THIS SECTION CONTAINS ARTICLES FROM REASONABLY RESPECTABLE PUBLICATIONS WHICH MENTION BEVIS SCHOCK.
PAST RESULTS AFFORD NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS AND EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT AND MUST BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERITS.
________________________________________________________________________________
http://molawyersmedia.com
PENDING PROTECTION ORDERS YANKED FROM PUBLIC VIEW
by Jason Rosenbaum
Published: April 11, 2010
The client couldn’t stand it.
He typed his name into Case.net and up popped an ugly classification: “Protection Order: Adult Abuse Stalking.”
Attorney W.
His ex-girlfriend had filed what he called a meritless order of protection against him, claiming abuse, and then dropped it. Yet the record remained online for everyone to see. The client owned a
“If they look up Case.net and they see I have this thing against me, they might drop me,” the client said to his attorney, W.
Schock, a
Now pending orders of protection don’t appear on Case.net until judges grant full orders of protection.
Family law attorneys toasted the change as a much-needed method to protect respondents from unsubstantiated abuse claims.
But three months after the change took effect, several attorneys who serve domestic violence victims say it’s much harder to keep track of clients’ cases.
More importantly, it’s tougher to figure out when an alleged abuser has been served with the order of protection, they said. Service of the petition can trigger retaliatory violence, and it’s a critical time period when abuse victims need to stay on high alert.
“The safety measure it afforded was much more important than any sort of perceived stigma,” said Jason Dodson, managing attorney of the Family Law Unit at Legal Services of Eastern Missouri.
Committee members, including St. Louis Circuit Judge Jimmie Edwards, said they never heard concerns from victim advocates while the committee considered changing the rule. And they haven’t heard anything since it took effect.
That may change Friday at a public comment session in
“Openness is generally a better way to clean up concerns about inaccuracy than attempting to put everything back in a box,” Maneke said.
Pace of change
Schock said he spent 40 to 50 unpaid hours drafting an 18-page federal lawsuit against Greg Linhares, state courts administrator. Among other arguments, the lawsuit claimed the prior public records rule treats respondents differently than petitioners, because respondents are named online but petitioners are not.
The federal 2005 Violence Against Women Act prohibits states from publishing online any identifying information about people seeking protection.
Judge Douglas Beach hears a case during family court at the St. Louis County Circuit Courts building in Clayton. Photo by Sarah Conard
Schock said he sent the lawsuit with a letter to the State Judicial Records Committee.
He said he told the committee, “I’m not going to file this in the hopes you’ll do something more about this.”
It took just four months for the records committee to do just that. The committee recommended the high court add a sentence to the end of Supreme Court Operating Rule 2.04(b).
“What I find so intriguing is that his idea got done so quickly,” said Leigh Joy Carson, a
Edwards, the
“We’re not impressed with stuff like that,” Edwards said.
Since the change, if the judge denies a petition or the filing party drops her request, it won’t ever appear online. The rule change is retroactive; OSCA scrubbed any previous ex parte orders from Case.net, including those involving Schock’s client.
How much input?
The judge said the committee focused on the confidentiality issue. Anyone can be hit with an ex parte order of protection, Edwards said. Sometimes a victim can substantiate claims of verbal or physical abuse; sometimes she can’t.
“Until a case has been substantiated, until a person has been adjudged or ordered as a respondent to perhaps stay away … then we thought it would be unfair,” Edwards said. “We have to be cognizant of a person’s right of privacy.”
It’s not clear how much input the committee sought from the abuse advocates and lawyers who would be among the people most affected by the rule change.
Catherine Zacharias, legal counsel for OSCA, said the records committee stays in close contact with Colleen Coble, chief executive officer of the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. But Coble said she didn’t work with the committee on the rule change affecting orders of protection.
Nancy Griggs, another OSCA employee who staffs the records committee, said she brought up the rule change at a September 2009 education seminar. The attendees were victim advocates from prosecutors’ offices and private agencies and shelters.
She said she explained the rule change and none of the attendees expressed any concerns. In fact, Griggs said, some victim advocates supported the change, saying the online publication of any information related to domestic violence could provoke anger in the respondent.
But by the time Griggs raised the change at the seminar, the records committee had already voted for the change and the Supreme Court was six days away from approving it.
Zacharias said the committee doesn’t know when or if the Supreme Court will approve rule changes.
“I don’t know that there was anything missing in the process,” she said. “The comments we got back were positive comments.”
‘A true victim’
“I get the concern from the Supreme Court on this, but it’s about efficiency,” said Kendall Seal, staff attorney with the Domestic Violence Unit at Legal Services of Southern Missouri.
Seal represents domestic abuse victims in 19 counties around
It also has affected client intake because Seal can’t quickly look up a potential client’s legal history with a particular abuser. That history might include seven or eight orders of protection that were filed but then dismissed by the victim.
