Whittington not such a "good friend" of Cheney's? Check this out!

[Atman]

ON EDIT...Sorry, forgot to add this warning... :tinfoilhat:

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/01/28harry.html

Lawyer wins another round in eminent domain case against the city
City might argue the case in a lower court.

By Sarah Coppola
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, January 28, 2006

Little Guys who take on the government rarely win, unless the Little Guy is a guy like Harry Whittington.

Whittington, an Austin lawyer, is very rich, very stubborn and very patient — qualities that come in handy if, like him, you're waging a long legal battle against the city.

Six years ago, Austin condemned a downtown block Whittington's family owned to build a $10.5 million parking garage. Whittington's been fighting the city ever since. He racked up two legal victories last year, and on Friday racked up a third: The Texas Supreme Court denied the city's request to hear an appeal, which basically re-affirms a prior ruling in Whittington's favor.

The city law department, which has spent $387,000 on the case, doesn't plan to throw in the towel just yet. It can and will choose from two options, Austin's chief of litigation, Anne Morgan, said: Ask the state Supreme Court again to hear the case or argue the case in a county court trial, which Austin never had a chance to do.

Bring it on, says Whittington, who seems unfazed at having spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars" on his legal fees. He says his winning streak should give comfort to property owners unnerved by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of city condemnations.

"This," Whittington, 78, said of his lawsuit, "shows how the judicial system should work if you stay with it."

Whittington's family, which owned the block on Red River between Fourth and Fifth streets since 1980, wanted to develop the lot into apartments or shops. But the city had other ideas: building a 700-space garage for visitors to the nearby convention center and Sixth Street, and a $19.3 million chiller to cool nearby buildings.

MORE AT LINK

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/01/28harry.html

[Coyote_Bandit]

1. If someone else had owned that land

would he have undertaken their representation with equal zeal? Were adjacent property owners also affected?

Sorry. All I see is a rich guy protecting his own financial interests.

[Atman]

4. You may well be right...

I found this link on another board, someone calling for "internet detectives." It's just an another interesting aside, and another illustration of how cynical so many have become. It seems impossible to trust ANYTHING as a coincidence with the BFEE bunch!

[Ian David]

2. Whithington involved in Funeralgate. Also opposed to executing retarted.

[acmejack]

3. Understand that the City of Austin is a Democratic city

The Court is a Republican Court (where do you think Gonzales and Priscilla Owen came from), not that politics would enter into anything like that in Texas, Nosiree!

[atreides1]

5. ????

Seems like nothing more then self interest on Whittington's part, and not really a battle for the "little guy".

The man is trying to save his family's property from being taken by the city, unless there is something that indicates that Cheney may be part of Austin's deal to take the property?

[havocmom]

10. Point is, he fought for his self interest against the doctrine

of 'we can take it if we want it' which sets a dangerous precedent to the greedy corporation who do not think the law should get in their way. That he has the resources to fight this issue is a help to all the little people who are likely to be booted out of their homes if a developer wants to build on the land. It sets precedent, and that helps all of us.

Just because he is wealthy, everything he does is not necessarily bad. He spend his $ making a point. Some old folks with a nice little house with a view might just get to keep it if they can argue using his cases as precedent.

[Atman]

11. Thanks. I thought the inference was pretty clear.

You're right on...this isn't about his personal property. The precedent doesn't become null & void simply because it involved a lawyer defending his own property. His action could seriously impede the corporatists in their attempts to take over anything they wish simply because they think they can generate more tax revenues.

[havocmom]

12. Hey, I'm a blond in a family of blonds. Am used to stating things

c-l-e-a-r-l-y and try to avoid making assumptions :evilgrin:

[atreides1]

13. What Corporists are you talking about????

This was being done by the City of Austin Texas, not Halliburton. What I don't get is how you infer that he wasn't friendly with Cheney? Just because he was fighting for his family property doesn't mean he doesn't believe in the concept of eminent domain where someone else's property is concerned.

When he goes in and does pro bono work for a family that doesn't have access to money, that is losing their property rights then maybe I can see it your way. But for now all I read from the article was that he was protecting his own, most of us here are inclined to do that as well.

[havocmom]

15. City of Austin wanted a big ol parking garage

Do they fill it or do customers of corporations and such fill it?

[atreides1]

14. That is the point

He fought for his own self interest, it doesn't mean that him and Cheney aren't "friends", it just means that he was fighting for himself and his family, and that's the point I was making.

[havocmom]

16. Dupe /bug

= multiple post

[havocmom]

17. And he set a precedent which helps others fighting eminent domain

forcing them to sell out if they don't want to

[ksilvas]

6. and another interesting article, keeps fascinating company,

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2001-05-25/pols_naked4.html

strange, now this article seems blocked.

Mentioned how Harry Whittington was involved in the White Water
investigation of Hillary Clinton, and a Company called S.C.I,
also S.C.I was being investigated for financial misdeeds and
George W. Bush comes up as connected while he was govenor.
What a tangled web they weave.

[Atman]

7. He was involved in "Funeralgate" from what I hear...

Isn't that what SCI was, the funeral company?

[Village Idiot]

8. What a pile of BALONEY!!!

"This," Whittington, 78, said of his lawsuit, "shows how the judicial system should work if you stay with it."

He means "if you CAN AFFORD to stay with it." What an assclown.

[Atman]

9. Hey, I got a heart!

:blush: