Robbie Shipley
Posted by redmondroughneck (+71) 8 years ago
I am glad that Robbie Shipley's house did not get auctioned off. I think the city should take it and make a museum out of it. When I come to Miles City the first thing I do is drive by Robbie's house and see what he has added to the front yard and then I drive around the corner to the Mayor's house and see what kind of junk car he has added to his collection.
Top
Posted by nativemc (+910) 8 years ago
Its nice that Robbie can entertain so many people. I actually find myself driving by there once in awhile just to see what has been added. I have to admit though, I am glad he doesnt live next door to me.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 8 years ago
From the Star article about this "trustee's sale":

"In October 2011, Shipley sued former Mayor Joe Whalen for violating his right to due process in public nuisance proceedings against him. The suit was unsuccessful."

This is the first time I have heard about the outcome of that lawsuit.
Top
supporter
Posted by cj sampsel (+477) 8 years ago
I replied to a similar earlier thread that it should be made a Miles City landmark and tourist attraction and still maintain that belief.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5104) 8 years ago
What happened to Mr. Shipley? According to the Star article, he only owes around $70M on the property? It's gotta be worth more than that, not? Help me out here...
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+622) 8 years ago
Thank you for consistently raising the matter of coverage by the Miles City Star on the Shipley, David. A decision in this case was remanded by the U.S. District Court in Billings on April 24 and made a matter of public record on that date but it was never picked up by reporters.

When the coverage issue was raised again in August in this forum, I notified the Star of the court's decision and referenced the documents below. I like to give our local paper adequate time to cover newsworthy issues before posting to milescity.com but, in this case, there has been no follow-up until the line, "The suit was unsuccessful", appeared this past week.

So, I'm posting links to the decision and order below, for your review.

https://mail-attachment.g...YjCjrs0dqI

https://mail-attachment.g...RiIhKfIeGo
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 8 years ago
Thanks, Joe. The Star covered the initial story about the lawsuit being filed but then failed to follow up. I thought that was very strange. Perhaps they decided it was a matter between private citizens, but you were being sued for your actions as executive of the Miles City government so I would think it should be newsworthy.

BTW, the links above are asking me to sign in to Gmail. I don't have a Gmail account so the links are apparently of no value to non-Gmail users?

[This message has been edited by David Schott (12/7/2012)]
Top
Posted by Kacey (+3156) 8 years ago
I have gmail and it won't let me access it either.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 8 years ago
I have gmail and it isn't available to me either...Joe, could you give us a brief synopsis of this, perhaps?
Top
supporter
Posted by Emilie Boyles (+254) 8 years ago
Going forward, when submissions are made to the Star, please also submit them to [email protected] for inclusion in the Montana East Regional Newscast on KMTA and KYUS. Additionally, our 24/7 newsline is 406-939-3378.

Unfortunately, it has become cost-prohibitive to pull even the listings of the federal cases for small outlets such as local newspapers and radio stations.

Several years ago the federal government began charging per page of results even for electronic searches and per page for each case a clicked on looked at each time it is reviewed, even if it is just to see if it affects a given community. Often a click will result in hundreds of pages, even if only the first one is required.

However, if local residents are involved in a specific case and local outlets such as ours are given that information we do our best to follow the case. You can help us help you get the appropriate information to the community by emailing [email protected] !

Emilie Boyles
News Director
Marks Group Broadcasting
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+622) 8 years ago
I apologize for the Google links. You'll find the documents sourced here:

http://law.justia.com/cas...3/40748/39

http://law.justia.com/cas...3/40748/40
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4458) 8 years ago
Looks like the case was thrown out on a technicality. Joe Whelan?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 8 years ago
So happy you prevailed, Joe...Congrats...
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 8 years ago
Technicality? Sounds like Shipley presented a poor case and failed to follow up with supporting facts as requested by the Court. I'd say the Court was exceptionally generous in giving Shipley's complaints thoughtful consideration as it seems likely Shipley was essentially just wasting the Court's time.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4458) 8 years ago
I guess you didn't bother looking at the first page of the documents.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 8 years ago
Shipley v. Whalen - Document 40





Court Description:

CLERK'S JUDGMENT in favor of Joe Whalen and against Rob Shipley. Ordered by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 4/24/2012. (
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 8 years ago
In spite of Shipley's failure to file a proper motion to amend his complaint in a timely manner, the Court did consider the initial complaint when considering Whalen's "Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings".

The way I read it, the "technicality" prevented Shipley from amending his complaint but did not keep the Court from considering the initial complaint in deciding how to act on Whalen's motion.

This statement is a common theme throughout the document which leads me to conclude that Shipley did a poor job of presenting his case and that one could conclude that Shipley had no case from the very beginning:

"Shipley also does not allege any facts that allow the Court to reasonably infer..."

