Comments on Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis's Testimony Next Week Could be Crucial to City's Case

Woody Allenish as in the Woody Allen who's noted for sitting courtside at NY Knicks (pro basketball) games?

"Cool as a cucumber"? That's stylish writing, Josh Feit.

The blog was alive with talk you were fired. Did you promise to avoid cliches?

And ...how come you're sucking up to Ceis now? A job in the works?

Do tell!

Josh, all -

In civil matters, there are generally two forms of relief. Damages, and equitable relief. Damages equate to money - and most contract breaches are resolved by a calculation of the amount of money it takes to make the other party "whole." In this case, it might be the $10 million, or some other figure that included parking, concessions, etc. (sometimes called "incidental and consequential" damages).

The other type of relief is "equitable" relief, and it is designed to compensate a breached-against party where money damages are insufficient. Typically, to claim equitable damages, a party must have "clean hands."

I would not speculate as to whether the city's hands, if they were found to be "unclean", became so at a time that effects their ability to claim the relief.

Yes, IAAL. But not yours.

And having been on the other side of the table from "attack dog" Paul Taylor, I would simply say he is very effective, and in my experience, a fair dealer. That does not mean he will not eat your lunch. That is his job.

The merits of the case aside, is anyone surprised that the City government, mayor and council both, comprised of the sort of B-Team quality our local process engenders, went out and retained their own B-Team consultants and legal team to pursue this matter? Wally Walker? FFS.

Team Bennett called Woody Allenish City Council Member Nick Licata, the anti-sports stadium council member (it's why he got elected in 1997)

For the last couple of years, whenever the subject of Licata and his comments comes up on 950 KJR, the myopian talk show hosts there always grumble something to the effect of, "how does he manage to win elections saying these things about sports teams etc." - and I say to my radio, "saying these things is exactly why he keeps winning elections."

Guess the jocks have taken over the Stranger. Licata is denigrated as a skinny nebbish cuz he's against public subsidies -- taxing the poor -- for pro sports multimillionaires.
Golly what a nerd. Ha, ha ha. He's so "alone" on this he's right there with the 78% of Seattle voters who agreed with him in the initiative telling the Sonics to go away.

Meanwhile to say unclean hands is not relevant but could mean the city loses the case is.....what should I say ..."illogical" ??

That nice lawyer dude who chimed in seemed to know more about what was going on. Maybe you should talk to him when you try to deconstruct the legal ins and outs.

_________
Anyway joke time:

Q: How did the Shark win his lawsuit?
A: They couldn't prove he had unclean hands.

There's also another remedy where money damages and/or an equitable solution are inadequate--it's called "specific performance" i.e., you do precisely what the contract obligates you to do.

As someone who worked on Nick Licata's campaign in 1997, the theory that he won in 1997 because of his position on sports is simply not correct. Nick ran on a broad platform; he did not hide from his position on sports, but he was not a single issue candidate in his race again Aaron Ostrom.