Missouri Attoney General Chris Koster filed an amicus brief [pdf] today in a federal lawsuit challenging health care reform.

From Attorney General Koster’s letter to the leadership of the Missouri General Assembly:

…Although these are complex questions on which many scholars, judges, and interested parties sincerely disagree, it is the opinion of this office that the Congress reached beyond current Commerce Clause precedent when it regulated that individuals maintain “minimum essential [healthcare] coverage” or pay a penalty. Therefore, it follows that the federal courts, in reviewing this aspect of the law, must either expand Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, justify the provision on alternate constitutional grounds, or strike down the individual mandate.

It is also the legal view of this office that the individual mandate is severable from the ACA and that those provisions of the bill not clearly dependant upon the mandate may stand. Our argument against the expansion of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority is emphatically not based on any opposition to the expansion of health coverage for uninsured Americans.

To the contrary, I favor the expansion of health coverage…

Randy Turner at The Turner Report has a post up about focus group results released as part of the discovery in the Faux News Channel lawsuit against Robin Carnahan’s (D) 2010 senate campaign. There’s an interesting refrain about ACORN, showing that the rightwing’s assault based on fake charges and Congress’ capitulation with a bill of attainder did more damage than just shutting down the group which legitimately registered voters and provided other legitimate services.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Documents in Fox News lawsuit indicate why Robin Carnahan lost Senate election

Documents turned over to Fox News attorneys by a consulting firm provide evidence why Roy Blunt defeated Robin Carnahan in last year’s U. S. Senate race….

….Among the comments from people asked about their greatest concerns about Robin Carnahan:

-Why was she quiet about ACORN?….

-May have ignored problems with ACORN, whatever that is….

-She is too close to ACORN.

-I would want to know if there is any truth to those ACORN accusations….

-She supports ACORN.

-Too cheesy or fake with the farming. Too tied in with ACORN….

-She is too much a yes man for the president. She also caused too much money to given to the ACORN people.

-How closely is she tied to special interests like ACORN?….

-What is ACORN?….

Never mind that the rightwing and their Mighty Wurlitzer stooges beat their truthiness drum. As we can see, all they have to do is repeat the lie.

At Show Me Progress:

ACORN vindicated (March 2, 2010)

….Get that – the videos were “edited to meet their agenda.” In other words, these full-of-themselves rightwing echo chamber trainees, O’Keefe and  Giles, were running a scam.

The Brooklyn investigation is the third such to cast doubt on O’Keefe’s and Giles’ veracity. Investigations by the former Massachusetts Attorney, Scott Harshbarger, and the Congressional Research Service have found ACORN innocent of wrong doing….

At the Huffington Post:

John Atlas

Posted: June 15, 2010 02:41 AM

ACORN Vindicated of Wrongdoing by the Congressional Watchdog Office

On Monday, June 14, a preliminary probe by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)of ACORN has found no evidence the association or related organizations mishandled the $40 million in federal money they received in recent years.

A review of grants by nine federal agencies found no problems with ACORN’s grants. In my book Seeds of Change I document how ACORN, the largest most successful national anti poverty organization in America, was forced to close its door….

….In fact the staff in most of ACORN’s offices turned the pair away, reported the couple to the police, refused to provide them any aid, and in one case tried to convince the phony prostitute to get counseling. In no ACORN office did employees file any paperwork or do anything illegal on the duo’s behalf.

But Fox News broadcasted the deceptive tapes nearly around the clock for several days defaming ACORN….

[emphasis added]

Ironic, eh? And they have a plan.

HR 39 was passed last week by the House. The resolution calls for Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster (D) to join in the frivolous anti-health care reform lawsuits getting smacked down in federal courtrooms across the country.

With apologies to Atrios

From Representative Denny Hoskins’ (r-noun, verb, CPA) January 13, 2011 “Capitol Report”:

….The full House already voted on some bills this week.  I’m pleased to report on a resolution to urge Missouri to join 20 other state attorneys general in a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of the federal health care requirement.  I voted for HCR 39 and am hopeful Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster will enter into this lawsuit to make health insurance a personal choice….

There were a few amendments. A personal favorite (from the Journal of the House [pdf] for January 11, 2011):

….Representative Kelly (24) offered House Amendment No. 4.

House Amendment No. 4

AMEND House Resolution No. 39, Page 1, Line 29, by deleting the following:

“Missouri Lieutenant Governor”, and inserting in lieu thereof the words “private citizen”….

Heh.

That amendment was further amended. And then:

….On motion of Representative Franz, House Resolution No. 39, as amended, was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: 115

Allen Asbury Bahr Barnes Bernskoetter Berry Black Brandom Brattin Brown 85 Brown 116 Burlison Casey Cauthorn Cierpiot Conway 14 Conway 27 Cookson Cox Crawford Cross Curtman Davis Day Denison Dieckhaus Diehl Dugger Elmer Entlicher Faith Fallert Fisher Fitzwater Flanigan Fraker Franklin Franz Frederick Fuhr Gatschenberger Gosen Grisamore Guernsey Haefner Hampton Harris Higdon Hinson Hodges Hoskins Hough Houghton Johnson Jones 89 Jones 117 Keeney Kelley 126 Klippenstein Koenig Korman Lair Lant Largent Lasater Lauer Leach Leara Lichtenegger Loehner Long Marshall McCaherty McGhee McNary Molendorp Nance Neth Nolte Parkinson Phillips Pollock Quinn Redmon Reiboldt Richardson Riddle Rowland Ruzicka Sater Schad Scharnhorst Schatz Schieber Schieffer Schneider Schoeller Shively Shumake Silvey Smith 150 Solon Stream Swinger Thomson Torpey Wallingford Wells Weter White Wieland Wright Wyatt Zerr Mr Speaker

NOES: 046

Anders Atkins Aull Brown 50 Carlson Carter Colona Curls Ellinger Holsman Hubbard Hummel Jones 63 Kander Kelly 24 Kirkton Kratky Lampe May McCann Beatty McDonald McGeoghegan McManus McNeil Meadows Montecillo Nasheed Newman Nichols Oxford Pace Peters-Baker Pierson Rizzo Schupp Sifton Smith 71 Spreng Still Swearingen Talboy Taylor Walton Gray Webb Webber Zimmerman

PRESENT: 000

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 002

Funderburk Hughes

[emphasis added]

As for the frivolous part:

Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Health Care Reform Law

Doug Mataconis Wednesday, December 1, 2010

….If nothing else, this case points out just how difficult it will be for any of the Plaintiffs involved in the lawsuits against the health care reform bill to convince any Court of Appeals of the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate, not to mention the Supreme Court. In order for the Courts to do so, they are going to have to find more than 60 years of Commerce Clause jurisprudence to have been wrongly decided, and the odds of that happening seem to be slim indeed…

Uh, that’s legal talk for the lawsuits being a colossal waste of time.

And, according to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing health care reform would add significantly to the deficit:

CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act

….Because CBO and JCT estimated that the March 2010 health care legislation would reduce budget deficits over the 2010-2019 period and in subsequent years, we expect that repealing that legislation would increase budget deficits. The resulting increase in deficits projected for fiscal years 2012 through 2019 is likely to be similar in size to-but not exactly the same as-the reduction in deficits that was originally estimated to result from the enacted legislation….

Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade

As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the 2012-2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion (on the basis of the original estimate), plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. Adding two more years (through 2021) brings the projected increase in deficits to something in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes….

There you have it. The federal lawsuits are a waste of time and repeal of health care reform would significantly increase the deficit. For republicans, what’s not to like?

A bit of Missouri legal news:

Warrensburg Schools settle sexual abuse lawsuit by female athletes, will pay them $809,000

Nov 11, 2010, 10:57 PM

WARRENSBURG, Mo. – The sexual abuse lawsuit filed by six Warrensburg High School female athletes has been settled out of court, with the school district’s insurer agreeing to pay the girls $809,000….

