Note: This article was written by ROBIN READER (612) and was originally published on her website Broken Arrow Forum on November 18, 2010, and reappears here on this blog with her permission.
Sherri Combs didn’t show up at her rescheduled deposition, which was to have taken place 11/18/2010.
Her attorney claims that he doesn’t have the authority to represent her regarding the deposition, even though he had written in a previous letter that he would be representing her regarding the deposition. He made this new claim two days before the deposition, even though the reason he gave had been known since October 20, 2010. He argues that her request to the AG’s office for representation takes away his authority to represent her. The AG’s office must complete an investigation before they can decide whether they will represent her.
The BA District agreed without question to delay the deposition from its original date of October 22, 2010, to accommodate her medical leave. Now her attorney claims she is still on medical leave, even though her doctor’s note released her to go back to work, without restrictions, on November 8, 2010. He claims she is on leave until December 2, but has not produced another doctor’s note.
Why would Sherri Combs not want to testify, since she was upset at having her findings removed from the audit? Wouldn’t she jump at the chance to set the record straight, if she had really uncovered corruption but had her report stifled by those who were trying to cover for the criminals? Wouldn’t she be glad for the opportunity to clear her name and present the compelling evidence that supported the findings she described in her report?
She claimed to the AG’s office that she couldn’t come up with any of the documents or recordings requested in the subpoena – even though she knows that the BA Schools attorney has copies of emails sent to her and the recordings she secretly made.
How come the “crooks” in BA Schools never file Motions to Quash? Why aren’t they scurrying around filing things to delay having to testify under oath? Only the “Whistleblower”, the “Watchdog” and his buddy Ritze, the “concerned parents”, and the auditor who was allegedly “pressured” to falsify her audit are trying to hide from giving their testimony and evidence. What does that tell us?
Notice that it’s the DEFENDANTS – BA Schools, Air Assurance, and the 3 board members – who are trying to push this case forward. THEY are not evading service, claiming to have deleted documents, or trying to get excused from giving depositions.
Why do the PLAINTIFF and his supporters have to be forced by the DEFENDANTS to tell their story: “the truth” they claim they have been trying so hard to get out to the public?