The previous page on Macpherson Lawsuit Issues raises 2 important questions/issues: Over the past 15+ years . . .
1) Why hasn’t MacPherson (or his attorneys) at any time raised these election issues (the basis of the lawsuit) and at least requested (if not insisted) that the election be held again, this time with the requisite information/warning to the voters of the significant detrimental financial impact on the City.
2) Why hasn't City Management, City Attorney, or the various law firms representing the Hermosa Beach raised this issue and least requested (if not insisted) that the City Council rule that the election should be held again? This time with the requisite information/warning to the voters of the significant detrimental financial impact on the City.
3) Could damages even have been awarded TO MACPHERSON by a jury (under directions provided by the presiding judge) due to failure of Macpherson Oil to make reasonable efforts to mitigate damages over the past 15+ years, as required under California law, by NOTIFYING CITY OFFICIALS THAT THE ELECTION WAS FLAWED AND insisting on a new vote with a new proper City Attorney Impartial Analysis?
Michael Jenkins of RWG Law Firm's Impartial Analysis of Proposition E
2) Why hasn't City Management, City Attorney, or the various law firms representing the Hermosa Beach raised this issue and least requested (if not insisted) that the City Council rule that the election should be held again? This time with the requisite information/warning to the voters of the significant detrimental financial impact on the City.
3) Could damages even have been awarded TO MACPHERSON by a jury (under directions provided by the presiding judge) due to failure of Macpherson Oil to make reasonable efforts to mitigate damages over the past 15+ years, as required under California law, by NOTIFYING CITY OFFICIALS THAT THE ELECTION WAS FLAWED AND insisting on a new vote with a new proper City Attorney Impartial Analysis?
