Note: This article was written by ROBIN READER (612) and was originally published on her website Broken Arrow Forum on December 8, 2010, and reappears here on this blog with her permission.
Sisney has filed to dismiss all charges in his lawsuit against the Rampeys, Air Assurance, and Dr. Hudkins. Why? What’s wrong with these charges?
The charges that were dismissed include Defamation, Injurious Falsehood, Invasion of Privacy – False Light, Tortious Interference with Business Contract
Why drop them against Dr. Hudkins?
In his Complaint, Sisney said that Dr. Hudkins had been “openly making accusations that Dr. Sisney was ‘stealing from the schools and trying to blame it on the Rampeys’, and that Dr. Sisney should be fired.” In his deposition, Sisney said that Rep. Mike Ritze told him that Hudkins had made these defamatory statements to Ritze.
So did Hudkins say these things to Ritze? If he did, why did Ritze try so hard to avoid testifying? Sisney already testified that Ritze made that statement. In his deposition, Ritze just has to confirm it.
But Hudkins denied making those statements. If he really didn’t, then if Ritze says he did, he is lying under oath. But if Ritze says he didn’t, his testimony would disagree with Sisney’s – meaning one of them lied under oath. That may explain why Ritze ran for the hills.
Why drop them against the Rampeys?
Sisney claimed in his lawsuit that Mike Rampey arranged surreptitious meetings with board members, that Rampey told Stover “I want him gone”, and that Mr. and Mrs. Rampey both attended the final 6-hour executive session in which Sisney’s contract was being discussed.
If these things happened, Sisney certainly has loyal witnesses who were there and can confirm it: Terry Stover and Stephanie Updike. So he probably didn’t dismiss just because he couldn’t prove what really happened.
Why were these charges dismissed? Rampey denies all of these. Certainly the word of two former board members who were eyewitnesses would carry a lot of weight. What happened? Were Stover and Updike not willing to say under oath that Rampey did these things? Maybe because he didn’t?
If these things really happened, proving them would be easy with the witnesses at Sisney’s disposal, and would give some credibility to Sisney’s claims that Rampey, the board members, and Doug Mann violated Open Meetings laws to conspire against him. Dismissing these charges gives the appearance that they are not true, which weakens the remaining charges in his case. Why did he dismiss? I think it’s because these accusations are not true, and Sisney can’t get anyone to say under oath that they are.
Sisney’s attorney, Ms. Mor, said that they are trying to simplify the case, and that the heart of the case is the breach of contract issue. Since the board fired Sisney according to the letter of the law and fulfilled the District’s obligations to him in his contract (as he admitted in his deposition), I think she has a tough job ahead of her. In addition, there is the counterclaim to deal with.