Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

December 8, 2024

Shelby County – Farm Bid Opened And Distributed to Attorney’s – Circuit Clerk Knows Bidder Information

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On November 13, 2024

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

According to the judicial docket entry for Shelby County, the Judge opened the single bid received for the sale of the farm and did so in the presence of Shelby County Sheriff Brian McReynolds and Shelbyville Police Chief Brachbill.

The court ordered the Circuit Clerk to send the sealed bid information to attorneys of record, State’s Attorney Woolery, Attorney Stocks, and Attorney Hanlon.  Attorneys were ordered to not disseminate the information of the sole bidder.   Additionally, a new status hearing date of November 19 at 10 AM via ZOOM was set.  The Clerk was directed to send notice to the person who bid.

How special is it that the legislative body, the County Board, still has no legal representation in this case along with the County Chairman,  yet now an outside party, the Circuit Clerk, knows who the bidder is before the very body vested with the power to manage that bid?

The order to not disseminate the “information of the sole bidder” is an interesting order.  Interesting because it does not indicate to not disseminate the amount bid.

The agenda for this Thursday night’s regular county board meeting now has an agenda item to discuss and vote to rescind the Farm Sale resolution.

Considering the county has a bid, assuming it’s a qualified bid, any vote to rescind the resolution may well place the county in a real legal quagmire as the bidder has legal rights to the property if they met the criteria of the bid publication/resolution.

More importantly, under Roberts Rules of Order, a motion to rescind is not permitted when something has been done, as a result of the vote of the main motion, that is impossible to undo.  What has been done as a result of the main motion?

  • Surveys
  • Appraisals
  • Bid Publications
  • Bids Received

All of those things are impossible to undo. That being the case, it appears any motion to rescind is not permitted under Roberts Rules of Order, specifically rule 35:6(b).

We have never seen so many court hearings and orders issued in a case where two of the defendants have yet to be appointed legal counsel.

 

 

 

SHARE THIS

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

RELATED

4 Comments
  • JP
    Posted at 11:13h, 14 November Reply

    Since only a select few now know the name of the bidder any and all information leaked would mean a contempt charge would it not? Especially since the Court has ordered it to remain unknown to the public until the Court allows it. That would mean the leaker(s) could face fines and time in jail.

  • Half bubble off level
    Posted at 10:49h, 14 November Reply

    Does this mean that we’re going to have to listen to “Joke” Cole try to make one coherent sentence for five minutes?

  • Justice Seeker
    Posted at 06:51h, 14 November Reply

    Would anyone expect any less out of Shelby county and the 6th Circuit? Oh wait, that’s the 4th! Don’t anyone kid yourself, it is the exact reason this is going on. Ms. Cole and her entourage know there is a viable bid and they will stop at nothing to “save” the “county poor farm”. It is no concern of theirs what it costs taxpayers or what a majority vote of the board was. It is the reason Ms. Woolery (wife of Ms. Cole’s pastor) was chosen to run. Ms. Woolery has entered the State’s Attorney’s office and overturned every vote Ms. Cole and team lost. She has ruled out use of time clocks, stated an opinion that she does not agree with selling the farm so therefore cannot represent the board and chairman in the TRO case, refuses to counsel the Dive Commander to follow FOIA law and issued criminal subpoenas all because Ms. Cole, Ms. “and stuff” and Mr. “Right?” are petulant children who refuse to accept no for an answer. Has anyone calculated the expense to taxpayers for these temper tantrums?

    Hold on Shelby county. If these self serving narcissists prevail the county will be insolvent just as the group hired to help oversee ARPA funds suggested.

  • AYTONOHTON
    Posted at 13:59h, 13 November Reply

    Indeed, “The order to not disseminate the ‘information of the sole bidder’ is an interesting order”, but I would take it a step further to say it is a manipulatively stated order. The way it is phrased, it clearly does not prohibit the clerk to not disseminate the bid amount, but if the judge was challenged on his choice of words, he could easily get away by saying it was implied because the word “information” includes everything about the bid. In other words here’s one more proof that judges and by extension our judicial system is corrupt, broken and does not serve the people, only the personal political ambitions of those we appointed to serve us and their cronies.

Post A Comment

$