In the St. Louis County Executive race:

4:46 pm Thu December 18, 2014

Stream Seeks Recount In Loss To Stenger For County Executive

By Jo Mannies

Republican Rick Stream waited until the deadline to go to court Thursday and request a recount in the close contest he lost Nov. 4 for St. Louis County executive.

Stream lost by fewer than 1,800 votes to Democrat Steve Stenger, who is to be sworn in on Jan. 1….

[….]

That’s cutting it a little close (the timeline part).

Meanwhile, via the Missouri Ethics Commission, the campaigns are restocking:

C061248 12/05/2014 FRIENDS OF RICK STREAM Friends of John Diehl 2404 White Stable Rd Town and Country MO 63131 12/5/2014 $65,000.00

C061248 12/14/2014 FRIENDS OF RICK STREAM Lewis & Clark Ozarks Mountain Forum 1736 E Sunshine St Ste 402 Springfield MO 65804 12/12/2014 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

Interesting.

C071362 12/16/2014 CITIZENS FOR STEVE STENGER Thompson Coburn LLP One US Bank Plaza St Louis MO 63101 12/16/2014 $10,000.00

C071362 12/21/2014 CITIZENS FOR STEVE STENGER Express Scripts, Inc. One Express Way St Louis MO 63121 12/19/2014 $15,000.00

[emphasis added]

Does anyone recall any past St. Louis County races with a reversal of close to 2,000 votes in a recount? I didn’t think so.

Rick Stream’s (r) campaign must have a really interesting theory of election day ballot counting and the post election day certification in St. Louis County.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: the recharging continues (August 20, 2014)

Campaign Finance: they’re fixin’ to spend a lot of money (August 21, 2014)

Campaign Finance: move along, nothing new to see here (September 26, 2014)

Can you balance political harakiri against the satisfaction of slapping a fool in the face? (October 3, 2014)

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): on Rick Stream (r) running for St. Louis County Executive (October 14, 2014)

Campaign Finance: welcome to Missouri, St. Louis County edition (October 30, 2014)

Election Results: St. Louis County Executive (November 5, 2014)

The recount for Amendment 1, the so called “Right to Farm” constitutional amendment, has started. The Secretary of State has the Report of Findings available by county. At this point eleven counties have submitted their recount reports:

Amendment 1

Boone County

As certified 8/25/14: 8960 yes, 18471 no

Recount: 8963 yes, 18476 no

Difference: +3 yes, +5 no

DeKalb County

As certified 8/25/14: 1547 yes, 506 no

Recount: 1549 yes, 507 no

Difference: +2 yes, +1 no

Jasper County

As certified 8/25/14: 8936 yes, 5721 no

Recount: 8933 yes, 5721 no

Difference: -3 yes, +0 no

Laclede County

As certified 8/25/14: 5015 yes, 2103 no

Recount: 5016 yes, 2103 no

Difference: +1 yes, +0 no

Lewis County

As certified 8/25/14: 1185 yes, 609 no

Recount: 1190 yes, 608 no

Difference: +5 yes, -1 no

Moniteau County

As certified 8/25/14: 2471 yes, 868 no

Recount: 2472 yes, 869 no

Difference: +1 yes, +1 no

Nodaway County

As certified 8/25/14: 2704 yes, 1662 no

Recount: 2708 yes, 1664 no

Difference: +4 yes, +2 no

Ozark County

As certified 8/25/14: 1346 yes, 1187 no

Recount: 1347 yes, 1188 no

Difference: +1 yes, +1 no

Stoddard County

As certified 8/25/14: 2955 yes, 1907 no

Recount: 2955 yes, 1907 no

Difference: +0 yes, +0 no

Taney County

As certified 8/25/14: 4374 yes, 4294 no

Recount: 4380 yes, 4296 no

Difference: +6 yes, +2 no

Washington County

As certified 8/25/14: 2068 yes, 1114 no

Recount: 2073 yes, 1119 no

Difference: +5 yes, +5 no

[emphasis added]

“Yes” gained 25 votes, “No” gained 16 votes. There’s a long, long way to go before this is finished.

The Missouri Code of State Regulations [pdf] has a section, Title 15, Division 30, Chapter 9 – “Uniform Counting Standards” which illustrates the standards for counting votes which may not have registered on optical scanning equipment. As one looks at the examples you can understand why this could happen.

