Archie Mazmanian reports [paragraphing added]:
Animal rights groups continue to protest against the force-feeding of geese to enlarge their livers to delight gourmets.
Here on the Charles River, Commonwealth and Cambridge officials are not being cruel to our White Geese by force-feeding them. Rather, these Commonwealth and Cambridge officials are being even crueler to our White Geese with their annihilation policy that will eventually starve them to extinction.
Our Charles River jewel has a flaw in it that does not require a jeweler’s loop: it’s the Commonwealth and Cambridge officials starving to extinction our web-footed friends.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Monteiro Update — Cambridge filing.
1. Background on the Monteiro Case.
2. New Action.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Background on the Monteiro Case.
This concerns Malvina Monteiro et al. v. City of Cambridge et al., Middlesex Division of the Superior Court Docket Number MICV2001-02737.
The City of Cambridge has pending against it a decision of judge and jury that Cambridge destroyed the life of a black woman former department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The damage award at latest count exceeded $5 million, including $3.5 million penal damages and about $500,000 interest.
The key judge’s decision was very well written and included the judge’s evaluation of the City of Cambridge as "reprehensible." It may be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge_issues_decision_denying.html.
On June 26, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion to clarify, alter and amend the judgment. I have been informed that the purpose of this motion is to persuade the judge to increase the interest award.
The motion was heard on August 26, 2009. No decision on the motion has come down as far as I can see on the docket.
Cambridge filed notice of appeal and later admitted that its notice of appeal was untimely filed and thus void.
2. New Action.
On October 20, 2009, Cambridge filed a "Defendant City of Cambridge's Notice of intent to file motion for reconsideration of decision and order on post-trial motions regarding punitive damages."
This would appear to be an attempt to reopen prior motions which were denied in association with the above link.
The reason for filing such a notice of intent is that Cambridge’s motion has to be reviewed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff given a chance to attach a response to that motion before the motion can be filed.
Cambridge is filing the notice of intent so that the judge will know that the Cambridge motion is coming should the judge wish to respond to the plaintiff’s pending motion for clarification. I will not bother you with further legal analysis.
2. New Action.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Background on the Monteiro Case.
This concerns Malvina Monteiro et al. v. City of Cambridge et al., Middlesex Division of the Superior Court Docket Number MICV2001-02737.
The City of Cambridge has pending against it a decision of judge and jury that Cambridge destroyed the life of a black woman former department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The damage award at latest count exceeded $5 million, including $3.5 million penal damages and about $500,000 interest.
The key judge’s decision was very well written and included the judge’s evaluation of the City of Cambridge as "reprehensible." It may be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge_issues_decision_denying.html.
On June 26, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion to clarify, alter and amend the judgment. I have been informed that the purpose of this motion is to persuade the judge to increase the interest award.
The motion was heard on August 26, 2009. No decision on the motion has come down as far as I can see on the docket.
Cambridge filed notice of appeal and later admitted that its notice of appeal was untimely filed and thus void.
2. New Action.
On October 20, 2009, Cambridge filed a "Defendant City of Cambridge's Notice of intent to file motion for reconsideration of decision and order on post-trial motions regarding punitive damages."
This would appear to be an attempt to reopen prior motions which were denied in association with the above link.
The reason for filing such a notice of intent is that Cambridge’s motion has to be reviewed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff given a chance to attach a response to that motion before the motion can be filed.
Cambridge is filing the notice of intent so that the judge will know that the Cambridge motion is coming should the judge wish to respond to the plaintiff’s pending motion for clarification. I will not bother you with further legal analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)