Joined
·
2,942 Posts
I was at Bimart in Woodburn yesterday and I believe they told me 26,000....might had been 23,0000
THE ONLY Measure 114 related discussion thread
621 - 640 of 735 Posts
I was at Bimart in Woodburn yesterday and I believe they told me 26,000....might had been 23,0000
Joined
·
3,030 Posts
The point would be to counter the argument that things are worse than they were in the past.
Joined
·
1,422 Posts
Today the main line is just shy of 26k
Chl line is around 11k
Joined
·
1,381 Posts
dang, sure isn’t moving very quick
I now have Kaemph's multi-page complaint.
Can post this public document here, but what's the trick to posting a .pdf file on IFish?
Joined
·
5,733 Posts
There's so many details in this dispute that it's best if folks can read the complaint verbatim. I'll continue to work at getting the PDF posted.
Joined
·
5,733 Posts
It works!!!!
I don't get this part.......
"Defendants paid Plaintiff a $60,000 retainer for Plaintiff’s initial work on the lawsuit. Plaintiff then worked on the lawsuit for several months, including seeking the requested emergency injunctive relief for Defendants. The retainer was thus exhausted through that work by Plaintiff."
When was the retainer paid? The contract was not fully executed until Nov.21st. Was there work being done prior to the contract being in place between Kaemph and OFF?
How could there have been "several months" work if the measure was not even approved until Nov. 8th?
-E-
Joined
·
7,838 Posts
perhaps by game-planning for multiple outcomes prior to the actual outcome being known? 🤓
It’s called being paid to think 🤔
Joined
·
150 Posts
That Kaemph Law lawsuit against OFF is interesting. Fee Agreement signed on November 21st and they were fired on December 8. So the contract was in place for only 17 days. The fee agreement letter promised that Kaemph Law would notify OFF before they did any work that exceeded the $60K retainer. Kaemph Law is claiming $126K+ in fees, $66K of which they billed on December 15th, a week after being fired. Based on the OFF email, OFF is stating that Kaemph Law billed them for work they allegedly did before the agreement was ever signed, and did not notify them in advance of that $66K extra work (thus violating the Fee Agreement). So as part of the evidentiary discovery phase, Kaemph Law will have to produce the advance notification documentation for that $66K of extra work if they hope to win the lawsuit. As well as all of their billing documentation for the judge to review, and there are strict rules and regulations regarding billing for law firms. Interesting that Kaemph Law opted to represent itself in the lawsuit, given attorney/client privileges rules that is a little odd.....
A judge is going to question why any work done prior to the fee agreement being signed didn't bill against the $60K retainer first instead of being included in the final bill a week after being fired. As well as if the work done prior to the fee agreement signed was known to be greater than $60K why was the retainer only set at $60K. Kaemph Law will have to show a copy of the actual Fee Agreement (wasn't included in the lawsuit paperwork) and that agreement has to have specific terms that show OFF agreed to pay for the specific work completed prior to the Fee Agreement being signed. So yeah, will be interesting to follow the evidentiary discovery phase to see who is telling the truth....
If it's true that "several months of work" was done before the Fee Agreement was signed, the retainer should have been set to an amount that would reflect that as part of full disclosure under attorney ethics rules.....
A judge is going to question why any work done prior to the fee agreement being signed didn't bill against the $60K retainer first instead of being included in the final bill a week after being fired. As well as if the work done prior to the fee agreement signed was known to be greater than $60K why was the retainer only set at $60K. Kaemph Law will have to show a copy of the actual Fee Agreement (wasn't included in the lawsuit paperwork) and that agreement has to have specific terms that show OFF agreed to pay for the specific work completed prior to the Fee Agreement being signed. So yeah, will be interesting to follow the evidentiary discovery phase to see who is telling the truth....
If it's true that "several months of work" was done before the Fee Agreement was signed, the retainer should have been set to an amount that would reflect that as part of full disclosure under attorney ethics rules.....
Joined
·
5,733 Posts
Loper have you ever divulged what it is that you do? You seem to have an inside track on state issues. ????
-E-
Joined
·
7,838 Posts
No, although there exist a few who’ve figured it out 🤔
that fact has nothing to do with this lawsuit; one side believes they should get paid for thinking, which is what they generally do; sucks to be them that they didn’t have a contract in place to be paid for thinking; frivolous lawsuits occur every day; just laugh at it 🤓
Joined
·
5,733 Posts
No news is good news.
-E-
-E-
Joined
·
150 Posts
I was at FFL yesterday filling out some paperwork, and the current background check line is 24K. But that particular FFL is calling in the background checks now, and said it usually clears in a day or two.
621 - 640 of 735 Posts
