BRUCE TICHININ et al vs. CITY OF MORGAN HILL

 
 
 
 
 
Value This
Doc
Scribd
Average
     
Pages: 46 43
Words: 15358 13640
Characters: 97791 81678
Lines: 193 623
     
     
Letters per word: 6.37 5.99
Words per line: 79.58 21.89
Words per page: 333.87 317.21

Add to your reading list

Flag_red Flag this document

Document Information

105 Reads | 0 Comments

Description

A War Between Attorneys, City Hall and Private Investigators

BRUCE TICHININ et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
CITY OF MORGAN HILL,
Defendant and Respondent.

H031019
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. CV046112)

Morgan Hill, CA (HC)

In 2004 the City Council for the City of Morgan Hill California, adopted a resolution condemning attorney Bruce Tichinin for hiring his own private investigator to conduct surveillance on their own City Manager.

However attorney Tichinin didn’t just lay down and take it. Tichinin fought back by filing a claim against the City for ‘42 United States Code Section 1983.’ This claim alleged that the City violated the attorney and his private investigators constitutional rights.

This all stemmed from a rumor inside the City Hall that their City Manager J. Edward Tewes was allegedly having a “romantic affair” with their City Attorney Helene Leichter.

I agree with the attorneys’ suit. The private sector has every right to make sure that there are no conflicts of interest when a City is making deals with OUR tax dollars. When any form of Government attempts to restrict or delay the freedoms of the private sector, and/or their speech, they must be stopped.

This story gets better than a soap opera as you read the below court decision. From attorneys going after attorneys, to PI’s hired to investigate other PI’s. The only part of the PI’s investigation that I do not understand, is the two hot chocolates in the motel room. That would have alerted me too.

Below is the rest of this juicy story and the decisions of the court. This is good news for the hard working attorney Bruce Tichinin and his private investigator. I first learned about this decision from my colleague Sue Sarkis. Sue is a pro-active legal annalist as she stays up to date and speed on most court decisions. I concur with Sue’s words here “in carefully reviewing this case, I find some wonderful verbiage for our use. Of course you would want to consider consulting an attorney should a fine line ever be drawn, but I do find that this might be useful in the future should the need ever arise. Even if you are not from CA, as the current leading case, it still can be quite useful. The cases relied upon, for the most part, are federal cites.”

Pdf_16x16 46 Pages


Date Added

09/29/2009

Category
Tags
Groups
Copyright

Public Domain

More info »

 

Commenting has been disabled.