Shelby County Farm Sale Judicial Chaos Leads to Farm Sale Bid Withdrawal

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

Last Tuesday the Shelby County Farm Sale TRO case had yet another hearing in which neither the county chairman nor the county board have legal representation.  That fact should concern everyone.

During the hearing, the judge indicated that the attorneys, State’s Attorney Woolery and Stocks, need to have a conference call with the sole bidder.

How special that a legislative matter, the sale of the farm, has been delegated to the judicial branch of government, all while the legislative branch still had no legal representation?  During the end of the hearing, Woolery indicated she was representing the County Chairman and or board based on an agreement with the Chairman of the Board, Sonny Ross.  Where did the conflict go for Woolery?  Why no motion to withdraw her motion for appointment of counsel?

It was clear, the judge did not know a clear path to resolve the matter before him and it makes us wonder what is really going on.

The normal process when a case is filed in court is that the opposing side files an answer to the complaint or other motions to dismiss.  Commonly a briefing schedule is set for those filings. Not the case in Shelby County.  In fact, motions to intervene by a resident Kevin McKitrick have not been acted on even though there have been at least three hearing dates on that motion.

How do you resolve a legal matter?  Simple, both sides file their legal arguments, set a hearing date, and present their case before the judge and then the judge makes a ruling.  That is normal.

Not the case in Shelby County.  Instead of the normal judicial process, the judge instructs the attorneys to have a conference call with the sole bidder, MS. LEIGH ANN GROSSMAN.  How special is that?  A party that files to intervene and provide an opposing legal argument is denied any ruling and therefore can’t be involved in this conference call.  What happened in that call when both the attorneys involved confessed to the position of Chris Boehm?

Our assumption, based on a judicial quagmire created, the bidder did not want to be involved in a legal fight.  Never mind the fact she should not have been involved because she was the sole bidder and her bid qualified to the criteria set.  Based on the hearings, the courts wanted to drag her into the matter but judicially speaking, that was out of line in our opinion.  The lawsuit should have had its legal process followed and ruling made but instead, the defendants had zero input and the bidder backed out after the hearing where the attorneys opposed to the sale were instructed to contact her.

We understand the bidder tried to withdraw once they found out the lawsuit was filed.  For those not familiar with intimidation, filing of lawsuits is a classic first step.

The bidder sent this email to the court on November 20, 2024.  The result appears to be the docket entry below

“THE COURT HAVING RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM MS. LEIGH ANN GROSSMAN, WHO IS THE SOLE BIDDER FOR THE SHELBY COUNTY FARM THAT IS IN DISPUTE, MAKES THIS CORRESPONDENCE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD; CONSEQUENTLY, THIS CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE BIDDER SHALL BE DECIMINATED INSTANTER TO COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR ALL PARTIES, INCLUDING THE COUNSEL OF RECORDS FOR ALL POTTENTIAL INTERVENORS; FURTHER, SINCE THE IDENTITY OF THE BIDDER HAS BEEN MADE KNOWN, THE UNREDACTED COPY OF THE SOLE BID SHALL BE UNSEALED; COURT CONFIRMS HEARING SET FOR NOVEMBER 26, 2024; AT THAT HEARING, THE COURT TO ADDRESS TWO ISSUES: FRIST, WHETHER THE LAWSUIT BY PLAINTIFF IS NOW MADE MOOT; SECOND, HOW TO PERFECT ANY POSSIBLE APPEAL OF THE POTTENTIAL INTERVENOR “WHATCH DOGS” AS TO THE ISSUE OF HOW THE COURT SEALED THE SOLE BID.”

The withdrawal of the bid makes the lawsuit moot, or does it?  Where is the county board and chairmans representation in this matter? Did the county board vote to accept the withdrawal of the bid?  We all know the answer as there has been no board meeting and if the State’s Attorney accepted the withdrawal on behalf of the board we once again have another example of the judicial branch of government making decisions for the legislative branch.  So much for the separation of powers.

This entire process points to a broken system as the judicial branch ignored the rights of the legislative branch and held multiple hearings where defendants had zero representation.  If that does not concern anyone then society as we know it is in real trouble.

We do find it interesting that our motion to intervene was not only granted but everything we sought in that motion has now been obtained.  Is that because the court knew the legal standing we had to force the disclosure?  We may never know but one thing is for sure, the name of the bidder is now public and we can’t wait for all the apologies to come from those who flung false accusations of insider dealings on the sale of the farm and how it was State Representative Halbrook, Bobby Orman, Mark Bennett, Sonny Ross, and even us that wanted to buy the farm.

Had the sale gone through, the county would have been earning approximately $108,867.50 in interest a year on a basic 4.5% interest CD annually without having to obtain a 3/4 vote to farm the farm, expense of inputs, publications for bids, management of the entire process, etc.  That figure far exceeds any revenue the farm has ever earned the county.