible for debt encored during the commission of a crime. It would be like if one of the roads employees used a road grader to mow down someone’s home deliberately. The County should not have to pay for that criminal act. The County Insurance would not pay because it was done during the commission of a crime. The person who destroyed the home would be held responsible for the damage they caused. That is exactly what we have with the actions by McDole that now have the County facing large expense of a jury trial.
I hope that the County Commissioners do not pay for the criminal actions of McDole. It is not the responsibility of the county to pay for criminal acts made by employees or elected officials.

malicious prosecution n. filing a lawsuit with the intention of creating problems for the defendant such as costs, attorneys fees, anguish, or distraction when there is no substantial basis for the suit. If the defendant in the lawsuit wins, and has evidence that the suit was filed out of spite and without any legal or factual foundation, he/she may, in turn, sue for damages against the person who filed the original action. If malice is clearly proved against the party who brought the original suit, punitive damages may be awarded along with special and general damages. In recent cases, courts have ruled that an attorney who knowingly assists a client in filing a worthless lawsuit out of malice or spite may be liable for damages along with the client. The suit by the victim to recover damages for a malicious prosecution cannot be filed until the original law suit is decided in favor of the victim. (See: malice)
malicious prosecution noun indefensible prosecution, Kafka-like prosecution, malicious charges instituted by a prosecutor, malicious criminal enforcement, malicious pursuit by a law enforcement agency, prosecution maintained with venal intentions, prosecution without proper procedures, reprehensible prosecution, unconscionable prosecution, unconstitutional prosecution, underhanded prosecution, unfair prosecution, unjust and unfair pursuit of criminal charges, unjustifiable prosecution, unmerited prosecution, unprincipled prosecution, unscrupulous prosecution, unwarrantable prosecution, wrongful prosecution

Anonymous said...

Another Kudos to the Boys Basketball team. Now 11-3 with big wins over Sandy Creek & Lawrence-Nelson and a number one seed going into the TVC Tournament.

jessephred said...

Wow ... the Census cannot count Blue Hill soon enough. A dozen residents have moved to a better place in the last two months alone. Our prayers are with all the famalies.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing to worry about. Prosecutors are covered by absolute immunity. They can do whatever they want and they are "safe". They can not be held responsible for their "crimes". A prosecutor is "not guilty" of any crime they committ. Why else would they commit such crimes so blatantly.
Just like the prosecutor of the Duke Lacrosse tream and others in the past, you can make noise but in the end they can get away with it. The prosecutors will get away with it, the taypayers will pay.
Only someone who can think "outside the box" would be able to think of a way to make these two be held responsible for their actions.