COURT PAPERS FILED
On October 24, the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY will render a preliminary judgment regarding our case.
Here are a few excerpts from the POST, POLAK, GOODSELL, MacNEILL & STRAUCHLER, P.A. reply to the defendants (Cresskill Mayor & Council et al.) brief:
“What the defendants have done is to concoct a series of arguments, both at the time the Squad was dismissed and thereafter, to cover up the real reason for terminating the Squad. For example, defendants claim throughout their papers, as if it is established fact, that the plaintiffs “misappropriated” funds in violation of various laws. They purport to rely on the opinion of an auditor in making these accusations –- but the auditor did not make this claim. Moreover, no charges have been filed, no indictments handed down, and no convictions secured that would support these blanket accusations of the Squad’s “guilt.”
Further, defendants fail to respond to plaintiffs’ point that the Squad’s pattern of expenditures is followed by first aid squads around the country, and in fact followed by Cresskill’s own fire department. This “selective enforcement” also underscores the perception that defendants’ official reasons for dismissing the Squad are simply a cover up for the real reason.
A third example, a small but telling episode that plaintiffs will rebut vigorously because it reveals a conspicuous lack of truth telling by defendants, concerns the changing of the locks on the Squad building. While the defendants claim that it was necessary to change the locks because the Squad members themselves had changed the locks previously, in fact there is documentation to show that the Borough was given keys to the building, and that several other Borough employees also had keys – including one of defendants’ current affiants. The Borough’s action in changing the locks just before the June 1, 2005 meeting, and the additional information the plaintiffs put before the Court, reveals that the Borough’s action accomplished precisely what the plaintiffs originally argued: it was an efficient way to terminate the Squad prior to any semblance of due process.” (Pages 2&3)
And from Pages 4 & 5:
“First and foremost, the auditors on whom the defendants rely for their accusations of financial irregularities did not find that the plaintiffs’ expenditures (wedding gifts, food, etc.) were objectionable. Second, nowhere do the defendants respond to the fact that the Cresskill Fire Department, as well as first aid squads around the country, make precisely the same expenditures, and are not vilified as a result.
Third, while defendants cite the “Driver only” and LOSAP issues as if they were reasons to dismiss the squad, in fact these are irrelevant arguments dredged up after-the-fact to support a weak case. Fourth, while the defendants contend that the new squad is better than the old squad, their allegations about both squads are so incoherent and factually inaccurate that it is evident this argument, too, was trumped up after-the-fact to justify what was in fact a political basis for firing the Squad.”
Here are a few excerpts from the POST, POLAK, GOODSELL, MacNEILL & STRAUCHLER, P.A. reply to the defendants (Cresskill Mayor & Council et al.) brief:
“What the defendants have done is to concoct a series of arguments, both at the time the Squad was dismissed and thereafter, to cover up the real reason for terminating the Squad. For example, defendants claim throughout their papers, as if it is established fact, that the plaintiffs “misappropriated” funds in violation of various laws. They purport to rely on the opinion of an auditor in making these accusations –- but the auditor did not make this claim. Moreover, no charges have been filed, no indictments handed down, and no convictions secured that would support these blanket accusations of the Squad’s “guilt.”
Further, defendants fail to respond to plaintiffs’ point that the Squad’s pattern of expenditures is followed by first aid squads around the country, and in fact followed by Cresskill’s own fire department. This “selective enforcement” also underscores the perception that defendants’ official reasons for dismissing the Squad are simply a cover up for the real reason.
A third example, a small but telling episode that plaintiffs will rebut vigorously because it reveals a conspicuous lack of truth telling by defendants, concerns the changing of the locks on the Squad building. While the defendants claim that it was necessary to change the locks because the Squad members themselves had changed the locks previously, in fact there is documentation to show that the Borough was given keys to the building, and that several other Borough employees also had keys – including one of defendants’ current affiants. The Borough’s action in changing the locks just before the June 1, 2005 meeting, and the additional information the plaintiffs put before the Court, reveals that the Borough’s action accomplished precisely what the plaintiffs originally argued: it was an efficient way to terminate the Squad prior to any semblance of due process.” (Pages 2&3)
And from Pages 4 & 5:
“First and foremost, the auditors on whom the defendants rely for their accusations of financial irregularities did not find that the plaintiffs’ expenditures (wedding gifts, food, etc.) were objectionable. Second, nowhere do the defendants respond to the fact that the Cresskill Fire Department, as well as first aid squads around the country, make precisely the same expenditures, and are not vilified as a result.
Third, while defendants cite the “Driver only” and LOSAP issues as if they were reasons to dismiss the squad, in fact these are irrelevant arguments dredged up after-the-fact to support a weak case. Fourth, while the defendants contend that the new squad is better than the old squad, their allegations about both squads are so incoherent and factually inaccurate that it is evident this argument, too, was trumped up after-the-fact to justify what was in fact a political basis for firing the Squad.”
posted by SaveCresskillFirstAid at 10:33 AM
<< Home