“To see those dismissals, from a bench perspective, they see it as a loss of credibility,” Seal said. “For someone who knows domestic violence and the dynamics, seeing several of them, that gives you an indication that this is a true victim.”
Victims may also miss the chance to look up their abuser on Case.net.
Not every client has access to the Internet, but some that did told Katie Wessling, managing attorney for St. Louis-based Legal Advocates for Abused Women, that it comforted them to see their abuser’s history with orders of protection.
“That’s not the primary purpose of Case.net,” Wessling said. “But for the client, they feel like, ‘No, I’m not crazy. He’s done this before.’”
In one way, the rule change does help abuse victims. When slapped with an order of protection, abusers frequently turn around and file claims of abuse against their victims, thereby making the victims’ names public, Seal said.
Other solutions
The attorneys suggested alternatives to the rule change. Keep the ex parte orders online but remove the respondent’s name, too. Attorneys can still track the records by case number. Or create an intranet on Case.net that can only be accessed by attorneys, Seal suggested.
Edwards, the chairman of the records committee, said the operating rules are “living orders” that can be changed.
“There’s a chance for this rule to be totally eliminated if enough people come in and say this doesn’t make sense,” he said. “We’re listening.”
In the meantime, Schock’s disgruntled client serves as an example of the still-public aspects of an order of protection.
The client has faced two orders of protection since January. One, filed against him by another ex-girlfriend who claimed he drove by her house several times and sent harassing text messages, was dismissed and doesn’t appear on Case.net.
But on Jan. 28, a
Complete URL: http://molawyersmedia.com/blog/2010/04/11/pending-protection-or-ders-yanked-from-public-view/
Jury awards $17,500 to fireman arrested at scene of accident
By Robert Patrick
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Thursday, Feb. 14 2008
Hazelwood — Federal court jurors awarded $17,500 on Wednesday to a fire captain
arrested by a Hazelwood police officer in a dispute over where a firetruck was
parked during a 2003 car crash rescue.
Juror Betsy Vennemann said after the verdict, "We wanted to make a statement
that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated."
Capt. David Wilson won $7,500 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive
damages. Jurors, including a nun, said they went easy on the defendant, Officer
Todd Greeves, because he has a family and they weren't sure who would pay the
bill.
in a way to protect rescuers working to free a victim from wreckage along
Interstate 270 at
Missouri Lawyers Weekly,
Excessive force case earns elderly driver a settlement
1. Man permanently injured after failing to stop for police
Scott Lauck
$185,000 settlement
Police excessive-force cases haven't always been successful in the courts, but one such case in
In September 2005, Walter Horton, 79, swerved while getting on a highway and was pursued by police. Horton did not stop for seven miles, asserting later that he did not understand the officers in the several police cars behind him wanted him to stop.
He pulled off at his exit and his car was surrounded by several police cars and officers. Defendant Deputy Brian Keller opened Horton's car door, grabbed his arm, yanked him from the car and threw him to the ground. He was cuffed and, according to Horton, pulled up forcibly.
During the altercation, Horton's shoulder was separated and his rotator cuff was torn. Due to his age, the rotator cuff was inoperable.
"I was looking forward to asking the (police officer) on cross examination, 'Were you scared of him?'" said attorney W.
Schock said the civil rights case was different from those where a guilty criminal was injured while struggling with police. Horton is a military veteran retired from 39 years with Mallinckrodt chemical. He had been at a
Schock said there was strong caselaw in the defendants' favor. In January 2006, the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Wertish v. Krueger, a case in which a
Schock argued his case was distinguishable because the Wertish driver had driven more erratically and put up more of a struggle while being handcuffed. Once the police realized he was diabetic, they took him to the hospital.
"We were able to distinguish the facts because my defendant made no effort to inquire and figure out what was going on," Shock said.
St. Charles County Counselor Joann Leykam didn't return messages seeking comment.
Facts of the Case
Type of Action: Civil Rights
Type of Injuries: Dislocated shoulder, inoperable torn rotator cuff
Court/Case Number/Date: Federal Court, E.D. Mo/ 4:06 -CV-00893AGF/
Caption: Walter Horton v.
Judge, Jury or ADR: Mediation
Name of Mediator: Eugene Buckley
Verdict or Settlement: Settlement
Special Damages: $99,773.54 (indeterminate portion, around 50 percent, was attributable to a heart problem discovered during his hospital stay for the shoulder)
Allocation of Fault: N/A
Last Demand: $700,000
Last Offer: $0
Attorneys for Plaintiff: W.
Attorneys for Defense: Joann Leykam, St. Charles County Counselor; Robert E.Hoeynck,
Insurance Carrier: County self-insured
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendants' Experts: N/A
Missouri Lawyers Weekly, January 15, 2007
Suit may spark judicial independence debate
School funding case could increase taxes to the ire of Gov., Legislature
By Scott Lauck
A massive legal effort over state school funding got under way this month in
In the process, it might also trigger the state's next big fight over judicial independence.
Committee for Educational Equality v. State of Missouri kicked off Jan. 3, and is expected to conclude in mid-February at the earliest. In that time, the plaintiffs, representing more than 250 school districts, will argue the constitutionality of the formula used to determine funding for the state's 524 school districts.
According to the lawsuit, which was filed
The plaintiffs want the court to force the state to create an entirely new formula — one that has no relationship to property taxes in the various counties and one that takes into account school districts' need for capital improvement funding. Another group of plaintiffs, representing 26 largely suburban school districts, is taking the argument a step further: It asks that the court also strike down state assessment practices — the underpinnings of property taxes — as capricious and arbitrary.
A plaintiff victory in either or both the circuit court or in the Missouri Supreme Court — where both sides say the case will probably end up — is unlikely to sit well with lawmakers. Not only would it void several years' worth of work on a foundation formula that has yet to be fully implemented, it would also pick at the scab where the respective powers of the legislature and the judiciary meet.
"There's always a lot of moaning at that point," Alex Bartlett, the school districts' lawyer, said of judicial decisions that force legislative action on school funding. He said that if his side is successful, he expects "there'll be threats" from opponents to take away some of the judiciary's independence.
The case is being defended by the Missouri Attorney General's Office, but it has also drawn a separate group of defenders hoping the case before Judge Richard Callahan never draws to a conclusion.
"The plaintiffs' whole objective here is to make a judicial activist out of a judge," said Schock, an attorney in
Keeping courts out of schools
Indeed, legislators have made it clear in words and deeds that they don't want courts telling them what to do with school funding. In 2005, several senators backed a constitutional amendment declaring "the power to determine public school funding shall not fall within the province of the judiciary." And a bill filed this year in the House would put forward a state constitutional amendment barring courts from ordering the state or any other political subdivision to levy or increase taxes, or from telling them how to spend, allocate or budget their money.
In a press conference on the opening day of the 2007 Legislative session — the first day of the trial — Carl Bearden, house speaker pro tem of St. Charles, said he was confident the formula would pass muster, though he also doubted that the courts had the authority to order the state to put more money into it.
Asked if that would give more force to efforts to restrict the courts decision-making power in such cases, Bearden said it was "worth having that piece of legislation out there" to clarify the Legislature's position.
But as Rep. Terry Witte, D-Vandalia, a lawyer, said later, "If they're so sure they're going to win on the merits, why do they need the legislation?"
Court orders to reform school funding are hardly unprecedented. The Kansas Supreme Court made headlines two years ago when it struck down that state's funding formula and eventually forced the Kansas Legislature to pump millions of additional dollars into schools. In
In fact,
Formula has yet to win districts
Kinder's decision likely would have been appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Legislature chose to rewrite the formula instead. The resulting formula remains partially in place, but a formula written in 2005 began to be phased in this school year. It is scheduled for full implementation by 2013 and will add approximately $900 million to primary and secondary education.
In theory, the Legislature agrees with the plaintiff's tenet that local property value is a poor way to measure the cost of educating children in a given school district. In their 2005 rewrite, Legislators sought to move the formula from "tax-rate based" to "student-needs based" by setting a target amount of $6,117 of funding per pupil, with modifications for such factors as the cost of living in particular school districts and the extra financial burdens of small, rural districts.
However, the formula didn't entirely do away with local tax burdens. It assumes that each school district is imposing a tax levy of $3.43 per $100 of assessed valuation. Districts with larger levies pocket the difference, while those that impose fewer taxes must cope with the shortfall.
More damning, from the plaintiff's point of view, is that the new formula used the old formula's funding levels as a baseline. In the last few years of its life, the old formula was underfunded by about $800 million — meaning that even when fully funded six years from now, the new formula will still be yielding less to school districts than the old formula would have had it been fully funded.
The plaintiffs argue that the formula is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. They say an "adequate and proper free public education" is a "basic and fundamental constitutional right of the highest magnitude," stemming from a constitutional provision requiring "a general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence." Yet
In addition, the plaintiffs say, the funding formula makes no provision for schools' capital expenditures, meaning that poorer districts are often left with old and outdated facilities.
"The god-awful is still with us,"
But the state argues that all the constitution requires of the state is that it put 25 percent of its revenues toward education, and that education be second only to paying off state debt when setting budget priorities. James McAdams, an assistant attorney general representing the state, said the state meets those requirements. Forcing the state to provide "equity" in education would be tantamount to adding a constitutional provision.
"There is nothing in the Missouri Constitution that enables the tail to wag the dog," he said during opening arguments. He defended the new formula as sound and asked that the decision about how to spend education money be left with the Legislature.
