Mason loses a case, continues fighting
22
July
7/22/2008:
A press release from Councilwoman Beth Mason’s camp today:
Mason remains committed to open government
Councilwoman Beth Mason issued the following statement regarding today’s New Jersey Supreme Court decision and her request for government records.
“Despite the court’s decision today, I stand firmly with those members of the press – the reporters, the editorial writers and the columnists – who have struggled to remove the veil of secrecy that exists over government and are fighting to unmask the state’s rampant corruption.”
“I remain committed to fighting for the rights of the press and the public to access government records and determine how their government is operating and how public officials are spending taxpayer money,” said Mason.
The case centered on Mason’s request for public documents from the City of Hoboken, including the general ledger of the city – which is nothing more than the city’s checkbook that details expenditures. The city refuses do give the ledger to mason, claiming they were “fixing it.” Mason was supported in the case by the New Jersey Press Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Libertarian Party.
“The city’s general ledger doesn’t belong to the city officials, it belongs to the people.” said Mason.
Mason’s attorney, Jeffrey Kantowitz, said the court simply got it wrong. “I respect the New Jersey Supreme Court, but in this case I think they erred and failed to see the harm the decision will do to open government and governmental accountability.”
Kantowitz added that: “Unfortunately, the court has given public officials, who want to conceal the truth from citizens, a blueprint for how to do it.”
29 Responses to ** Mason loses a case, continues fighting **
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 23rd 2008 - 11:23:04 |
Maybe he wasn’t clear. He meant to say You are government as failed you.
This certainly is a disappointment, but, welcome to New Jersey.
Login or Register to reply
July 23rd 2008 - 10:58:23 |
jasonfb: did you find the opinion? I checked Google and the NYTimes and couldn’t find it…there certainly has to be something we’re missing if 8 justices agreed on this.
Login or Register to reply
July 23rd 2008 - 11:26:04 |
Ha ha! I suppose that’s what you get for posting with a few too many G&T’s in ya
What can I say, it has been _way_ too hot lately.
It is odd you can upset over a simple spelling mistake yet when it’s obvious the government has succeeded in masking how its raping us of our money, “it’s alright, the court said so.”
It is not even about party lines, at this point, one must assume they’re all just thieves.
Time for a government re-boot, would you not agree? Or is it simply enough to let this one slide too?
Login or Register to reply
July 23rd 2008 - 11:32:30 |
judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supr...Mason%20v%20City%20of%20Hoboken.pdf
Here’s the opinion … it was forwarded to me by a friend. The beginning of it has a brief “syllabus” written by the clerk (aka law student or first/second year attorney).
Login or Register to reply
July 23rd 2008 - 11:51:11 |
Katie_Scarlett wrote:
Ah, the good old ‘Catalyst Theory’ and ‘Casual Nexus’ strikes again.
Thanks for the doc.
A quick read of the syllabus and the last 10 pages makes the reasoning behind the courts decision pretty clear, at least to my humble legal mind.
Login or Register to reply
July 23rd 2008 - 20:22:12 |
Katie Scarlett: Thanks for the lead on the Court’s opinion. The unfortunate thing about this is that it makes it appear as though Beth Mason lost a major case in attempting to get the city to comply with OPRA, instead of “merely” being unable to collect her attorney’s fees. We do wish, however, that she had collected so she could recycle that money into additional suits, if necessary, or perhaps disseminate all that information city-wide so everybody can see what’s going on. The question still outstanding in my mind: the city had “to withhold records because they needed to be corrected.” What did they say before “corrections”?
Login or Register to reply
July 23rd 2008 - 23:35:46 |
Katie_Scarlett wrote:
Katie, thanks for posting this. The gist of the court seems to be the same as the previous courts which is “you got what you asked for in a reasonable timeframe, even if it wasn’t exactly to State statute, you’re not asking for anything that would improve the responsiveness of future requests, you are asking for money, lots of money and we the court don’t feel you are entitled to that money.”
If feels like if she was suing for process improvements, that she probably would get them but the court doesn’t feel she deserves cash compensation for her troubles. Very interesting.
Login or Register to reply
July 24th 2008 - 09:47:59 |
“The unfortunate thing about this is that it makes it appear as though Beth Mason lost a major case in attempting to get the city to comply with OPRA, instead of “merely” being unable to collect her attorney’s fees. “
But that’s all the suit was about, her trying to get attorney’s fees.
Login or Register to reply
July 25th 2008 - 11:20:07 |
Apparently the Supreme Court has ruled agsainst her AGAIN amd refused to consider her appeal in a separate OPRA case and upheld the City’s victory.
Login or Register to reply