01-24-11 - Reference - Jensen lefifjj /D !/q/Ii /14,,al4t5
Bartle, Donna
From: Alan Jensen [alan@ajensenlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:17 PM
To: Woods, Carolyn
Cc: Bartle, Donna; Borno, Mike;jfletcher@coab.us; Parsons, Paul; Daugherty, Jonathan;
Hanson, Jim
Subject: RE: Emailing: RCBS-Order Granting Defendants motions to dismiss amended complaint 1_18
2011
Carolyn: I asked why you don't support the city's position, not whether you support the city
and its citizens. You know, the decisions made by the city commission, even if you are the
lone dissenting vote. I also ask: what park land is the city losing? And, is there no
benefit to the taxpayers of AB by compliance with the mandatory TMDL requirements? Is there
no benefit to the taxpayers of AB by obtaining the easement over EAB's property for a bargain
price, as well as all the development concessions received from EAB?
You have many times discussed "this poor choice" with your fellow commissioners,
whose choice it was, and who have stood by their choice. And as you should recall, though
sometimes our memories are selective, the city has an indemnification and hold harmless from
EAB regarding claims against the property from all persons. The city should spend very
little in defense of the lawsuit as a result of the indemnification. How much has the city
spent so far, since you seem to know
? As far as my wallet, I have spent substantially greater time on issues
and matters created by you, together with your endless and often repetitive public records
requests (including directives you seem to think you can give directly to city department
heads) , than on the RCBS case.
What legal education, knowledge, experience, training, resources and other
information do you base your belief on EAB's rights to the reverter and actions of the Jax
general counsel's office ? I can only assume 2 things: (1) you believe that EAB's attorneys
and Jax general counsel lawyers are incompetent, like everyone but you who sit on the dais in
our commission chambers (your words, not mine), and (2) you will again fail to respond to
this e-mail.
What proof or evidence do you have that I ". .support the Estates over the City and
its citizens. . ."? I support the city's position evidenced by a majority vote of its elected
officials taken at a duly noticed public meeting. In my opinion, you should as well. I also
rely on other experts, such as attorneys, judges who have issued rulings, title companies,
and the like.
Your continued efforts to undermine lawful actions taken by the city commission
need to stop. You also need to get your facts and law
straight. Alan
Original Message
From: Woods, Carolyn [mailto:cwoods@coab.us]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 3:40 PM
To: Alan Jensen
Cc: Bartle, Donna
Subject: RE: Emailing: RCBS-Order Granting Defendants motions to dismiss amended complaint
1_18_2011
Alan,
I support my city and its citizens. Here I am opposing a few citizen's will over the majority
because primarily the city is losing great resources when it loses park land and a vital
portion of its natural drainage system is negatively impacted. In addition our taxpayers will
be negatively impacted by development on this land and receive no taxation or benefit from
it.
Also we had and still have a very viable route option as presented by the Oceanwalk
homeowners that was deemed too expensive at a negotiated additional $25,000 "estimate" but
looks like a bargain compared to what the city has spent in defending this poor choice. How's
your wallet?
As to the ownership of the property I find it extremely hard to believe that the Estates had
any right to claim this property when they were unable to provide any documentation or
explanation as to any rights to invoke the reverter although I did ask for this many times.
Even their letter to the Jacksonville general councils office did not claim to have any
rights simply that they bought the land next door and by matter of law they were invoking the
reverter. It's too bad the Jacksonville general council did not ask for documentation proof
before issuing a quit claim deed for the property. Think of how much time energy and grief
could have been saved.
Why do you support the Estates over the City and its citizens?
Carolyn
241-8973
From: Alan Jensen [alan@ajensenlaw.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:18 PM
To: Woods, Carolyn
Cc: Bartle, Donna
Subject: RE: Emailing: RCBS-Order Granting Defendants motions to dismiss amended complaint
1_18_2011
Rightfully regain? Why would you not support the city's position ?
Original Message
From: Woods, Carolyn
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:03 PM
To: Alan Jensen
Cc: Bartle, Donna
Subject: RE: Emailing: RCBS-Order Granting Defendants motions to dismiss amended complaint
1_18_2011
Alan,
Based on comments from the plaintiffs over the course of the past year or more that this
issue has been discussed at commission meetings I fully expect the plaintiffs to pursue every
legal option available to them to rightfully regain their property. Wouldn't you?
Carolyn
From: Alan Jensen [alan@ajensenlaw.com]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 9:19 AM
To: Bartle, Donna
Cc: Borno, Mike; jfletcher@coab.us; Woods, Carolyn; Parsons, Paul; Daugherty, Jonathan;
Hanson, Jim
Subject: RE: Emailing: RCBS-Order Granting Defendants motions to dismiss amended complaint
1_18_2011
2
Donna: Carolyn's "understanding" as expressed in her e-mail below is incorrect. The Order
entered by Judge Tygart on Jan.14, 2011, clearly states at the top of page 3 the following:
"As such, this Court finds that Plaintiffs Mary T. Bull, William A. Bull, Sr., Harcourt Bull,
III, Chelly B.
Schembera, and Charles Harcourt Bull lack standing to maintain this action, as only trustees
have the authority to bring this lawsuit." (Emphasis added).
The court did grant leave to amend within 30 days and/or request the Court to
appoint trustees if there are no surviving directors and/or trustees. If Carolyn has any
knowledge regarding the "RCBS successors"
amending their complaint and proceeding with a suit to clear title, since she expects that to
happen, that would be helpful for me to know and share with our insurance company attorneys,
and would be beneficial to the city.
Please contact me with any questions. Alan
From: Bartle, Donna [mailto:dbussey@coab.us]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 8:14 AM
To: Alan Jensen
Cc: Hanson, Jim
Subject: FW: Emailing: RCBS-Order Granting Defendants motions to dismiss amended complaint
1_18_2011
Alan,
FYI.
Donna
From: Woods, Carolyn
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 5:18 PM
To: Bartle, Donna; Borno, Mike; Daugherty, Jonathan; Fletcher, John L; Parsons, Paul
Cc: Hanson, Jim
Subject: RE: Emailing: RCBS-Order Granting Defendants motions to dismiss amended complaint
1_18_2011
Donna,
My understanding is that although the judge granted the motion to dismiss this suit based on
the RCBS as the complaintant he found the RCBS successors do have standing in this issue and
cleared the way for the RCBS successors to amend the complaint and proceed with a suit to
clear title. Which I believe we should expect will happen if it has not already.
Thank you,
Carolyn
241-8973
From: Bartle, Donna
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:58 AM
To: Borno, Mike; Woods, Carolyn; Daugherty, Jonathan; Fletcher, John L; Parsons, Paul
Cc: Hanson, Jim
Subject: Emailing: RCBS-Order Granting Defendants motions to dismiss amended complaint
1_18_2011
Attached is information I received from Alan Jensen regarding the RCBS Case.
3
Thanks,
Donna
4