"Ultimately, the plaintiffs are asking you to enact policy," he said.
Defendants raise questions
It's an argument the intervenor-defendants — the first intervenor-taxpayer defendants that either Bartlett or the group's attorney, Joshua Schindler, could recall — support and extend. The three plaintiffs in the case, who are acting as private citizens, are also board members of the Show-Me Institute, a not-for-profit research group that supports free-market solutions to educational problems, such as vouchers and school choice.
That affiliation has attracted attention in recent weeks. On its Web site, an organization known as Americans for Limited Government features a link to the Show-Me Institute's homepage. Americans for Limited Government is the same organization that put about $96,000 toward the defeat of Cole County Judge Thomas Brown in November, an act that has raised judicial hackles throughout the state. That contribution came about 10 days after Schock, Sinquefield and Smith entered their motion to intervene in October.
Schock, who serves as secretary of the Show-Me Institute board, said there is some philosophical overlap between his organization and Americans for Limited Government but denied any actual ties.
"We have nothing to do with that listing (on the Web site)," he said. "We don't have any contact with those guys, don't know anything about them." Schock also noted that the Show-Me Institute does not consider judicial reform or preventing judicial activism as one of its missions, as Americans for Limited Government does.
But in this case, Schock and his fellow board members see a danger in asking "the wrong branch of government" to decide how much money is enough for a good education.
"We genuinely believe that the plaintiffs are attempting to turn what is a political, legislative function into a judicial function, and we think that's wrong," Schock said.
Straining the relationship
Legislators had hoped that the new formula would take the wind out of the lawsuit's sails, but they remain convinced that their handiwork will survive the court challenge. Sen. Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, was the principle architect of the new formula and one of the few remaining legislators who worked on its 1993 predecessor.
He said he doubts that any formula — or any judicial decision, for that matter — could ever fully satisfy the widely divergent wants and needs of 524 school districts.
"With that list of clients, there's a possibility that people may not get the answer that they want if the court rules against the formula and imposes something else," he said.
Shields said his and other legislators fear is that a court decision could force a tax increase — something the Legislature can't so without the consent of the people.
"The question in everybody's minds is, if you have a formula that costs $2 billion, can the courts impose $2 billion worth of taxes? I think that's the unanswered question," he said.
Shields said such a decision would strain legislators' relationship with the courts, though he understood that no judge could take that into account in crafting an opinion. In the end, he said, lawmakers would comply with what the court said — even if that meant writing a new formula before the old one had gone cold.
"We're not going to sit there and put the kids at risk because we don't like what the courts told us," Shields said.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Judge moves
Council is ordered to meet at community center, which can handle larger crowds.
Author:
Edition: Third Edition
Section: Metro
Page: B4
Dateline:
Index Terms:
JUDGE;COURT;RULING;MEETING;
Estimated printed pages: 2
Article Text:
A judge decided Monday that
St. Louis County Associate Circuit Judge Thea Sherry's permanent injunction was in response to a suit filed by former Mayor Bob Dody and five other residents in July.
The residents said City Hall was too small to accommodate the crowds seeking to attend the meetings, adding that the state's open meetings law, or Sunshine Law, had been violated. They said some residents had been turned away from meetings.
Sherry ordered Mayor Ann Purzner to pay a $1 penalty for violating the law. Sherry also made the city responsible for $16,300 in the plaintiffs' attorney fees.
"We feel completely vindicated," said W.
Purzner said she planned to appeal Sherry's decision.
Meanwhile, the Overland City Council failed to conduct an official meeting Monday night for lack of a quorum. Three council members who typically support Purzner failed to attend while four others who often disagree with her were at the meeting.
Residents who had come for a meeting criticized the absent council members as well as Purzner. At least one resident asked Purzner to resign, which she said she wouldn't do.
Councilman Jerry May said the absent members might have wanted to avoid voting on a resolution to proceed with a recall election of Purzner. City Attorney Bob Herman said that while the council does not need to vote on the issue since it advanced it on a 4-3 vote last month, approving a resolution would put an official stamp on the previous action.
Purzner and her lawyer, Rudman, contend that an ordinance - which requires five votes - is needed to place a recall on the ballot. The county election board has already stated that it plans to place the issue on the April 3 ballot - something Purzner plans to contest in court.
On the meetings issue, Purzner had maintained that she lacked the power to move the meetings and that council meetings interfered with other activities at the community center.
At a hearing in November, Police Chief Jim Herron testified that many meetings had exceeded the City Hall meeting room capacity of 160 people. Some meetings drew more than 300 people.
The dispute over meeting sites was a major reason behind the effort by a residents' group to recall Purzner.
The Citizens of Overland for Good Government also wants Purzner removed because of her failed attempt to suspend and replace Herron without council approval.