There is a tendency for the vote totals to go up when a hand recount takes place – a counting team (it’s a very rigorous process) can distinguish legally cast votes which an optical scanner won’t register (for instance, a circled candidate name or ballot issue response or a circled “bubble”). And let’s not be too hard on the voters who cast such ballots – they don’t vote every day, and ballot marking protocols have changed over time as election authorities have changed their county’s ballot formats.

What should give us pause is when the totals go down. Think about that for a minute.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: $110,000.00 for something they really care about (January 3, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Food fight! (May 28, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Because, across Missouri, family farms are being supplanted by… (June 24, 2014)

Campaign Finance: as if yard signs were actually a cash crop for actual farmers… (June 28, 2014)

Utilizing the First Amendment to challenge our oppressive corporate overlords… (July 2, 2014)

Joe Maxwell – “No” on Amendment No. 1 (July 8, 2014)

Campaign Finance: egg money (July 9, 2014)

Campaign Finance: opposing useless law (July 25, 2014)

Right to farm: read the small print and between the lines (July 25, 2014)

Pinch me, I must be dreaming – Cynthia Davis gets it right on Amendment 1 (July 30, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Big agriculture money keeps pouring in for Amendment 1 (July 31, 2014)

Baker Creek Seed Company – Vote “No” on Amendment 1 (August 3, 2014)

Senator Paul LeVota (D) on Amendment 1 (August 4, 2014)

After all that corporate money this is the best that they can do on Amendment 1? (August 6, 2014)

Amendment 1 – Recount (August 26, 2014)

From the Missouri Secretary of State:

[….]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

[….]

Kander Announces Recount on Statewide Ballot Measure

Jefferson City, Mo. – Secretary of State Jason Kander today announced a statewide recount of Constitutional Amendment 1, which appeared on Missouri’s August 5th primary election ballot, has been requested.

Kander’s office has created a webpage (www.sos.mo.gov/elections/Amendment1) to make the recount process more transparent and accessible to Missourians. The page will be updated daily at 3 p.m. to show the recount schedule established by the local election authorities, each local election authority’s report of findings, and a summary of recount results. The office will also train a team of staff members that can be dispatched throughout the state if assistance is requested. Per state statute, the recount will be supervised and certified by the secretary of state’s office no later than September 15.

“My goal is to set the standard for an open, transparent and fair recount process,” Kander said. “Recounts are in place to both ensure the integrity of elections and give Missourians confidence in the results, which is why I put an emphasis on new transparency measures.”

According to state law (RSMo 115.601), recounts are not automatically triggered, but must be requested by a registered voter whose position on the ballot question was defeated. Statewide races are only eligible for a recount when results are separated by less than one half of one percent of total votes cast. Of 996,672 votes cast on Constitutional Amendment 1, there were 499,581 “yes” votes and 497,091 “no” votes, with a difference of 0.24 percent.

The recount was requested by Wes Shoemyer on behalf of Missouri’s Food for America. Constitutional Amendment 1 will be represented by Dan Kleinsorge on behalf of Missouri Farmers Care.

Local election authorities will determine the date and time for recounts to take place in their respective counties, and a bipartisan team of election judges will conduct the process. Media may be present to observe the proceedings.                                    

– 30 –

Previously:

Campaign Finance: $110,000.00 for something they really care about (January 3, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Food fight! (May 28, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Because, across Missouri, family farms are being supplanted by… (June 24, 2014)

Campaign Finance: as if yard signs were actually a cash crop for actual farmers… (June 28, 2014)

Utilizing the First Amendment to challenge our oppressive corporate overlords… (July 2, 2014)

Joe Maxwell – “No” on Amendment No. 1 (July 8, 2014)

Campaign Finance: egg money (July 9, 2014)

Campaign Finance: opposing useless law (July 25, 2014)

Right to farm: read the small print and between the lines (July 25, 2014)

Pinch me, I must be dreaming – Cynthia Davis gets it right on Amendment 1 (July 30, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Big agriculture money keeps pouring in for Amendment 1 (July 31, 2014)

Baker Creek Seed Company – Vote “No” on Amendment 1 (August 3, 2014)

Senator Paul LeVota (D) on Amendment 1 (August 4, 2014)

After all that corporate money this is the best that they can do on Amendment 1? (August 6, 2014)

St. Louis County tally of 24th state Senate race has Lamping still in lead

By Jo Mannies, Beacon political reporter  

Posted 2:04 pm, Mon., 11.22.10

Republican state Senate candidate John Lamping has a lead of 133 votes over Democrat Barbara Fraser in St. Louis County’s final tally of the 24th District state Senate contest….

