Video: Concerned Citizens Bloodied by Court Decision Favoring Adage

The video documenting the adverse ruling by local Judge Amber Finlay against the Concerned Citizens of Mason County is comprised of 4 clips uploaded to

11-15-10 Concerned Citizens vs. Port of Shelton & Adage 1/4

Mason County Superior Court Judge Amber Finlay dismisses lawsuit by Concerned Citizens of Mason County challenging the Port of Shelton’s lease option to Adage, LLC to construct a massive bio-incinerator in the densely populated residential area on John’s Prairie adjacent to the City of Shelton.

1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4

11-15-10 Concerned Citizens vs. Port of Shelton & Adage 4/4

About admin

Opposed to politicians who equivocate about air quality & BioMassacre
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Video: Concerned Citizens Bloodied by Court Decision Favoring Adage

  1. admin says:

    Katherine Price asked/said:

    There were four lawyers against one at the hearing yesterday, and it looked a little lopsided.

    The first attorney to speak identified himself as an attorney for the Port, Micheel S. Schechter of Foster Pepper, Seattle. He is identified on Foster Pepper’s website as practicing in the fields of land use, environmental and municipal government. A hired gun to protect the Port because their own attorney, Skip Houser, who had the “4th seat” on the Port side, was apparently not competent to speak to these matters: Land use, environmental and municipal government.

    Wait a minute, if Skip Houser is not competent to speak to these matters why is he the attorney for the Port? These seem like areas of practice that an attorney for the Port ought to be competent in. I hope that someone posed that question today at the Port’s budget meeting: “How much are you going to budget for attorneys fees, now that the Port has two attorneys; and one comes from Seattle?”

    Inquiring minds want to know how much the Port paid to have Seattle lawyer do the talking and Skip House sit there.

    But what this inquiring mind really wants to know is what the strategy of the attorney for Citizens was, and why there were two attorneys seated at the Port’s table during the hearing who identified themselves as representing Adage?

    Why did the attorney who brought the lawsuit on behalf of Concerned Citizens include Adage as a party to the lawsuit? If the wrongful party was the Port, which is how some of us have viewed these events, why was Adage included as a defendant. Including Adage as a defendant gave them a seat at the table yesterday — and they took two. Maybe there is a strategic reason for including Adage as a defendant…

    Maybe there is a legal reason…

    I hope that there is a good reason for making them a party to the lawsuit, for giving them “standing” in yesterday’s hearing as well as two seats at the table.

    In civil lawsuits, under Rule 19, a “necessary and indispensable” party in interest may be joined to an action by one of the litigants OR may move to be joined him/her self. I believe Adage moved or the Port moved to have Adage be joined, thereby giving the Port the money and legal resources Adage has at its corporate disposal.

    I might add, I would have taken exception (objected strenuously) to Adage being joined as I do not believe, in good conscience, they *ARE* a ‘necessary and indispensable’ party in interest where the Port of Shelton is being challenged for the manner in which they conducted their official duties. After all, the Court was being asked to REVIEW the Port’s official acts, not Adage’s. Adage is a foreign (Delaware?) based corporation which should have NO ‘standing’ in a dispute between resident voters and their elected government agents/agency.

  2. admin says:

    Katherine asked, “Did we learn anything?”

    She posted the question in relation to why Adage ended up with two attorneys at the defense table. I commented that sometimes a 3rd party is joined by one of the original litigants under Rule 19, or sometimes by that very 3rd party as a ‘necessary and indispensable’ party in interest. Perhaps that claim should have been objected to, but judging from the case docket index, it appears Adage was JOINED to the action.

    Sub Docket Date Docket Code Docket Description Misc Info
    – 09-03-2010 FILING FEE RECEIVED Filing Fee Received 230.00
    – 09-03-2010 CASE INFORMATION COVER SHEET Case Information Cover Sheet
    1 09-03-2010 SUMMONS Summons
    2 09-03-2010 PETITION Petition For Review
    – 09-03-2010 COMPLAINT Complaint
    3 09-03-2010 MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Motion For Order To Show Cause
    4 09-09-2010 MEMORANDUM Memorandum From Crt Admin
    5 09-15-2010 NOTE FOR MOTION DOCKET
    ACTION Note For Motion Docket
    Show Cause Re Writ 1:30 09-27-2010MT
    6 09-21-2010 AFFIDAVIT/DCLR/CERT OF SERVICE Affidavit/dclr/cert Of Service
    7 09-23-2010 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
    ATD0001 Notice Of Appearance – Dijulio, P. Stephen
    8 09-23-2010 AFFIDAVIT/DCLR/CERT OF SERVICE Affidavit/dclr/cert Of Service
    JDG0002 Affidavit Of Prejudice – Judge Toni A. Sheldon
    10 09-24-2010 AFFIDAVIT/DCLR/CERT OF SERVICE Affidavit/dclr/cert Of Service
    11 09-27-2010 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
    ATD0002 Notice Of Appearance – Hoss, Richard Talbott
    12 09-27-2010 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
    ACTION Order To Show Cause
    Show Cause Re: Writ 11-15-2010 MT ACTION Confirmed/burkland/11-10-10
    13 09-27-2010 MOTION HEARING Motion Hearing
    14 10-05-2010 ORDER Order
    – 10-05-2010 RECUSAL OF JUDGE Recusal Of Judge Sheldon
    JDG0002 Ex-parte Action With Order
    Judge Toni A. Sheldon
    15 10-21-2010 ANSWER
    DEF0002 Answer Adage, Llc
    16 11-05-2010 JOINDER
    DEF0003 Joinder To Mt To Dismiss
    Adage Mason, Llc DEF0002 Adage, Llc
    – 11-05-2010 RESPONSE Response
    17 11-05-2010 ANSWER Answer Of Port Of Shelton
    18 11-05-2010 OBJECTION / OPPOSITION Objection / Opposition To
    Issuance Of Writ Of Review
    – 11-05-2010 MOTION TO DISMISS Motion To Dismiss
    19 11-05-2010 NOTICE OF HEARING ACTION Notice Of Hearing
    Mt To Dismiss 1:30 11-15-2010MT
    ACTION Confirmed/11-10-10/schechter
    20 11-08-2010 AFFIDAVIT/DCLR/CERT OF SERVICE Affidavit/dclr/cert Of Service
    21 11-12-2010 RESPONSE Response
    22 11-12-2010 DECLARATION Declaration Of Rebecca Penoyar
    23 11-12-2010 DECLARATION Declaration Of Beth Mcbain
    24 11-12-2010 DECLARATION Declaration Of Frances Prescott
    25 11-12-2010 DECLARATION Declaration Of Carol Salzer
    26 11-12-2010 DECLARATION Declaration Of Sharon Donaldson
    27 11-12-2010 AFFIDAVIT/DCLR/CERT OF SERVICE Affidavit/dclr/cert Of Service
    ATD0002 Notice Of Association Of Counsel Hoss, Richard Talbott
    29 11-15-2010 ORDER GRANTING MOTION/PETITION Order Granting Motion/petition/def
    – 11-15-2010 ORDER QUASHING Order Quashing Order To Show Cause
    30 11-15-2010 MOTION HEARING Motion Hearing

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.