Why, if the facts vindicate OLCHC, was the preliminary injunction lost?
- Operation Life was represented by publicly funded local legal services agency rather than a
private attorney. Operation Life, being run by welfare mothers, couldn't afford
the fee of a private attorney.
- Legal services went through inner turmoil at the exact same time that Operation Life was
faced with the court proceedings. 9 members, including several experienced welfare lawyers,
quit the program and were, therefore, unable to defend the clinic.
- The one lawyer remaining at legal services was young and relatively inexperienced in courtroom law.
- Because of this, John Fredenburg from NHLP in L.A., was asked to defend the clinic.
However, John is also young and relatively inexperienced in courtroom proceedings.
Yet, John built a good defense around the contractual arguments stated previously.
- However, Marilyn Romanelli, state's attorney, ignored the contract fraud charge
and sprung out 20 charges surrounding the operation of the clinic. These charges ranged
from dirty sinks to uncertified labs. Some of the charges were totally false, some half-truths,
and some true. However, none were criminal in any respect but were made to sound as such.
- Defendant lawyers were unable to mount a defense against them because there
was no forewarning. They consciously decided to ignore the charges.
- In a preliminary injunction hearing, it is the burden of those seeking the injunction
(in this case, Operation Life was seeking an injunction to stop the state from closing
the clinic) to prove their case. This was not done.
- Because the 20 charges went uncontested, and because of the burden of proof, the
judge had no reason to rule in favor of Operation Life.
|