Monday, February 19, 2007

Link to the Twin Rivers argument
I had an email from Frank Askin, attorney for the Committee for a Better Twin Rivers. He is still optimistic about the eventual outcome of the case, and so am I. Here is a link to the oral argument, if you haven't heard it. Just scroll down to the Twin Rivers link.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting the link to the Twin Rivers Oral Argument.

Frankly, the numerous interruptions, by the Justices, with the injection of attempted humor into the entire proceeding was somewhat surprising.

All of the joking around, as well as the more negative comments from the Justices (including the suggestion that a "firestorm of litigation would be sparked") were dealt with very professionally by Professor Askin. (Being able to reference a 100 page long affidavit in the record, when asked if there was any support for his respresentations related to the "lack of housing choices" in the area was equally impressive.)

One of the exchanges that is most interesting, was when Justice Verasoto suggested to Professor Askin that the "beauty of the system" is that ANY property owner can just simply "respond" -- whenever they are being called "scum" or likened to Charles Manson (or Jim Jones) in their own community's newsletter.

The same Justice then stated something to the effect "YOU can educate the public... win their hearts and their minds...and 'EVENTUALLY' win their vote... and then YOU can get elected." (ie. "EVENTUALLY," if you live long enough, and spend enough $$, even YOU might make the rules someday.)

It became obvious that Justice Verasoto hasn't ever tried to do that? Surely, if it were a fellow Justice that lived in the Twin Rivers community there would never be a need for THEM to "just respond" by sending out their own newsletters, or by trying to "EVENTUALLY" get themselves elected to their governing board?

Come on, would ANY POA President on the planet (even in New Jersey) ever liken ANY Judge, in print, to some psychopathic killer, and then mail such representations (in part, at the same Judge's expense) to all of his other 10,000 neighbors?

Perhaps, if the parties to this case had been members of the legal profession, the Justices would not have used phrases such as "that strikes me as petty" when speaking on any issues that had properly been brought before the court?

Again, thank you for posting the link. It was certainly a worthwhile way to spend 90 minutes.

Hopefully, the written decision will reflect a more respectful and serious tone. The "on camera" efforts to entertain one another (or the public) during the oral argument, did little to suggest that might "EVENTUALLY" be the case.