If you read the decision, the reason it was thrown out has nothing to do with the merits of the case. Indeed, the judge took great pains to say he had standing, and cause. What he was missing was time. His filing came too late. 16 months was outside of the window for a challenge. It needed to occur with 30 days of the sale.

Make sure you get that this lawsuit failed from being filed too late, not from its merits. ISB won't tell you that, but it is plain as day in the text. They may call this legal "victory" as they "won", but they didn't "win" on the merits. They "won" due to the fact that the lawsuit was filed late.

The ISB didn't "lose" on the merits either. So what's your point kranky? That James Policastro is ignorant of the law and wasted everyone's time with a frivolous lawsuit?

JLA, I think you're being a bit harsh. Kranky did mention that the judge took pains to say that the anti-ISB suit had merit.

It's true that the ISB didn't lose, either. But Kranky's point still stands: The fact that the suit against the ISB was thrown out is no reflection of its validity.

And Kranky raises an interesting point, that it was thrown out on a technicality, something that the ISB announcement doesn't mention

The judge's decision also points out that the BRA carried out a nine-year public meeting and comment process before selling this land to the ISB in May 2003, and that Policastro did not involve himself in that process at all while it was going on.

Why didn't he object to the sale before it happened, and why did he wait until September 2004 to file this lawsuit?

Good questions, Ron, but I don't think it changes Kranky's basic point.

JLA:

Since the ISB did not lose, your analysis is non sequitur. ISB won precisely because a person with standing who filed the suit failed to file it within a mandatory time frame. That is, whether you agree that this was good or bad for this particular case, a good thing in general, in terms of time limiting actions against entities. The suit was not frivolous at all, and again, the judge would have correctly indicated if it had lacked merit. Since the judge indicated that cause for the suit did in fact exist, it is rather hard to call this frivolous, or at least to call it frivolous with a straight face.

The suit failed not due to a technicality of process, but because a time limit to bring action expired. It did not fail due to failed demonstration of cause, or merit of the action. ISB did not win on the merits. It would be more correct to say that ISB did not lose this case. Its win comes entirely from an expired time limit for filing actions.

Ron: you raise a good point. Why did he wait? I suspect (no direct knowledge, just a guess) that he learned of it and launched the suit then. I don't know if he represented himself. I would suspect that a competent attorney would have advised him against the suit on the failure to file within the statutes limits. As for the 9 year public comment period, I am not sure I got that from my reading of this. Also, knowing quite well that politicos love to bury things that they think will cause erosion of their support in lengthy meetings and processes, it would not surprise me to hear that it was "engineered" to be in "plain sight".

That is more of an ethical slight of hand than anything else.

But the basic facts of the case do remain, and questions remain unanswered. The merits have not been addressed, and as tax payers, I am sure none of us would like to see the constituted authorities offer sweetheart deals to any one group without extending the same offer to all others. Thats your and my money that is being stolen, not necessarily by the ISB, but by the politicos doing the sale.

The ISB simply took advantage of the situation. Once people realized what was happening (not all government is transparent, despite their "best efforts") they took action. But it was too late.

That seems to be the most plausible theory.