Copyright (c) 2007 St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Record Number: 1000935990
_____________________________________________________________________________
Bella Villa police chief accused of groping women
By Steve Birmingham
Bella Villa and its police chief were sued in federal court for violating a married couple's civil rights during a traffic stop in 2005.
The city and Police Chief Edward Locke, Jr., were sued last week in U.S. District Court by attorney W.
The Cooks' suit is the second filed against the city and Locke. Two St. Louis County-area women also filed a joint federal suit charging violations of their 4th and 14th amendment protections, battery and violations of
The Cooks' suit alleges that Dianne Cook's head was slammed against Locke's patrol car by Locke during a traffic stop Aug. 27, 2005; that Locke groped her buttocks, belly and breast areas under her clothing while she was handcuffed; that Locke used an electronic Taser on her husband, Michael Cook, and slammed his head against two different automobiles; that Locke placed his palm under Dianne Cook's buttocks toward her genital area and groped her again while she was handcuffed and seated in his patrol car.
The suit alleges Locke booked Dianne Cook on failure to maintain a single lane and DWI charges and issued a notice of refusal to take a breathalyzer test; Locke booked Michael Cook on a resisting arrest charge.
The suit alleges that Locke's behavior, as policy maker for the city's Police Department, "is consistent with his treatment of other citizens in the course of traffic stops, and is part of a pattern of behavior."
The suit also alleges the incidents caused the couple pain, humiliation, mental suffering, indignity, disgrace, stress and fear and seeks punitive and compensatory damages but does not specify a specific amount.
A previous suit was filed by Schock on behalf of Jami Neco Schmidt and Christine Magyari and concerns two separate incidents in 2005.
The suit alleges that on
The suit also alleges that on
Locke asked if she had any tattoos and Magyari responded she did. However, Locke did not seek to take a photograph of the tattoo, the suit alleges.
The suit charges that Locke's inspection actions toward both Schmidt and Magyari were "demeaning, dehumanizing, undignified, humiliating, terrifying, unpleasant, embarrassing and repulsive" and signified "degradation and submission."
The suit alleges the incidents caused both women pain, humiliation, mental suffering, indignity, disgrace, stress and fear and seeks punitive and compensatory damages but does not specify a specific amount.
Requests to both Bella Villa Mayor Steve Grey and Locke were answered by city officials to direct all inquiries to attorney Kevin O'Keefe. By Journal press time O'Keefe did not respond to a request for an interview.
Overland Residents Sue Mayor Purzner, Say She Violated Sunshine Laws
created:
updated:
(KSDK) - Since Overland Mayor Ann Purzner tried to oust the police chief when she took office in April the city council has split based on their loyalty to the mayor. The bickering and public comments at council meetings have drawn a large crowd.
A group of residents has sued Purzner, claiming she is violating the Missouri Sunshine Law by denying the public access to council meetings after being asked to move them to the larger community center. The case began Monday in
An
"Any municipality can go bad and develop horrible problems and when it does that's where the Sunshine Act, open meetings, people being able to come to meetings, right to be present when the big decisions are made are important," said the plaintiff's attorney
Purzner's attorney
"It's like the weather. It's a little bit difficult to predict and I don't think the weatherman should be held accountable in event the storm is larger or less than what is reasonably anticipated," said Rudman.
It doesn't appear the clouds will be lifting anytime soon from
"Really this is a political fight that has the guise of a lawsuit. There's a lot of political undertonings here and we think the proper venue for that is in its own political realm not in court under the Sunshine Law."
Judge Thea Sherry heard testimony from both sides Monday in
The August city council meeting will be held at the community center.
______________________________________________________________________________
Ex-mayor of
By Norm Parish
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Wednesday, Jul. 19 2006
Former Overland Mayor Bob Dody and five residents filed a lawsuit Tuesday to
have council meetings moved to a facility larger than the City Hall chambers.
The suit claims several residents have been turned away from other meetings
because the City Hall chambers can hold only 160 people. The residents say they
want the meetings held at the
crowd, or another large facility.
St. Louis County Presiding Judge Carolyn C. Whittington is scheduled to conduct
a hearing on the suit today.
"It is wonderful that the
government," said W.
horrific that
meetings."
In the past, Mayor Ann Purzner said she wanted to have the meetings at City
Hall because she didn't want to harm the gymnasium floor at the community
center. Last week, she had a council meeting at a facility at
But residents said some of their neighbors were turned away from that meeting
as well.
"I don't know what their reasoning is for this," Purzner said. "There were 110
people at Monday night's meeting, but there is space for 160 people. I think
this is foolish."
In addition to Dody, other residents listed in the complaint are former council
member Leo Stuckey, Michael Oakes, Rudolph Kuhlmann, a member of the Board of
Adjustment, and Cal and Katherine Geldbach.