….The girls’ attorney, Ronnie Podolefsky, told Digitalburg Thursday that while the girls were happy about the settlement, “It was never about the money. We never requested money.” It was about ethics and civil rights, she said.

This settlement says “We should be listening to our children,” Podolefsky said, and “We can stand up for what’s right.”

While the school district did not acknowledge any admission of guilt, liability or wrongdoing, Podolefsky said “The number ($809,000) speaks for itself. The settlement agreement says “…this settlement is made solely for the purpose of avoiding the expense of further litigation…”

[emphasis added]

$809,000.00 is a lot of money. It does speak for itself, don’t you think?

We first wrote about a part of this story:

Three steps behind, and to the right (January 25, 2008)

And last wrote about it:

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a few small tokens of our esteem (May 16, 2010)

Interestingly, in addition to Ronnie Podolefsky, the plaintiffs also had Roxanne Conlin representing them. Yes, that Roxanne Conlin.

Heh. There’s got to be somebody at Faux News who spoke up at a meeting and said, “let’s sue Robin Carnahan’s campaign for using some of our video clips in an ad” who is thankful that he doesn’t have to clear his desk out at the end of business today only because everyone else around the table probably agreed so enthusiastically that it was a mondo boffo idea.

[Mindy Mazur – Campaign Manager

Robin Carnahan for Senate]

Mindy Mazur: Hey, guess what I’m doing? I’m standing up to Congressman Blunt. And you should, too. And while we’re doing that we’re gonna stand up to Fox News as well. Their parent company has given Congressman Blunt ten thousand dollars over the years. But in just one day we’ve already gotten four hundred donations supporting us in standing up to tell the truth. But we want five hundred. George in St. Louis, thanks for being number four hundred. You out there who haven’t donated yet, it’s your turn. Help us out, go to Robin Carnahan dot com. Thanks.

My advice to Robin Carnahan’s campaign – keep beating this like a big bass drum.

The Kid (2000)

“Aww, somebody call the waahmbulance!”

https://secure.robincarnahan.com/page/-/video/jwplayer/player.swf

Mindy Mazur: Hi, I’m Mindy Mazur, I’m Robin Carnahan’s campaign manager. It’s a little after ten o’clock on Thursday night, but I wanted to record a, a short message for you and give you an update on what’s going on in the Missouri Senate race.

As you may have heard late last night Fox News and Chris Wallace sued our campaign over our most recent TV ad. The ad in question is one where Chris Wallace questions Congressman Blunt about his slipping a secret provision in for Phillip Morris into a Homeland Security bill and his relationship with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. It’s just a short clip, it’s completely in context, and it’s the truth.

And we at the Robin Carnahan campaign believe the truth matters in this race. And that’s why, despite this lawsuit, we’re keeping this ad on the air. We’re gonna fight the lawsuit to keep it on the air and to make sure Missouri voters know truth.

You and I know that Robin’s a fighter and she fights on principle. And this is a fight worth having. Please join us, go to Robin Carnahan dot com. Thanks for your help.

In the business of politics Faux News and his whineyness Chris Wallace handed Robin Carnahan and her campaign what is called “earned media”. There isn’t enough money on the planet to pay to get the coverage Roy’ Blunt’s (r-lobbyist) Washington insider pedigree is getting with this story.

Previously:

You make the ad, we sue you to protect our candidate

Faux sues, We deride: The ripple effect

Update: The Carnahan campaign has put the ad back up on the web.

http://c0000646.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/embed.html

It is clear that Peter Kinder thinks that there’s lots of political hay to be made by getting in on the lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act –  a belief that he shares with the AGs of several states, although it’s unlikely that such a suit has even the proverbial snowball-in-Hell’s chance of success. Sadly for Kinder, in his role as Lieutenant Governor he lacks the authority to file suit on Missouri’s behalf.  Happily for Missourians, responsible adults, to wit Governor Nixon and AG Chris Koster, have slapped Kinder down and refused to drag the state into this potentially very expensive morass. Indeed, Senator Claire McCaskill has gone so far as to describe some of his assertions as “embarrassingly wrong and irresponsible.”  

