Sisney’s Answer to the Counterclaim

Note: This article was written by ROBIN READER (612) and was originally published on her website Broken Arrow Forum on December 22, 2011, and reappears here on this blog with her permission.

All of the defendants’ Answers in this case have gone paragraph by paragraph and admitted or denied each allegation, sometimes offering additional information or explanation.

Sisney’s two-page Answer just gives a general denial of the first 96 paragraphs, then individually denies paragraphs 97-106.  These paragraphs are the allegations which directly support the causes of action, which are abuse of process (97-103) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (104-106).

I don’t know exactly what a “general denial” means.  Some of the paragraphs that he denies are just statements of undisputed fact, like paragraph 1 which states that the Broken Arrow School District is an independent school district established under Oklahoma law.  So a general denial probably just means “I didn’t do any of the bad things”, without going into detail on each one.

My guess at the reasoning is that 1)  Going item by item would require specific answers.  Sisney would not want to answer them truthfully and admit he did anything bad, but he doesn’t want to get caught in specific lies either.  2)  A two-page denial that doesn’t go into any specifics would cost a lot less in attorney fees than a point-by-point document like the defendants supplied.

Sisney’s answer to counterclaim 12/17/10

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s