The lawsuit was made after at least three councilmen boycotted Monday night's
meeting because they wanted the planned gathering in a larger facility.
The special meeting couldn't be held because of a lack of a quorum.
Purzner rescheduled the meeting for tonight at City Hall.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Roberts Brothers sue over loft phone system
POST-DISPATCH
The company that built lofts in the old St. Louis Board of Education Building wants $79,300 refunded from the installers of a telephone and communication system, because there were no licensed engineers on the installers' staff.
In a suit filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court, Roberts Old School House Lofts contends that Global Solutions Group Inc. lacks "a certificate of authority to practice architecture or professional engineering in
Global's attorney, W.
In a footnote to his legal arguments, Schock wrote: "Plaintiff's interpretation may also make suspect all phone installations performed since the invention of the device by Alexander Graham Bell."
Judge Gloria Clark
Steve and Michael Roberts have converted the former school headquarters at
into 50 apartments. In February 2004, their company contracted with Global, of Fenton, for the phone and communications systems.
Michael Wilson, attorney for Roberts Old School, told
Global officials told the Post-Dispatch that Cisco essentially provides all the designs of the telephone and information systems; Global is merely the installer. So, Global has no need for engineers.
Schock said Global had done all the work on the project, short of hooking up the telephones, when Roberts halted the installation.
"Putting in a phone is not engineering," Schock said. "If phones don't work, public safety is not involved. The buildings are not going to fall down."
A ruling in favor of Roberts would have a vast impact locally, Schock said, "and would affect any project large or small where phones or Internet connections are being installed."
Also part of the suit, but not argued Tuesday, are allegations by Roberts that the phone and Internet system Global was installing would have made Roberts, rather than the tenants of the apartments, initially responsible for all fee-based phone calls. The landlord then would have had to recapture the costs.
Global officials said they installed what Roberts Old School requested.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ruling is due by Monday on proposed MetroLink referendum
Author:
Edition:
A judge says she will decide "no later than Monday" on the legality of a proposed referendum that would allow voters to decide the fate of $150 million in bonds needed to complete the eight miles of MetroLink service to Clayton and Shrewsbury.
St. Louis County Circuit Judge Barbara W. Wallace heard legal arguments for an hour Wednesday by attorneys for Metro and for the Public Transit Accountability Project.
At issue is an ordinance to bail out Metro, adopted Aug. 30 by the St. Louis County Council and signed by County Executive Charlie Dooley the next day.
Metro is more than a year behind and millions of dollars over budget in the light-rail projec! t.
Metro's attorney, Dirk DeYong, said the ordinance is not subject to a referendum. The citizens group lawyer, W.
DeYong's arguments were twofold: that under the county charter, ordinances that are administrative or ministerial rather than legislative are not subject to a referendum; and that the ordinance cannot be the subject of a referendum because it related to an appropriation and therefore took effect upon Dooley' signature.
DeYong said the ordinance is merely ministerial because it is an extension of an agreement between the county, the city and Metro in November 2002 in which the county and city agreed to provide mass transit funds -- approved by voters in 1994 -- for the expansion of MetroLink.
Schock countered, "The agreement of 2002 said nothing of cost overruns."
He added: "By its ordinance, the County Council gave money to Metro. That is a legislative act."
In a legal brief, DeYong wrote that if the! re is no bond closing by Oct. 15, Metro "will have inadequate funds to continue construction and will be required to cease all operations."
Schock was skeptical of the doom-and-gloom scenario. Besides, he wrote in his brief: "Metro is desperate for cash because of its own mistakes."
Appropriation ordinances with immediate effect involve "the support of county government," and providing funding to Metro is too broad a stretch, Schock said.
In rebuttal, DeYong said he interprets county government to mean county services, and mass transit is a service provided to county residents.
Sullivan's group got 827 signatures on petitions, enough to temporarily stall the ordinance.
Now the group needs a favorable ruling from Wallace and about 27,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Felon kept in prison gets $10,600 award
A felon who spent 57 days more than he was supposed to in prison saw another side of the justice system Friday: A federal court jury awarded him $10,600.
In a civil lawsuit, Daryl L. Davis claimed that corrections officers violated his civil rights when they failed to look into his claims that a judge had ordered him released when he went to court on
A judge dismissed
“It's a real victory for my client,” said
Schock said the case underscores the "lackadaisical attitude" on the part of prison officials in tracking prisoners' legal documents, particularly when inmates return to court from prison.
Davis, now 37 and a resident of Breckenridge Hills, had two prior felony convictions for stealing, including one in 1997 for taking cash from the offices of United Cerebral Palsy. After an appeals court overturned that case and sent it back for a new trial, Davis ' previous attorney negotiated a plea deal that would enable him to get out of prison.
On
In the trial this week in the court of U.S. Magistrate David Noce,
Schock also introduced documents showing that Martin, who headed the
Under cross-examination,
In closing arguments, Assistant Attorney General
After the seven-member jury reached its verdict, Leyshock declined to comment.
Cite this page 19 M.L.W.135 February 7, 2005 Missouri Lawyers Weekly . 7
VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS
Real Estate Agent Hurt In Collision
She Was On Her Way To View Property
$550,000 Settlement
A real estate agent who was injured in a head-on collision has settled her
On
Her ankle was severely injured the right talus bone was knocked through the skin and was exposed to the air for several hours. She missed six months of work after surgery. Parmentier initially had a good recovery, but the cartilage below the talus later began to deteriorate. Her doctor testified that she would need surgical fusion in the future, and that she would have some loss of function. .
In her lawsuit, Parmentier claimed negligent hiring in addition to the negligent driving. She argued that Grellner Distributing failed to do a proper background check on Chambers, who had been working for Grellner for only a week before the accident. She contended that while Department of Transportation regulations require employers to get a five-year work history on new hires, Chambers detailed only three years' worth of prior employment on his application. The trial court dismissed the negligent hiring claim in a pre-trial ruling.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The following article appeared in the St. Louis Post Dispatch regarding a civil rights case Mr. Schock recently won at the Federal Court of Appeals.
St. Louis Post Dispatch, page B1
Article by
Daryl L. Davis' trip through the prison system reads like a George Orwell novel. Wrongly incarcerated,
On
But
The appeals court gave this account of
Once back at
After
Finally, on
The state attorney general's office declined to comment on Wednesday's decision.
"We have people working in the system who are not competent, and human liberty is at stake," said
______________________________________________________________________________
http://molawyersmedia.com
Missouri Lawyers Media
PENDING PROTECTION ORDERS YANKED FROM PUBLIC VIEW
by Jason Rosenbaum
Published: April 11, 2010
The client couldn’t stand it.
He typed his name into Case.net and up popped an ugly classification: “Protection Order: Adult Abuse Stalking.”
Attorney W. Bevis Schock threatened to sue the state if it didn’t limit how pending orders of protection are accessed on Case.net. The Missouri Supreme Court changed the procedures, which has now drawn protests from some attorneys of domestic violence victims. Photo by Karen Elshout
His ex-girlfriend had filed what he called a meritless order of protection against him, claiming abuse, and then dropped it. Yet the record remained online for everyone to see. The client owned a Florissant landscaping business and feared banks and other businesses would look him up on the online legal record system.
“If they look up Case.net and they see I have this thing against me, they might drop me,” the client said to his attorney, W. Bevis Schock.
Schock, a St. Louis attorney, sprang into action, drafting a federal equal protection lawsuit against the Office of State Courts Administrator. He never filed it, because four months later a Missouri Supreme Court committee decided privacy concerns trumped the public nature of this type of electronic court records.
Now pending orders of protection don’t appear on Case.net until judges grant full orders of protection.
Family law attorneys toasted the change as a much-needed method to protect respondents from unsubstantiated abuse claims.
But three months after the change took effect, several attorneys who serve domestic violence victims say it’s much harder to keep track of clients’ cases.
More importantly, it’s tougher to figure out when an alleged abuser has been served with the order of protection, they said. Service of the petition can trigger retaliatory violence, and it’s a critical time period when abuse victims need to stay on high alert.
“The safety measure it afforded was much more important than any sort of perceived stigma,” said Jason Dodson, managing attorney of the Family Law Unit at Legal Services of Eastern Missouri.
Committee members, including St. Louis Circuit Judge Jimmie Edwards, said they never heard concerns from victim advocates while the committee considered changing the rule. And they haven’t heard anything since it took effect.
That may change Friday at a public comment session in Jefferson City on all of Court Operating Rule 2.
Kansas City media attorney Jean Maneke said she’s ready to tell the committee that the rule change is a striking departure from the way online court records are handled in other areas of civil and criminal law. Unless expunged, criminal case records remain online, even if prosecutors drop the charges. Civil lawsuits stay on Case.net even if a judge dismisses the claims, she noted.
“Openness is generally a better way to clean up concerns about inaccuracy than attempting to put everything back in a box,” Maneke said.
Pace of change
Schock said he spent 40 to 50 unpaid hours drafting an 18-page federal lawsuit against Greg Linhares, state courts administrator. Among other arguments, the lawsuit claimed the prior public records rule treats respondents differently than petitioners, because respondents are named online but petitioners are not.
The federal 2005 Violence Against Women Act prohibits states from publishing online any identifying information about people seeking protection.
Judge Douglas Beach hears a case during family court at the St. Louis County Circuit Courts building in Clayton. Photo by Sarah Conard
Missouri law says judges can grant emergency protection orders, called ex parte orders, at the request of one party. But a hearing on the claims should be held within 15 days, and a respondent must be served with notice of the order within three days of the hearing. At that time, a judge can enter a full order of protection, which lasts from six months to a year, and can be renewed.