….Fraser said in a recent interview that she will definitely seek a recount, after the tallies have been certified by county and state election officials….

[emphasis added]

..explain this?:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091263 LAMPING FOR SENATE [pdf] 11/20/2010

Republican State Committee

204 E. Dunklin St.

Jefferson City, MO 65102

11/20/2010

$48,600.00

[emphasis added]

Just asking.

Our previous coverage of the lawsuit filed by Lathrop & Gage in December 2008 (08JO-CV02002) in regard to their work on the 2006 Johnson County election recount case:

The Johnson County recount case is finally over – for sure, sort of

Some of our previous coverage of the recount for the Johnson County Auditor and Johnson County Prosecuting Attorney races in that General Election:

The Johnson County recount case is finally over

Coughing up a giant hairball: the Western Court of Appeals rules on the Johnson County recount case

The Missouri Supreme Court issues rules governing the Missouri Bar and the Judiciary on various things like procedure and conduct. Rule 4-1.5 (b) on “Client-Lawyer Relationship – Fees” currently states (at the Missouri Courts web site):

…(b) The scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation, except when the lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on the same basis or rate. Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated to the client…

(Adopted August 19, 1994, eff. September 1, 1995, Rev. July 1, 2007, Amended October 2, 2007, eff. January 1, 2008)

The Johnson County recount case started in December of 2006. One might note that the current rule has been amended since then. I found a print copy of Missouri Court Rules, Volume I from March 2006 in a library:

4-1.5. Fees

…(b) When the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation…

It is also possible that the rule was revised between March and December 2006.

A few definitions:

quantum meruit

…n. Latin for “as much as he deserved,” the actual value of services performed. Quantum meruit determines the amount to be paid for services when no contract exists or when there is doubt as to the amount due for the work performed but done under circumstances when payment could be expected….

…estoppel…bars a person from adopting a position in court that contradicts his or her past statements or actions when that contradictory stance would be unfair to another person who relied on the original position…

The case file (43 pages, $10.75 in copying costs, available from the Circuit Court Clerk in Johnson County) includes a “Circuit Court Docket Sheet”; a “Judge’s Docket Sheet”; a “Notice of Entry”; a dismissal filing; a fax cover letter; a fax cover sheet; “Notice to make Video Deposition” for Amy Blunt, Gene Paul Bradshaw, Thor Hearne, Steven McCarten, and Dave Zeiler; an “Answer of Defendant Teresa Collins”; an “Answer of Defendant Lynn Stoppy-Brackin”; two copies of forms for “Summons in Civil Case”; an “Order for Appointment of Private Process Server”; a “Motion for Approval and Appointment of Private Process Servers”; and the lawsuit petition filed on behalf of Lathrop & Gage.

First, the lawsuit petition, filed on December 15, 2008:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, MISSOURI

LATHROP & GAGE, L.C., a Missouri

Limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TERESA COLLINS,…

and

LYNN STOPPY-BRACKIN,…

Defendants.

Case No. O8JO-CV02002

Division No. I

[Filed Dec 15 2008]

PETITION

(Action on Account and Quantum Meruit)

Plaintiff, Lathrop & Gage L.C., by and through counsel, and for its petition against defendants Teresa Collins and Lynn Stoppy-Brackin, jointly and severally (collectively, the “Defendants”), states and alleges as follows:

FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

1. Lathrop & Gage L.C. (“L&G”) is a Missouri limited liability company in good standing and organized under the laws of Missouri. The principal place of business for Lathrop & Gage L.C. is…Kansas City, Missouri…

2. Teresa Collins is an individual residing in Johnson County, Missouri….

3. Lynn Stoppy-Brackin is an individual residing in Johnson County, Missouri….

4. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and venue is proper, as the services which are the basis of this lawsuit were performed in Jackson County, Missouri.

COUNT I- ACTION ON ACCOUNT

5. L&G restates and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 4.

6. On or about December 13, 2006, Defendants employed L&G to provide legal services.

7. At Defendants’ request, L&G represented Defendants on election law issues.

8. Defendants agreed that L&G would provide legal services and advance costs to represent Defendants in exchange for payment at L&G’s ordinary and customary rates for those legal services and costs.

9. At Defendants’ request, L&G provided legal services to Defendants at L&G’s ordinary and customary rates for those services.

10. Defendants agreed that they would pay L&G its ordinary and customary rates for the services it provided to Defendants.

