Judge Gordon Graham's Order for payment of the most recent bill for $90.783 from the Special Prosecutors in the Bianchi case was "set up the same as past ones", said the Northwest Herald.
Why is that?
Because the Special Prosecutor wrote the Order that Judge Graham signed.
Pretty simple, eh?
And why should he write it any differently, if it working that way? No reason at all. Will he write it up differently in the future?
No way! No way, that is, until opposing counsel stands in front of Judge Graham and argues that the Special Prosecutor should submit itemized bills on a monthly basis and itemized by work done, by whom, when, and what type of work. And argues so persuasively that Judge Graham agrees and orders differently.
Where are the bills for December 2010 and for January and February 2011?
County Board member Scott Breeden told the Northwest Herald that he wouldn't be surprised if the total exceeds $625,000. How about $1,000,000, Scott? The trial on the first set of charges starts Monday. How many weeks will it take? And then there are those additional charges? How long on that?
Maybe the question is, "How much over $1,000,000 is this going to go?"
The next County Board meeting is on Thursday, April 7, 9:00AM (not on Tuesday, April 5, which is Election Day).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The judge doesn't draft orders, he signs them. The petitioner drafts both the motion and order. But you knew that - or should.
The bills submitted for payment are itemized and we've been over this before. They have all the detail necessary - too much so in fact - which is why they are sealed so that busybodies and the targets of the investigation can't track where the investigation is going and try to lean on witnesses like Bianchi's been charged with doing. But you knew that.
Once the grand jury is discharged and the indictments (all of them) are unsealed, you can read of all the work done and hours charged. Not before then. But you knew that.
Any other questions? I'm sure you do but since you insist on couching all your baseless accusations in the form of questions, spare us. (No? Seems that a week or so ago you told us that Krause HAD issued a letter of demand for possession to the sheriff. Now you say he may have been permitted to stay for a couple of weeks.)
Why not just tell us or show us where Nygren's living? Fact of the matter is, you can't. Fact of the matter is, that if Nygren choses to rent a motel room at the Super 8 it's perfectly legal. He doesn't have to be a property owner you know. You aren't and you ran for the office.
Frankly, you ask if the entire county is at risk? I'd say, "No! Gus isn't sheriff so all is well!"
Picket, of course I know the judge doesn't draft orders and that he signs them. In fact, that's exactly what I wrote. So?
How would you know that the bills submitted for payment are itemized and have all the detail necessary? Unless you have seen them. So in which office do you work?
In a "normal", arms-length, real estate transaction the Buyer's attorney would have inserted a "vacate-by date." Krause probably thought it wasn't necessary, because Nygren and he had been friends for years.
Why don't YOU tell us where Nygren is living? His previous address was no secret, so why should his new one be?
Should I check the Super 8 in Woodstock for Nygren's white Tahoe?
It appears you want his friends or associates to rat him out. Ever think that there is nothing running a foul of the law and there is nothing wrong to rat out?
If you're half a sharp as you think you are you'd know there are many legitimate ways to determine residency. Maybe, just maybe if you did some due diligence BEFORE writing you would dramatically cut down on these specious ramblings.
Your paranoia appears to be intact Gus. Just because you don't know something, even if there is nothing to know, it does not automatically become a county-wide problem except in your own mind.
Post a Comment