Schock said he sent the lawsuit with a letter to the State Judicial Records Committee.
He said he told the committee, “I’m not going to file this in the hopes you’ll do something more about this.”
It took just four months for the records committee to do just that. The committee recommended the high court add a sentence to the end of Supreme Court Operating Rule 2.04(b).
“What I find so intriguing is that his idea got done so quickly,” said Leigh Joy Carson, a St. Louis family law attorney who said the rule change is a great idea. “[Rule committees] usually move like molasses, like snail slime.”
Edwards, the St. Louis judge and chairman of the records committee, said Schock’s lawsuit had no bearing on the committee’s vote to change the rule.
“We’re not impressed with stuff like that,” Edwards said.
Since the change, if the judge denies a petition or the filing party drops her request, it won’t ever appear online. The rule change is retroactive; OSCA scrubbed any previous ex parte orders from Case.net, including those involving Schock’s client.
How much input?
The judge said the committee focused on the confidentiality issue. Anyone can be hit with an ex parte order of protection, Edwards said. Sometimes a victim can substantiate claims of verbal or physical abuse; sometimes she can’t.
“Until a case has been substantiated, until a person has been adjudged or ordered as a respondent to perhaps stay away … then we thought it would be unfair,” Edwards said. “We have to be cognizant of a person’s right of privacy.”
It’s not clear how much input the committee sought from the abuse advocates and lawyers who would be among the people most affected by the rule change.
Catherine Zacharias, legal counsel for OSCA, said the records committee stays in close contact with Colleen Coble, chief executive officer of the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. But Coble said she didn’t work with the committee on the rule change affecting orders of protection.
Nancy Griggs, another OSCA employee who staffs the records committee, said she brought up the rule change at a September 2009 education seminar. The attendees were victim advocates from prosecutors’ offices and private agencies and shelters.
She said she explained the rule change and none of the attendees expressed any concerns. In fact, Griggs said, some victim advocates supported the change, saying the online publication of any information related to domestic violence could provoke anger in the respondent.
But by the time Griggs raised the change at the seminar, the records committee had already voted for the change and the Supreme Court was six days away from approving it.
Zacharias said the committee doesn’t know when or if the Supreme Court will approve rule changes.
“I don’t know that there was anything missing in the process,” she said. “The comments we got back were positive comments.”
‘A true victim’
“I get the concern from the Supreme Court on this, but it’s about efficiency,” said Kendall Seal, staff attorney with the Domestic Violence Unit at Legal Services of Southern Missouri.
Seal represents domestic abuse victims in 19 counties around Springfield and multiple circuit courts. The rule change has hampered his ability to look up clients’ cases online; and not every court clerk is eager to turn over case files, he said.
It also has affected client intake because Seal can’t quickly look up a potential client’s legal history with a particular abuser. That history might include seven or eight orders of protection that were filed but then dismissed by the victim.
“To see those dismissals, from a bench perspective, they see it as a loss of credibility,” Seal said. “For someone who knows domestic violence and the dynamics, seeing several of them, that gives you an indication that this is a true victim.”
Victims may also miss the chance to look up their abuser on Case.net.
Not every client has access to the Internet, but some that did told Katie Wessling, managing attorney for St. Louis-based Legal Advocates for Abused Women, that it comforted them to see their abuser’s history with orders of protection.
“That’s not the primary purpose of Case.net,” Wessling said. “But for the client, they feel like, ‘No, I’m not crazy. He’s done this before.’”
In one way, the rule change does help abuse victims. When slapped with an order of protection, abusers frequently turn around and file claims of abuse against their victims, thereby making the victims’ names public, Seal said.
Other solutions
The attorneys suggested alternatives to the rule change. Keep the ex parte orders online but remove the respondent’s name, too. Attorneys can still track the records by case number. Or create an intranet on Case.net that can only be accessed by attorneys, Seal suggested.
Edwards, the chairman of the records committee, said the operating rules are “living orders” that can be changed.
“There’s a chance for this rule to be totally eliminated if enough people come in and say this doesn’t make sense,” he said. “We’re listening.”
In the meantime, Schock’s disgruntled client serves as an example of the still-public aspects of an order of protection.
The client has faced two orders of protection since January. One, filed against him by another ex-girlfriend who claimed he drove by her house several times and sent harassing text messages, was dismissed and doesn’t appear on Case.net.
But on Jan. 28, a St. Louis County judge granted a one-year full order of protection to another petitioner, this one a man who claimed the client stalked him. Now Schock’s client’s name is back on Case.net under “Adult Abuse Stalking.”
Complete URL: http://molawyersmedia.com/blog/2010/04/11/pending-protection-or-ders-yanked-from-public-view/
