I don't know where to start. Let me sum up recent events through a GreenShift Investor's eyes.First GreenShift says that ICM is selling their Intellectual property without permission. Second ICM sues GreenShift because they are telling ICM's customers that the property ICM is selling them belongs to GreenShift. Oh - and GreenShift does, like have three pesky patents to back up their claims. But to be fair to ICM - it does hurt business - when customers are told your business is selling someone else's property.
Do I know ICM is guilty of patent infringement? No - thats for a court to decide. But I am becoming more aware of how ICM does business - and how much they respect the property rights of other companies. . .
The quotes below, from the minutes of a puplic meeting, tell the story of how ICM wanted a road that was on a neighboring business's property. ICM wanted to use the road, but at some point the owner of the road said no and stopped taking their calls. ICM then went on to sue their hometown to demand that they condemn the private property so ICM could have access to it. Is this a fair assessment by the SkunK? Read the quotes below and make up your own mind. Go to the link and read the entire minutes from this meeting yourself.
ICM wanted use of its neighbor's property - the owner objected - then ICM decided to move forward anyway. Those less charitable than the SkunK might say they see a pattern here. . . But please don't listen to the SkunK - first listen to the Alison McKenney Brown - the Colwich, KS City Attorney . . . .
**************
Ms. Brown
Ms. Brown reviewed for Councilman Pugh that ICM filed suit against the City of Colwich and Abengoa because ICM wanted what was currently a private roadway on Abengoa's property to be a public roadway or they wanted some type of private access agreement with Abengoa. She explained that if made a public roadway, anybody could use it and the concern was that if the City condemned it or acted to make it a roadway, not only could ICM's trucks go up and down that roadway so could all of Abengoa's. She stated that all the people who live in Colwich who were frustrated about truck traffic on 1st Street were going to have everybody's trucks going up and down that road. She stated the City could not say that ICM's trucks were special and they get to use the road and Abengoa's trucks weren't special and they couldn't, as there were some legal rulings on that scenario. She explained that the lawsuit had put the City adverse to both ICM and Abengoa.
**************
Now Listen to the Mayor of Colwich, KS:
Mayor Spexarth
Mayor Spexarth said he went to ICM's counsel eight months ago. ICM's counsel testified in court that Mayor Spexarth went to him and Joe Scheer was sitting there. Mayor Spexarth stated he told them the road was going to close and that the two companies needed to work out a solution. ///Mr. Vander Griend was before the Council now and questioned where was he eight months ago when Mayor Spexarth talked to his counsel.
Mayor Spexarth stated that it was not right to drag his name down, when he did nothing against ICM.
He never said anything bad under oath about ICM and stated both were good companies and that the City would like to work this out and stated that this was why he went to ICM eight months ago.
*****************
Listen to what Mr. Sanford, from the company who owned the road, had to say:
Mr. Darrell Sanford, Plant Manager, AbengoaHe stated that Abengoa objected to the unlawful taking of their private property for a non-public purpose. He stated it was not equitable and necessary for a private party to ask the City to obtain access for rights across another parties private property when they had alternate access available to public streets from their own property. He further stated it was inappropriate for the City to take any action regarding this road since ICM had filed litigation in which the City was a named defendant. He urged the Council to check with their Counsel before taking any action, which could effect the pending litigation, and asked the Council not to take action that could jeopardize the City's position in the pending litigation.
***********************
Well, ICM certainly has a side to this story and I would be remiss if I left that out.
Mr. Vander Griend
Mr. Vander Griend detailed the financial contributions ICM provided to the Community and Renwick School District totaling $1.3 million. He gave a history of the closing of the private drive, the attempts to contact Abengoa with no response, and the filing of a lawsuit against the City to exercise the contingent road dedication. He stated that removal of the contingent dedication occurred when Abengoa re-platted the complex, without informing ICM, as adjacent landowners.
T
he Great Table Sitting Scandle!(SkunK is exploring whether the following events just resemble - or were the actual basis for any "Saved by the Bell" episodes. In the SkunK's mind - the great question of "who sat at whos table?" is a question usually best left to adolescent situational comedies)Mr. Vander Griend detailed the events that took place at the District Court hearing. He stated he was disappointed that the City Attorney sat at the Abengoa table and did not remain neutral or that the City Attorney did not represent a business in Colwich that, in his view, had been very active in supporting the City, but was sitting at the table supporting Abengoa in their attempt to close the road. He stated that it was never the intent of the City, nor High Plains, to block in ICM and deny them access to 1st Street.
(Ms. Brown (City Attorney) addressed Mr. Vander Griend explaining that there were two tables in a courtroom, one for plaintiffs and one for defendants. She stated ICM sued the City making the City a defendant and she was bound to sit at the defendants' table. She stated that the other defendant was Abengoa. She stated she did not get to pick and choose, and the City as a defendant was required to sit at defendants' table. She said that she did not sit between them, she had a corner at the end of the table with enough room for her book, (Sorry but the SkunK has to ask: "Enough room for her book?") nobody bothered her, and she was not choosing sides. She stated that if the judge had suddenly changed the rules of court, maybe she could have had her own table, but that was not permitted.Ms. Brown stated that Mr. Hirsch, Abengoa's counsel, was willing to state to the Governing Body that the rules of court demanded City's counsel to sit at the defendants table that it was not her choice, and it was not an action in favor of Abengoa or against ICM.)
Mr. Vander Griend stated that the two witnesses for Abengoa were the Mayor and the City Clerk. He stated that ICM understood there was some sort of handshake agreement to close the road after the First Street project was complete. He stated that he wrote a letter to the City in 2006, but never sent it expressing his frustration over a number of citations received regarding equipment being six-inches too close to the road.
(Mr. Vander Griend asked if anyone had questions for him. Mayor Spexarth stated he had a few comments. Mayor Spexarth stated that Mr. Vander Griend brought up the fact that he had a handshake agreement to close the road, which was not true.)**********************
This is just a flavor the the happenings that took place at a public meeting
CITY OF COLWICH, KANSAS
310 S. 2ND STREET
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.FEBRUARY 11, 2008
http://www.skyways.org/towns/Colwich/minutes/m021108.html
Thanks again to a reader for the link!
SkunK
(and some thought soap opera was an exaggeration!)
aLL BOLD AND CAPS AND ITALICS AND COLORS ARE THE sKUNk'S! To make it more topical, the order of some of the minutes were rearrainged and excerpted. SEE link for full minutes.
Posts