Although no state funds will be forthcoming, Kinder remains resolute – there are a few riled up Tea Partiers out there who need some TLC after all. Consequently, he has announced that he is collecting private donations in order to finance a suit out of his office. To this end, he has set up a Website, “Health Care in Action: Standing up against the infringement on state sovereignty and personal freedoms” – how’s that for a particularly tone-deaf non-sequitur?

Perhaps this new variation on Kinder’s crusade means that he was stung by criticisms like those of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which ridiculed the potential use of taxpayer dollars in an effort to deny Missourians the benefits of health care reform at a time when the state is engaged in budget cutting so dire that fiduciary bones are being scraped away. Or maybe he doesn’t really care whether he raises sufficient funds or not – he’s undoubtedly calculating that he’ll get lots of fringer street cred out of this little piece of theater no matter what.

Laugh though we may at Kinder’s grandstanding, we should not dismiss the harm he and others can do. The rightwing tactic of mounting legal challenges to the new law is potentially harmful to its successful implementation whether or not they have legal merit. As a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes:

Even though attempts to nullify provisions of federal health reform legislation have no legal effect, they should not be ignored. With enactment of the PPACA, substantial efforts are needed to meet tight deadlines for implementation. Legal challenges and campaigns to block the legislation will consume time and resources needed for implementation and may slow implementation until legal challenges are resolved. State provisions that purport to prohibit the individual mandate could be used as a shield by those who refuse to comply with the law. They also may weaken political support for health reform.

Conventional wisdom has it that Kinder is prepping for a run for Governor and that he sees this lawsuit business as a convenient tool to garner attention and establish his fringer bona fides. Still, he’ll need more than Tea Partiers to become governor – and if he allows himself to be identified with the political thugs seeking to work over our hard-won health care reform, more people than he thinks may be upset.

Update:  Here’s Kinder bloviating on the Greta von Susteren show last night (FiredUp! points out that here once again he continues to lie just like a lying liar):

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…

Kelly Eckerman, Peggy Breit, and Maria Antonia have filed a lawsuit against KMBC.

Remember this?:

Anchor

…However, local anchor teams have long represented diversity in the community through a news couple of different race and gender, supplemented by reporters on the sports and weather beat and in the field. Even in the local context, however, gender distinctions are vital. The highly publicized case of Christine Kraft, anchor of KMBC-TV in Kansas City, Missouri illustrates the willingness of executives to dismiss women considered “too old” or “too unattractive” to fill this highly visible role. Such judgments are rarely, if ever, made in cases involving male anchors, who are seen to develop “authority” and “gravity” as their physical glamour fades…

There is the irony that their crosstown broadcast rivals, KSHB, are reporting the story:

On-Air Staff Files Suit Against KMBC

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Three on-air personalities at KMBC-TV in Kansas City have filed a lawsuit against the station claiming age and sex discrimination.

The suit, filed in Jackson County Circuit Court, claims the three women have been passed over for promotions, or demoted, in favor of younger female candidates.

The plaintiffs, Kelly Eckerman, Margaret Breit, and Maria Albisu-Twyman, claim in the suit they have been “discriminated against and harassed, on a continuing basis, based on their age and/or gender (female)…”

It’s another addition to the sad commentary on the state of the media in our nation. It’s not about reporting the news any more, is it?

A little more history:

Aaron Barnhart

…In 1981, KMBC anchor Christine Craft was demoted to reporter because — in those immortal words of management she would later make the title of her book — she was told that she was “too old, too unattractive and wouldn’t defer to men.” Craft relayed those words to my predecessor, Barry Garron, who put them in the paper. Two years later, Craft filed suit and eventually prevailed, though an appeals court later overturned the decision. By then, however, it hardly mattered that KMBC won; it had gone straight into the toilet, ratings- and reputation-wise…