11. L&G’s charges for services and costs advanced were fair, reasonable, and customary for this community given the type of work being performed.

12. As of December 1,2008, Defendant Teresa Collins owed L&O $78,402.45 for the services that L&G provided to, and the costs that L&G advanced on behalf of, Defendants.

13. As of December 1, 2008, Defendant Lynn Stoppy-Brackin owed L&G $24,304.46 for the services that L&G provided to, and the costs that L&G advanced on behalf of, Defendants.

14. Despite L&G’s demand on Defendants for payment, and Defendants’ assurances to L&G that Defendants would pay L&G in full for its services rendered to Defendants, they have failed to pay the amounts owed on the account.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Lathrop & Gage L,C. respectfully requests that the Court enter Judgment in L&G’s favor and against Defendant Teresa Collins on Count I of the Petition in the amount of $78,402.45, with interest at the statutory rate and the costs incurred in bringing this action, and such other and further relief as is just and proper under the circumstances, and against Defendant Lynn Stoppy-Brackin on Count I of the Petition in the amount of $24,304.46, with interest at the statutory rate and the costs incurred in bringing this action, and such other and further relief as is just and proper under the circumstances.

COUNT II- BREACH OF CONTRACT

15. L&G restates and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13.

16. L&G and Defendants entered into a written agreement whereby L&G agreed to provide legal services and advance costs to represent Defendants in exchange for payment at L&G’s ordinary and customary rates for those legal services and costs (the “Contract”).

17. Defendants breached the Contract by failing to pay for the legal services that L&G provided to, and the costs that L&G advanced on behalf of, Defendants.

18. L&G performed all of its obligations under the Contract.

19. As a direct result of Defendants’ breach of the Contract, L&O suffered damages.

20. L&G’s damages are $78,402.45 for the legal services provided to, and the costs advanced on behalf of, the Defendants.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Lathrop & Gage L.C. respectfully requests that the Court enter Judgmen
t in L&G’s favor and against Defendant Teresa Collins on Count II of the Petition in the amount of $78,402.45, with interest at the statutory rate and the costs incurred in bringing this action, and such other and further relief as is just and proper under the circumstances, and against Defendant Lynn Stoppy-Brackin on Count I of the Petition in the amount of $24,304.46, with interest at the statutory rate and the costs incurred in bringing this action, and such other and further relief as is just and proper under the circumstances.

COUNT III

(Quantum Meruit)

21. L&G restates and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 19 above.

22. L&G provided legal services and advanced costs at Defendants’ request and for their benefit

.

23. The fair and reasonable value for the unpaid portion of the services rendered and costs that L&G advanced to Teresa Collins is $78,402.45.

24. The fair and reasonable value for the unpaid portion of the services rendered and costs that L&G advanced to Lynn Stoppy-Brackin is $24,304.46.

25. Defendants accepted these legal services and costs advanced with full knowledge of their obligation to pay L&G for all amounts due and owing.

26. Despite demand that L&G made upon Defendants and their assurance to L&G that Defendants would pay L&G in full for its services rendered to Defendants, they have failed to pay L&G the reasonable value for the services rendered and costs advanced.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Lathrop & Gage L.C. respectfiuly requests that the Court enter Judgment in L&G’s favor and against Defendant Teresa Collins on Count III of the Petition in the amount of $78,402.45, with interest at the statutory rate aral the costs incurred in bringing this action, and such other and further relief as is just and proper under the circumstances, and against Defendant Lynn Stoppy-Brackin on Count III of the Petition in the amount of $24,304.46, with interest at the statutory rate and the costs incurred in bringing this action, and such other and further relief as is just and proper under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

LATHROP & GAGE L.C.

By:

Andrew T. Jones…

…Kansas City, Missouri…

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LATHROP

& GAGE L.C.

[emphasis added]

Lynn Stoppy (r) is the current Johnson County Prosecuting Attorney (the 2006 race was the subject of the recount). Two years later she was an unsuccessful candidate for the open seat for Circuit Court Judge in the 17th Circuit, losing to Mike Wagner (D) in the 2008 General Election.

Lynn Stoppy’s attorneys filed her answer on December 31, 2008:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, MISSOURI

LATHROP & GAGE, L.C., a Missouri

Limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TERESA COLLINS and LYNN STOPPY-BRACKIN,

Defendants.

Case No: O8JO-CV02002

[Filed Dec 31 2008]

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT LYNN STOPPY-BRACKIN

Comes now Defendant, Lynn Stoppy-Brackin, and for her answer to the Petition states:

ALLEGED FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

1. Lathrop & Gage, L.C. is a Missouri limited liability company in good standing and organized under the laws of Missouri. The principal place of business for Lathrop & Gage, L.C. is …Kansas City, Missouri…

2. Teresa Collins is an individual residing in Johnson County, Missouri….

3. Lynn Stoppy-Brackin is an individual residing in Johnson County, Missouri….

4. This court has jurisdiction over the parties and venue is proper, but each and every other allegation of paragraph 4 is denied.

COUNT I – ALLEGED ACTION ON ACCOUNT

5. Defendant, Lynn Stoppy-Brackin hereby restates and incorporates her responses in paragraphs 1 through 4.

6. Defendant, Lynn Stoppy-Brackin denies that she employed the plaintiff to provide legal services on or about December 13, 2006, or on any other day. The plaintiff undertook to provide legal services, but the plaintiff was not employed by the defendants, and the defendants did not agree to pay the plaintiff for legal services. The defendants were not involved in selection of the plaintiff to provide legal services and the defendants only permitted legal services to be provided by the plaintiff pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Petition are denied.

7. Defendant, Lynn Stoppy-Brackin denies the allegation that the defendants requested the plaintiff to represent them on election law issues. Although, defendants permitted the plaintiff to provide representation to them on election law issues, the representation was provided pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Petition are denied.

8. Defendants did not agree that the plaintiff would provide legal services and advance costs to represent defendants in exchange for payment of attorney fees or costs, and therefore, the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Petition are denied.

9. Defendants did not request plaintiff to provide legal services to defendants, but did permit the plaintiff to provide legal services. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff attorneys fees or expenses. Defendants permitted plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Petition are denied.

10. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Petition are denied.

11. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Petition are denied.

12. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Petition are denied.

13. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Petition are denied.

14. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants, and the plaintiffs allegation that it has not been paid for the amount it is claiming in this lawsuit is accurate. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Petition are denied.

WHEREFORE, de
fendant Lynn Stoppy-Brackin requests that the court enter judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants, and that the statutory court costs in this action be taxed to the plaintiff.

COUNT II-ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT

15. Defendant Lynn Stoppy-Brackin restates and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 14.

16. Defendants did not enter into a written agreement with plaintiff. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Petition are denied.

17. Defendants did not enter into a written agreement with plaintiff and therefore did not breach a contract with plaintiff Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Petition are denied.

18. Defendants did not enter into a contract with plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 18 of the Petition are denied.

19. Defendants did not enter into a contract with plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Petition are denied.

20. Defendants did not enter into a contract with plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 20 of the Petition are denied.

WHEREFORE, defendant Lynn Stoppy-Brackin requests that the court enter judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants, and that the statutory court costs in this action be taxed to the plaintiff

COUNT III

(Alleged Quantum Meruit)

21. Defendant Lynn Stoppy-Brackin restates and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 through 20.

22. Defendants did not request plaintiff to provide legal services to defendants, but did permit the plaintiff to provide legal services. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff attorneys fees or expenses. Defendants permitted plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Petition are denied.

23. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Petition are denied.

24. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 24 of the Petition are denied.

25. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Petition are denied.

26. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants, and the plaintiffs allegation that it has not been paid for the amount it is claiming in this lawsuit is accurate. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 26 of the Petition are denied.

WHEREFORE, defendant Lynn Stoppy-Brackin requests that the court enter judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants, and that the statutory court costs in this action be taxed to the plaintiff.

ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS AND DEFENSES

27. Each and every allegation in plaintiffs Petition not specifically admitted is hereby denied.

28. The allegations in Counts I, II, and III of the Petition failed to state claims on grounds for which relief may be granted, and further there is no legal or factual basis for the plaintiff to contend that joint and several liability could exist in this action.

29. The plaintiff undertook to provide legal services to the defendants without any reasonable expectation that defendants would compensate the plaintiff, or reimburse the plaintiff for legal services or costs advanced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, knew, and reasonably should have known, that the defendants reasonably and justifiably relied upon representations of the individuals and entities who were involved in the engagement of the plaintiff in providing representation to the defendants that defendants would not become personally liable for payment of any attorney fees or costs advanced by the plaintiff, and that any attorney fees and costs that were to be paid would be paid by the individuals involved in selection of the plaintiff to provide legal services to the defendants. The doctrine of estoppel, therefore, applies as an additional defense in this action.

