Tidbits from the Moss Lawsuit

11 Mar

Here are some interesting items I found in Ken Moss’ lawsuit against the members of the Arnold regime. You can read the suit itself here:

  • Susie Boone, in her timeline of alleged harassment by Moss, claimed no harassment between April 2011 and September 2012. In September was the alleged 9/11 ceremony incident (when Moss allegedly called Boone a bad name to a third party) that reportedly prompted the initial complaint. Other than that, the pre-April 2011 allegations are outside the 180-day window required by the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR). (Paragraph 14 of the suit)
  • More than one council member has stated that the tape recordings of the interviews done as part of the investigation of the Boone complaint included discussion/derision of the interviewees by Kevin Garrison and his sidekick, Arnold Police Major Nick McBroom. Paragraph 30 of the suit includes some off-color comments the two made questioning the veracity of some interviewees’ remarks. In these comments, Garrison, supposedly an outside, independent observer, seems pretty confident that he knows the real story and that he can detect lies from people he’s never seen before.
  • This lawsuit alleges a conflict of interest exists for Bob Sweeney, since he previously represented Moss’ business in some legal matters, and Moss consulted him Sweeney when the city fired his sister. Also, Sweeney seemed to be confused during this process about whether he represented the city, Boone, or even Moss (see paragraph 36). On a related note, paragraph 38 reports:

    This is not the first time conflict issues have been raised with Sweeney. In correspondence dated February 8, 2011, the Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri cautioned Sweeney about “the disclosures and communications necessary, under Rules 4-1.0(e) and 4.1-7, in situations involving conflicts of interest and consent to conflicting representation.”

  • Paragraph 40 makes a point that I have made, that even if what Moss did what was alleged, none of it has anything to do with gender, age, or other protected activity under the Missouri Human Rights Act. Paragraph 44 confirms my speculation that Boone’s second MCHR complaint, filed after the first one (technically a mere Intake Questionnaire submittal) was rejected, contains for the first time allegations of gender and age discrimination, suggesting that the magical buzzwords were added in order to get MCHR to accept the complaint.
  • Paragraph 54 addresses (as evidence that Sweeney has in the past, like he is doing now, interfered with Arnold elections) the ballot removals of Shaun Missey and Rod Mullins that I have discussed so much on this site. Unlike the Leader, he mentions the fact that in 2011 Sweeney took a different position on the tax requirements of candidates, because at that time his buddies were the ones late on their taxes.
  • Much of this suit is based on Sweeney’s interactions with the media. He convicted Moss publicly before the investigation was complete, and he allegedly leaked the Boone and Bob Shockey complaints, and the results of the sham investigation, to local media.

We will see how the regime responds to this. In the name of consistency, they should quickly offer him a settlement, in order to avoid the possibility that the city loses the suit and has to pay a lot of money. That’s why we were told the Boone settlement was necessary. This suit is, I would argue, more legitimate than Boone’s complaint, and thus the city is at greater risk now.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Tidbits from the Moss Lawsuit”

  1. wrongonred March 11, 2013 at 10:25 am #

    I am assuming the rebuke which the lawsuit refers is the rebuke issued to Sweeney in 2010 with regard to his non-disclosure of conflict in the matter of his dual representation of both the Winkler’s and the City of Arnold in the complaint which I filed with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, but not having the exhibits, I cannot be certain. At that time, there was a great deal of information which I was unaware of which makes that conflict even more egregious. Information which I only became privy to as a result of the depositions and testimony in the Federal Case.

    Let’s just say that there is a very good reason the City opted to settle with Rob Rosenfeld on this matter which Bill Moritz called a City victory in the suit a “sure thing” rather than have it go in front of a jury. What Sweeney ultimately engaged and participated in was more egregious and calculated than even I could imagine at that time. Quite literally career ending for an attorney if it was exposed and brought to light.

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Arnold Insurance Drop Makes No Sense | Jefferson County Penknife - June 24, 2013

    […] attorney Bob Sweeney (along with others) has been sued by both Shaun Missey (over ballotgate) and by Moss. The city just paid out money to Ozark Hills Park Properties in another settlement as well. And yet […]

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: