Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Lacking big girl panties, Murray sues

I've been waiting for this other shoe to drop. Former Councilwoman Pam Murray was too quiet after her ouster. She was suspiciously quiet, for her own usual conduct. It's been nearly a year and so the filing deadline was coming due. According to this morning's City Paper she's suing the very citizens that did us a favor and pushed to get rid of her. Defamation of character is the charge. The City Paper hosts the actual filing here.

And as if we need more proof of her incompetence, and those that support her, her attorney's filing calls Jamie Hollin "Hollins" and in the boilerplated section describing the defendants the Mike Peden section states "Defendant Hollins was an active participant with Defendant Hollins".

Pam Murray's conduct in this community was appalling and she provided plenty of legitimate ammunition to use against her in this battle.

The search box for this blog on the left column will bring up quite a few posts on the battle a year ago between Murray and her own constituents.
  • Yes, there was opposition to the zoning Murray was supporting. 
  • Yes it would have negatively impacted many of the property owners in that district. Since when it is unlawful to object to bad landlords and political donors getting sweetheart zoning deals? 
  • The lawsuit points out these folks met in 'late evenings'.  Most likely because they had real jobs that kept them busy during the day.
  • The lawsuit states Murray's friends in West Africa read about her shenanigans.
  • Does Murray still have her Detroit job? Then what does it matter if someone complained to her employer?
  • Murray has suffered humiliation, distress and embarrassment as a result of her ouster. Well, she should have. It was embarrassing behavior and she should have felt humiliated for not doing her job well.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Let's hope this is assigned to a judge who'll toss it out as being without merit.

Murray needs to put her big girl panties on and move on.


Mark Rogers said...

It seems Murray confuses 'defamation of character' with 'definition of character.'

Kay Brooks said...

:-) The first laugh of the day. Thanks.