We cannot fault the New Feoffees for filing an opposition, since they are legally bound to defend the settlement signed by the Old Feoffees.
This is a request from the Feoffees for more time to reply to the petition for Direct Appellate Review.
This is a response from the Feoffees to our most recent status report asking for a stay until August 24th to allow time for the Probate Court record to be assembled. The stay was granted. The Court’s response to the Feoffees was a rather terse “To the extent that appellees disagree with any statements made by appellants in a status report, they may address those in their brief.”
This is a joint status report of the Feoffees, the School Committee and the AG in which they complain about our appeal and ask the court to order an expedited briefing and hearing schedule, even though it was the School Committee’s own motion to compel that was prolonging the Probate Court action. As reported in the previous post, the Appeals Court granted our stay of the appeal until July 24th so that the Probate Court could assembly the record.
At the January 5th, 2012 School Committee meeting, Chairman Loeb made the comments in the audio clip below, finishing up by saying that “The Judge was leaning on counsel to have discussions.”
Now comes the School Committee counsel, in a joint affidavit with the counsel for the Feoffees, stating before the Appeals Court that “Any statement that the trial judge, in any way, applied any “pressure” or coercion on the parties to settle is false.”
So, the School Committee is presenting one picture to the public to explain their actions while their lawyer presents a completely different picture to the Appeals Court. Who should the citizens believe?