More telling statements about the quality of Shipley's initial complaint:

* "But Shipley cites no relevant authority in any of these filings and does not otherwise substantively address Whelan's argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity."

* "The Court concludes that even if Whelan testified against Shipley
at a bench trial as stated in allegation (2) above, that action would be protected by absolute immunity."


* "The Court also concludes that fact allegations (3) and (4) listed above do not state cognizable claims against Whelan. Allegations that Whelan had discussions with Shipley on the street and with BNSF are insufficient to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Thus, factual allegations (2), (3), and (4) do not present cognizable claims and do not meet the Iqbal standard sufficient to survive judgment on the pleadings."

* "Shipley's complaint must contain sufficient factual matter that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that Whelan prosecuted Shipley with malice, without probable cause, and for the purpose of denying Shipley equal protection or another specific constitutional 10 right. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Lacey, 649 F.3d at 1133. The Court concludes that it does not."

* "Fact allegations that Whelan "ordered," "coached," or "conspired" are not sufficient to allow the Court to reasonably infer that Whelan prosecuted Shipley without probable cause."

* "Shipley has also failed to allege facts that allow the Court to infer that Whelan prosecuted Shipley for the purpose of depriving him of a constitutional right. Lacey, 649 F.3d at 1133. Shipley does not allege any facts that indicate he was arrested or detained, or that allow the Court to reasonably infer that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated."

* "Shipley summarily states that Whelan did "deny me of my
constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness," but makes no fact allegations that support this conclusion."


* "The Court is not bound to accept such "legal conclusions" or "mere conclusory statements." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Instead, the Complaint must have sufficient fact allegations to allow the Court to reasonably infer that Whelan prosecuted Shipley with malice and for the purpose of depriving him of a specific constitutional right. No such fact allegations appear in Shipley's complaint. Shipley does not specifically refer to any information that Whelan knowingly and falsely submitted to prosecutors. Absent such allegations, his claims fail."

And it goes on and on about Shipley's failure to provide sufficient facts to make his case.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4458) 8 years ago
What's the first thing you see when you follow Joe's link?
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 8 years ago
You're the one who keeps citing it. Please tell us, Buck. Too many sleepless nights have your head in a fog?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4458) 8 years ago
Richard said it must not be funny if you have to spell it out.



If I happen to stumble across your sense of humor, I'll let you know.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 8 years ago
Yes, that could have been the Court's first clue about the quality of the Plaintiff's complaint. Just one of many, probably.

The footnote is amusing:

"Defendant is variously referenced in the record as "Whelan" or
"Whalen." The Court adopts the Defendant's spelling of his name."
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4458) 8 years ago
That was kind of them.
Top
supporter
Posted by Dan Mowry (+1435) 8 years ago
Why am I picturing the entire thing presented as-if Granny Clampett wrote it?
Top
Posted by Red Neck Girl (+57) 8 years ago
I am still digesting the fact that towards the top of the thread, Bob L. indicates that Rob owes $7M on the property. Who woulda thunk it!?
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 8 years ago
"M" is a notation for thousands. "MM" is for millions. "$70M" is $70,000 dollars.

I know, it's confusing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3208) 8 years ago
David..would you be mad if I say that $70,000 is $70K...and, $70M is $70,000,000?
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9998) 8 years ago
Since M is the roman numeral for 1,000, MM should be 1000 + 1000 (2,000) - but in finance it's 1000 x 1000 (1,0000,0000).

And to make it worse, in computer science 1 Kilobyte is 1,024 Bytes - so in that respect it could be assumed 1K represents 1,024 of something (not 1,000).

Beware the perilous world of K's and M's.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3208) 8 years ago
Webmaster..you win. I have never seen the four zeros at work:-) I kind of stop at K's:-)
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3208) 8 years ago
So, I also screwed up using an uppercase K rather than the lowercase k for 1 kilo. Could you kindly remove my stupidity??? Different systems at work..ha!
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 8 years ago
Jeri, you've done an excellent job of demonstrating how M's, K's, and k's can lead to all kinds of confusion.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3208) 8 years ago
You are too kind, David. I think I was not into Roman Numerals...bummer. I almost talked myself out of writing something...and, should have listened:-)
Top
Posted by Red Neck Girl (+57) 8 years ago
e = mc squared
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4953) 8 years ago
E = mc2 expresses the theory of relativity and what does that have to do with Roman Numerals? Perhaps my education was cut short?

[This message has been edited by howdy (12/13/2012)]
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9998) 8 years ago
Jeri Dalbec wrote:
Webmaster..you win. I have never seen the four zeros at work:-)

Yeah, that's weird. My keyboard got away from me.
Top