Tuesday, June 20, 2006

A Comment from Anonymous

"Anonymous" writes in a comment on a recent posting here:

you should be ashamed of your statement. you were at the mediation or at least the majority of it and know that an agreement was agreed to by all who were there and this agreement was then rejected after the fact after good faith negotiations.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 1:51 pm | #

I cite from the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.730:
" Agreement. If the parties do not reach an agreement as to any matter as a result of mediation, the mediator shall report the lack of an agreement to the court without comment or recommendation. With the consent of the parties, the mediator's report may also identify any pending motions or outstanding legal issues, discovery process, or other action by any party which, if resolved or completed, would facilitate the possibility of a settlement. (b) Agreement. If a partial or final agreement is reached, it shall be reduced to writing and signed by the parties and their counsel, if any. The agreement shall be filed when required by law or with the parties' consent. A report of the agreement shall be submitted to the court or a stipulation of dismissal shall be filed. By stipulation of the parties, the agreement may be electronically or stenographically recorded. In such event, the transcript may be filed with the court. The mediator shall report the existence of the signed or transcribed agreement to the court without comment within 10 days thereof. No agreement under this rule shall be reported to the court except as provided herein. (c) Imposition of Sanctions. In the event of any breach or failure to perform under the agreement, the court upon motion may impose sanctions, including costs, attorney fees, or other appropriate remedies including entry of judgment on the agreement. (Emphasis added)

Unless Anonymous has knowledge of any such reports made by the mediator to the court, it is he or she who should be ashamed to try to represent that there was ever an agreement made to be rejected. Instead, the attorneys for the City and TAMPOA collaborated to bring before the City Commission what they purported to be an agreement. It was that which the Commissioners rejected, properly in my opinion, at their meeting on June 6.

I believe that the real TAMPOA agenda here may be to interfere with the City's motion to dismiss TAMPOA's 2006 lawsuit to force compliance with the 2000 TAMPOA agreement. The City has an obligation to its citizens to pursue the dismissal motion to its legal conclusion. That should be done before Eminent Domain is considered. If TAMPOA can't be given the the right to control traffic in Key West, the 2000 TAMPOA agreement is null and void, and was illegally entered into by the Commissioners then in office.

No comments:

Use OpenDNS