Pat Walsh's legal fees in her various litigations with Thomas Stokes were a great deal more than $30,000.
According to the September 25, 2001 Executive Session Minutes of the School Ethics Commission, Walsh told the commission her legal fees were between $82,000 and $100,000. MoreMonmouthMusings correspondent JJ Sullivan received the minutes via a OPRA request this morning.
JJ's story will be posted tomorrow morning, in order that Pat Walsh will have plenty of time to return JJ's phone calls. In addition to calling Walsh herself, JJ has successfully reached out to her running mate, Whatshisname, and Township Committeeman Patrick Short for assistance in speaking to Walsh for comment or explanation.
The Legacy of Thomas Lifson
13 hours ago
Posts
9 comments:
On page 5 of the deposition that you posted, she testified she took out a loan because the legal bills were adding up. I took this to mean this was probably a bank loan.
No where on the financial disclosure forms did it ask for loans to be disclosed. Are mortgages disclosed? No, why not? They're loans. Are car loans disclosed? Equity loans? No, NO loans are disclosed. You are all blowing a lot of smoke but there is no fire.
Stokes sued 10-13 people on over a hundred charges and he got NOTHING! All charges against all his victims were thrown out of court. They were all exonerated on every single one of his trumped-up charges, but not before he forced all those people to rack up $100's of thousands of dollars for a political vendetta and he got NOTHING!
Where's the proof that she repaid? Was there interest? Was there security? Why won't she answer or show proof? That's a gift. And what about her "friends of" account that she took cash from? Questions and more questions? And how did the suit start? Because she sued stokes who won and got his fees paid by the school board because of her actions, she cost the taxpayers. And what about her directly conflicted votes? If stokes suit was so frivilous, why did he not get stuck holding the bill?
A bank loan? Cathy Sullivan is hardly a bank. And as was clearly stated, there was no interest, no loan agreement and no evidence that it was ever paid back. That honcho, is a gift.
It was the nature of the loan that has been questioned (coming from a personal check signed by an individual not a bank).
Maybe we should start investigating Art Gallagher and who he ever got a loan from and for what.....As for JJ ,he should look the part of credibility or nobody would trust him with their money or maybe the riverfront gang is loaning him funds....gonna run him next year.
Excuse me, but Sullivan was suing the school board while apparently "loaning" a sitting BOE member (Walsh) tens of thousands of dollars.
How about the fact that Stokes' lawsuit against Walsh was the direct result of false criminal charges filed by Walsh? A democratic judge in Little Silver threw out all criminal charges against Stokes.
And talking about a "loan" without interest, the interest that wasn't charged is in itself an absolute gift. Perhaps someone should check with the IRS as to their interpretation of such a "loan".
How much did Walsh's legal action against the school board, to try and force them (ie taxpayers) to pay her legal fees, actually cost the taxpayers in legal fees?
Until I have an excuse to don my winter garb, cleanly shaven with my marc jakobs sports coat, burberry scarf and OJ isotoners, ill allow my credibility to be judged upon my scruffy hair, my team-issued UD ice hockey warmups and frayed hat
Heaven forbid I dress casually to workshop in Middletown!
I suppose my credibility shall remain a matter of contention. It is unfortunatethat your counter argument involves an evaluation and spot judgment of my morals based upon my appearance. I hope you look for both style AND substance from your candidate/party of choice
On the issue of Mrs. Walsh and the Board of Education, there was Executive Session before the Workshop meeting on Tuesday 10/14 and she was not in the meeting. My question is why was she not in that meeting. She is not represting the interests of the students or the tax payers of this town when she decides to not sit in on the Executive meeting. If she does not want to do her duty as a board member, she should step down! I do not believe any members of either the Asbury Park Press or Courier questioned why she was not in that meeting. Why would they not ask her? This is a sitting board member deciding she is not going to do her job. Maybe a little more transparance in government from Mrs. Walsh. Andrew Bane
Pat Wash should stick to her fights with the bridge. But I guess her legal situation is just heating up.
Post a Comment