Catching Up with the Lawsuit Against Ockomon

I failed to get posted anything about the dismissal of the lawsuit to remove Ockomon as mayor. If you want to see it take a look at the Herald-Bulletin's Judge dismisses lawsuit:

The voters, the decision said, had ample time to file other types of grievance in regard to Ockomon’s eligibility before the primary, before the general election and prior to his swearing-in.

“While Plaintiffs, other than Smith, claim that they had ‘no other adequate remedy at law or in equity’ when they filed their complaint on December 28, 2007, there were several opportunities during the course of the electoral process to raise the question that they now wish to have the Court to consider,” he wrote. “Those specific remedies were set out in statutory form, yet Plaintiffs chose not to pursue them.”

That same article reported that David Brooks, attorney for the plaintiffs, intended to file a motion to correct errors. He did that on March 27 as reported in The Herald Bulletin's Plaintiffs claim error in mayoral case.

Tim Lanane had a the sort of polite response befitting Anderson's City Attorney and a State Senator:

“This seemingly endless pursuit of an office from which the voters dismissed Kevin Smith is pathetic,” he wrote. “It is long past the time to end this diversion from the real work that Mayor Ockomon and the city wants to be focused upon: creating economic opportunities, providing efficient city services, making our city safe.”

Having no official position, I can be less polite. Rarely do judges ever admit to making any error needing correction. Filing a Motion to Correct Error is pretty much meaningless nowadays. When I first started practicing law, a Motion to Correct Error was required to start an appeal. Why file such a motion since it is no longer required for an appeal?

I see only one reason: to keep this nonsense alive. That is my take on the following comment in the Herald-Bulletin article:

Brooks responded to the statement saying that Ockomon has prolonged the case because of his work to keep the plaintiffs from finding out “the truth” about his residency.

“They have mounted an endless effort to avoid the truth about Ockomon’s residency,” he said. “But the reason this matter is taking so long is because Ockomon is doing everything in his power to prevent the truth from being told to the citizens of Anderson. You cannot properly be diverted from a job you shouldn’t be holding.”

And knowing that Mr. Brooks won his case in Muncie makes me think he must want to make it a twofer. (Hey, nobody likes to lose - especially to be shot down for not being able to make a legal case).

For some more idle speculation: I bet there will be no appeal. Either they lack the funds for an appeal or they know that they were not right on the legal issues. Knowing that they were not right might also explain Mr. Brooks' response to Mr. Lanane.