RAHM, RAHM & MeVAY, P.C.

KIRK RAHM…  

GAYLE McVAY…

…Warrensburg, MO…

…ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

LYNN STOPPY-BRACKIN

Teresa Collins (r) was the Johnson County Auditor for a few months in 2007 until the results of the recount for the 2006 election ended up reinstating Kay Dolan (Reynolds) (D) in the position.

Teresa Collins’ attorneys filed her answer on January 2, 2009:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, MISSOURI

LATHROP & GAGE, L.C., a Missouri

Limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TERESA COLLINS and LYNN STOPPY-BRACKIN,

Defendants.

Case No: O8JO-CV02002

[Filed Jan 02 2009]

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TERESA COLLINS

Comes now Defendant, Teresa Collins, and for her answer to the Petition states:

ALLEGED FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

1. Lathrop & Gage, L.C. is a Missouri limited liability company in good standing and organized under the laws of Missouri. The principal place of business for Lathrop & Gage, L.C. is…Kansas City, Missouri….

2. Teresa Collins is an individual residing in Johnson County, Missouri….

3. Lynn Stoppy-Brackin is an individual residing in Johnson County, Missouri….

4. This court has jurisdiction over the parties and venue is proper, but each and every other allegation of paragraph 4 is denied.

COUNT I ALLEGED ACTION ON ACCOUNT

5. Defendant, Teresa Collins hereby restates and incorporates her responses in paragraphs 1 through 4.

6. Defendant, Teresa Collins denies that she employed the plaintiff to provide legal services on or about December 13, 2006, or on any other day. The plaintiff undertook to provide legal services, but the plaintiff was not employed by the defendants, and the defendants did not agree to pay the plaintiff for legal services. The defendants were not involved in selection of the plaintiff to provide legal services and the defendants only permitted legal services to be provided by the plaintiff pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Petition are denied.

7. Defendant, Teresa Collins denies the allegation that the defendants requested the plaintiff to represent them on election law issues. Although, defendants permitted the plaintiff to provide representation to them on election law issues, the
representation was provided pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Petition are denied.

8. Defendants did not agree that the plaintiff would provide legal services and advance costs to represent defendants in exchange for payment of attorney fees or costs, and therefore, the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Petition are denied.

9. Defendants did not request plaintiff to provide legal services to defendants, but did permit the plaintiff to provide legal services. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff attorneys fees or expenses. Defendants permitted plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Petition are denied.

10. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Petition are denied.

11. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Petition are denied.

12. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Petition are denied.

13. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Petition are denied.

14. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants, and the plaintiff’s allegation that it has not been paid for the amount it is claiming in this lawsuit is accurate. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Petition are denied.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Teresa Collins requests that the court enter judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants, and that the statutory court costs in this action be taxed to. the plaintiff.

COUNT II-ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT

15. Defendant Teresa Collins restates and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 14.

16. Defendants did not enter into a written agreement with plaintiff. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Petition are denied.

17. Defendants did not enter into a written agreement with plaintiff and therefore did not breach a contract with plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Petition are denied.

18. Defendants did not enter into a contract with allegations in paragraph 18 of the Petition are denied.

19. Defendants did not enter into a contract with allegations in paragraph 19 of the Petition are denied.

20. Defendants did not enter into a contract with allegations in paragraph 20 of the Petition are denied.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Teresa Collins requests against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants, and this action be taxed to the plaintiff

COUNT III

(Alleged Quantum Meruit)

21. Defendant Teresa Collins restates and incorporates by reference the

allegations set forth in paragraph 1 through 20.

22. Defendants did not request plaintiff to provide legal services to defendants, to but did permit the plaintiff to provide legal services. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff attorneys fees or expenses. Defendants permitted plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Petition are denied.

23. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Petition are denied.

24. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 24 of the Petition are denied.

25. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Petition are denied.

26. Defendants did not agree to pay plaintiff for legal services provided to defendants, and the plaintiffs allegation that it has not been paid for the amount it is claiming in this lawsuit is accurate. Defendants did permit plaintiff to provide legal services pursuant to representations made to the defendants that they would not incur any responsibility for payment of attorney fees or litigation expenses because of services provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 26 of the Petition are denied.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Teresa Collins requests that the court enter judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants, and that the statutory court costs in this action be taxed to the plaintiff.

ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS AND DEFENSES

27. Each and every allegation in plaintiffs Petition not specifically admitted is hereby denied.

28. The allegations in Counts I, II, and III of the Petition failed to state claims on grounds for which relief may be granted, and further there is no legal or factual basis for the plaintiff to contend that joint and several liability could exist in this action.

29. The plaintiff undertook to provide legal services to the defendants without any reasonable expectation that defendants would compensate the plaintiff, or reimburse the plaintiff for legal services or costs advanced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, knew, and reasonably should have known, that th
e defendants reasonably and justifiably relied upon representations of the individuals and entities who were involved in the engagement of the plaintiff in providing representation to the defendants that defendants would not become personally liable for payment of any attorney fees or costs advanced by the plaintiff, and that any attorney fees and costs that were to be paid would be paid by the individuals involved in selection of the plaintiff to provide legal services to the defendants. The doctrine of estoppel, therefore, applies as an additional defense in this action.

RAHM, RAHM & MeVAY, P.C.

KIRK RAHM…  

GAYLE McVAY…

…Warrensburg, MO…

…

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

TERESA COLLINS

One sample of the deposition notices, also filed on January 2, 2009:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, MISSOURI

LATHROP & GAGE, L.C., a Missouri

Limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TERESA COLLINS and LYNN STOPPY-BRACKIN,

Defendants.

Case No: O8JO-CV02002

[Filed Jan 02 2009]

NOTICE TO TAKE VIDEO

DEPOSITION OF AMY BLUNT

You are hereby notified that the video deposition of Amy Blunt will be taken on Wednesday, Febuary 11, 2009 at the law offices of Rahm, Rahm & McVay…Warrensburg, Missouri, beginning at 1:00 p.m. and continuing until 5:00 p.m., or from day to day at the same time and place, between the same hours until completed. Said deposition will be video-recorded by designee of Legal Video Productions…Warrensburg, Missouri…

RAHM, RAHM & MeVAY, P.C.

KIRK RAHM…  

GAYLE McVAY…

…Warrensburg, MO…

…ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

On January 14, 2009 the attorney for Lathrop & Gage filed a motion: “Comes Now Plaintiff Lathrop & Gage LLP f/k/a Lathrop & Gage L.C., and pursuant to Mo.R.Civ.P. 67.02(a) dismisses this civil action.”

On January 16, 2009 the “Notice of Entry” states: “Court takes up and grants motion to dismiss without prejudice. Costs taxed to plaintiff. [signed]JAC”

Some of our previous coverage of the recount for the Johnson County Auditor and Johnson County Prosecuting Attorney races from the 2006 General Election:

The Johnson County recount case is finally over

Coughing up a giant hairball: the Western Court of Appeals rules on the Johnson County recount case

It appears that the law firm of Lathrop & Gage filed a lawsuit on December 15, 2008 in circuit court against Teresa Collins (a republican who was Johnson County Auditor for a few months in 2007 until the recount reinstated Democrat Kay Dolan Reynolds) and Lynn Stoppy (r), the current Johnson County Prosecuting Attorney. The case was dismissed without prejudice by 17th Judicial Circuit Judge Jaqueline Cook on January 16, 2009:

08JO-CV02002 – LATHROP & GAGE LC V TERESA COLLINS ET AL

Date Filed: 12/15/2008

Location: Johnson Case Type: CC Suit on Account

Disposition: Dismiss by Ct w/o Prejudice Date of Disposition: 01/16/2009

Judge At Disposition: COOK, JACQUELINE A

08JO-CV02002 – LATHROP & GAGE LC V TERESA COLLINS ET AL

12/15/2008 Docket Entry: Pet Filed in Circuit Ct

Docket Entry: Motion Special Process Server

12/18/2008 Docket Entry: Judge Assigned

12/29/2008 Docket Entry: Order – Special Process Server

Docket Entry: Summons Issued-Circuit

Text: Document ID: 08-SMCC-1657, for COLLINS, TERESA; Document ID: 08-SMCC-1658, for STOPPY-BRACKIN, LYNN; ISSUED AND DIRECTED TO EMPIRE PROCESS SERVICE & INVESTIGATION.

12/31/2008 Docket Entry: Answer Filed

Text: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT LYNN STOPPY-BRACKIN, filed.

Filing Party: RAHM , J KIRK

01/02/2009   Docket Entry:   Notice to Take Deposition

Text: (5) NOTICES TO TAKE VIDEO DEPOSITION FILED. DEPOSITIONS OF STEVEN MCCARTEN, THOR HEARNE, AMY BLUNT, GENE PAUL BRADSHAW, DAVE ZEILER, filed.

Filing Party: RAHM , J KIRK

Docket Entry: Answer Filed

Text: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TERESA COLLINS, filed.

Filing Party: RAHM , J KIRK

01/14/2009 Docket Entry: Motion to Dismiss

Filing Party: JONES , ANDREW TODD

01/16/2009 Docket Entry: Judge/Clerk – Note

Text: COURT TAKES UP AND GRANTS MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. COSTS TAXED TO PLAINTIFF. SJAC

Docket Entry: Dismiss by Ct w/o Prejudice

[emphasis added]

Blunt? Blunt? That name sounds familiar…

They’ve finished counting the absentee ballots and Al Franken increased his lead:

Recount ends with Franken up by 226

BREAKING: AL-VALANCHE —- Franken WINS —- (NOW w/ Mega Eye Candy)

Franken Jumps Out to 225-Vote Lead on Strength of Absentee Ballots

MN-Sen: Franken By 225 After Rejected Absentee Ballot Count

Having gone through two recounts – once on a recount team and once as a “disinterested observer” – it was fascinating to watch the live counting process in Minnesota on-line. There were times I would say, “Hey, I’ve seen that before.”

Mid-morning on Thursday I walked into the County Clerk’s office in the Johnson County Courthouse and asked the deputy clerk at the counter if I could get a copy of the “Report of Findings” for the recount. The County Clerk was on the phone, overheard me ask for the report, and told the deputy clerk he would address this. I asked again. He said, “No.” [I kid you not, it was a one word response.] I asked him why. He told me that it had not been sent in yet and it could only be released by the Secretary of State’s office. I shrugged, turned to the door, and left the premises.

Then I read this in today’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

12/19/2008 11:15:00 AM

Hoskins wins by less

Sue Sterling

Staff Writer

…In the recount, Hoskins picked up four additional votes and Democratic challenger Jim Jackson gained 11 votes, for a net gain of seven votes for Jackson…

…Powers’ staff forwarded results to the secretary of state Wednesday. He received an e-mail about mid-day Thursday authorizing him to release the results…

[emphasis added]

A 122 vote margin.

You gotta love the headline.

I get the distinct feeling that the republican Johnson County Clerk doesn’t like me.

On to the recount.

The dirty little secret of our elections is that not all legal votes get picked up by the optical scan machines on Election Day (see the Minnesota U.S. Senate recount). That’s why you always ask for a recount when it’s within the margin as allowed by law.

There are so many levels of irony in today’s news about the 121st Legislative District recount. Denny Hoskins (r – “Noun, verb, CPA”) is publicly whining about the messy inconvenience to his legitimacy in this recount business:

Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal

12/15/2008 11:23:00 AM

Hoskins against recount

…Hoskins said in a prepared statement the recount will cost thousands of dollars.

“It is unfortunate in these challenging economic times that the recount will cost the county’s taxpayers between $5,000-$15,000,” he said in the statement.

Jackson on Sunday said he does not expect the recount to cost anywhere near that amount, based on a conversation with the Secretary of State’s Office.

“The only cost is for the election judges to be paid at the same rate as (they) would be paid in an election,” Jackson said. “That is the only cost to the county.”

County Clerk Gilbert Powers said Monday the county will employ four judges and four watchers at a cost of $10 per hour each. Based on eight-hour days, the total would come to $1,280 for two days…

[emphasis added]

Heh. Who’s counting?

So much for being the only CPA in the legislature, eh? Lord help the Missouri General Assembly and the people of Missouri.

Let’s take look at the cost of the Minnesota U.S. Senate race recount via Minnesota Public Radio (also going on at this time):

…the cost of a recount is about 3 cents per ballot. Since there are nearly 3 million ballots to count, the total will be about $90,000. It will be paid by taxpayers…

Even accounting for an economy of scale in Minnesota the claim that it could take $15,000.00 to count a little over 13,000 ballots (at over a dollar a vote) in Johnson County, Missouri is way off the mark and doesn’t quite fit with what the republican Johnson County Clerk says either. But, given the massive amount of money the Missouri Republican State Committee and other right wingnut enablers “independently” spent to get Hoskins ahead in the Election Day vote count he probably does have a unique view of the value of a dollar. Maybe he should ask for his CPA school money back. And maybe he should actually read RSMo 115.610 before he whines in public about a recount. I expect Hoskins’ (r – “Noun, verb, CPA”) next press release will claim he has a mandate. In his world that would probably add up.