Bush Library/Lawsuit

by **RE Tycoon** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:21 pm

Stop giving him legal advice, he might become competent.

by **DrV 88Mustang** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:31 pm

The order was entered on the 7th; they have 10 days to file a notice of appeal, which is the 17th

Blog,

Can you clarify if it's 10 calendar days or working days? Seems that I read in some article that it was working days. Thanks.

by **EastStang** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:46 pm

Anything that you say in a document you file with the Court is privileged from prosecution for libel. He could be sued for abuse of process or malicious prosecution of a civil action if all his claims are ultimately dismissed. He could possibly be sued for slander of title for documents filed documents in court if it affected the marketability of the title to the property. I doubt that SMU will pursue these remedies. The faster they get away from that curr the less likely they will catch fleas.

by **friarwolf** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:01 pm

Anything new????????

by **SMU Football Blog** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:43 pm

Everything we said was going to happen has happened. They (Vodicka folks) appealed; they asked for a stay pending the appeal. There is a hearing on the stay pending the appeal on 12/20.

Amusingly, the Vodicka camp (Tafel mainly) has suggested the bond pending the appeal should be about $7,700.00. The argument being that it is the cost associated with renting one of the units. That argument is just mindboggling stupid, in my opinion.

Tafel (coplaintiff Dentist that owns a condo), not Vodicka, appears to be the driving force behind this thing now. I presume it is because Vodicka's credibility with the Court is somewhere between Osama Bin Laden's and Himmler's.

by **EastStang** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:22 pm

I wonder what SMU will propose as the number for the bond? My guess is $10 Million. Tafel probably won't want to put a huge amount of money at risk when he still has a suit for damages and a solvent defendant. He just loses leverage for an extortive settlement.

by **SMU Football Blog** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:12 am

SMU wants a bond of $2,500,000.00, at least. I just read their brief and it is just so so. Honestly, it reads kind of desperate. It comes across as a decision on the Library being eminent and this could seriously jeopardize SMU's chances of getting the library. While that point may or may not be obvious, SMU has never admitted as much.

by **Stallion** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:16 am

well it is a rather serious matter because it could take anywhere from 9 months to 15 months to get through the 5th Circuit including rehearing et al unless it was expedited.

by **SMU Football Blog** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:53 pm

GAS UP THE BULLDOZERS!!!

Buchmeyer said no stay on appeal. Oh, and the Vodicka camp owes SMU $18,000.00 in costs.

Giggle.

by **MustangStealth** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:30 pm

SMU Football Blog wrote:GAS UP THE BULLDOZERS!!!

Buchmeyer said no stay on appeal. Oh, and the Vodicka camp owes SMU $18,000.00 in costs.

Giggle.

That's it? He ought to be funding the library by now.

by **friarwolf** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:33 pm

Just 18,000 bucks???????????????

by **SMU Football Blog** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:27 pm

Costs, not attorneys' fees. Can't award fees in this case . . . yet.

by **Bergermeister** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:13 am

This is good news. I hope the announcement comes soon. There's gonna be a lot of dirt flying on that side of campus. Any idea where the SMU Bookstore will go... or, more importantly, La Madeline? I know SMU also owns everything across the street - Flower Mart, 7-Eleven, Mrs Baird's - hopefully that'll be the site for some SMU-related amenities.

by **SMU Football Blog** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:36 am

I do wonder where the bookstore will go. I also wonder where they will put sophomore housing.

by **EastStang** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:49 am

So when does Vodicka and others have to vacate the property? Do the large ex-Aggie football players now get to come and dump his stuff on the sidewalk?

Bush Library/Lawsuit

Who is online