Sleeper v. Lilley et al. Media Statement (from sworn testimony) Lawsuits must be based on factual evidence. The jury in this case heard very

Similar documents
Citation: Steeves v. Arsenault & Keough Date: PESCTD 55 Docket: SCC Registry: Charlottetown

PRE-HEARING DECISION ON A MOTION

Follow this and additional works at:

Police chief 'pulled plug on 12million fraud investigation into Stobart transport empire while receiving free helicopter rides'

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv CC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CR DT 07/29/2011 HON. KAREN L. O'CONNOR

PRESS PACKET Alliance for California Business March 14, 2016

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,886 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION. VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-00186

Kongsberg Automotive Holding v. Teleflex Inc

Claudette Colvin: Twice Toward Justice On Task Questions Chapters 1-3

IVAN ROBERTS IVAN ROBERTS JR : May : October JUDGMENT


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA. Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION v. NO. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Official Form 410 Proof of Claim

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

New Hampshire Lemon Law Statute

COMPUTING COUNTY OFFICIAL SALARIES FOR

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 115,277. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, NICHOLAS W. FISHER, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

General Instructions

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,523 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, STACY A. GENSLER, Appellant.

Aamco Transmissions v. James Dunlap

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 115,278. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DAVID SHELDON MEARS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

Case 3:17-cv WHA Document 1082 Filed 08/04/17 Page 1 of 6. August 4, Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., No.

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL

Before: DISTRICT JUDGE SKALSKYJ-REYNOLDS EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED. -v- MR IAN LAMOUREUX. Case No. C3DP56Q5 Solicitor for the Claimant:

We Are In Business To.. Earn a living Make a career Protect infrastructure Protect drivers Power communities

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

The Volkswagen Diesel Disaster 2015: A Case Study of Corporate Fraud

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Auto industry worried about govt's decision on steel import curbs; move to impact manufacturing

Case 3:10-cv JGH Document 1 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

October 29, !.?., E 7 ip, i.j CASE NO MC-FC PRESTON SANITATION, INC.

SENATE BILL lr1706 A BILL ENTITLED. Vehicle Laws Manufacturers, Distributors, and Factory Branches Prohibited Acts

2016 PA Super 99 OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MAY 13, Brian Michael Slattery appeals from his judgment of sentence after

Why gasoline prices are headed for $3.50 at the pump

November 27, Mr. Joel H. Peck, Clerk State Corporation Commission c/o Document Control Center P.O. Box 2118 Richmond, VA

Case 4:16-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/26/16 Page 1 of 7

Associate Discount Policy & Procedure

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FLORIDA NEW MOTOR VEHICLE ARBITRATION BOARD

FRANCHISES ACT REGULATIONS

Rural Electrification. A Brief History GEORGIA S ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION

Case bem Doc 854 Filed 10/15/18 Entered 10/15/18 17:13:18 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 53

Crash Course. THE front. Avoiding Accidents. You can keep a truck wreck from becoming a legal catastrophe. By H. Peyton Inge IV.

Case 1:04-cv JJF Document 81 Filed 03/13/2006 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY. Consent Workshop [ ]

Taxi & Limousine Comm n v. John OATH Index No. 2858/10 (July 15, 2010)

ON-SITE DUI BOOT CAMP NHTSA SFST / ARIDE / DRE PROGRAM OVERVIEW

SILICON VALLEY / SAN JOSE DECEMBER 24, 2010 VOL. 27 NO. 40

Dealer Registration. Please provide the following:

FILED 2017 Mar-23 PM 12:37 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA

Testimony for House Bill No. 2040

Ms. Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary West Virginia Public Service Commission Post Office Box 812 Charleston, West Virginia 25323

0.5% of the auto financing amount Fee for late ownership transfer 200 Baht 4.4 Charge for document preparation for ownership transfer (as

ENROLLED ACT NO. 56, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SIXTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING 2018 BUDGET SESSION

Powered by. What does a chicken farmer know about auto racing?

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Racine County: CHARLES H. CONSTANTINE, Judge. Reversed.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,828 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JUSTIN D. STANLEY, Appellant.

Fees for auto hire purchase

DMV Certified Dealer Education since gotplates. Copyright TriStar Motors LLC

INDUSTRIAL HAUL AGREEMENT

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

DEALER REGISTRATION PACKAGE

PETROBRAS ARGENTINA S.A.

STANDARDS OF THE IDAHO LEMON LAW

BENJAMIN J. KALLOS COUNCIL MEMBER, 5 TH DISTRICT

MAINE LEMON LAW SUMMARY

Aladdin Doors Goes to The Franchise Expo

Parking Terms and Conditions

1. Attractive incentives, high depreciation rate and lease options. Incentives by the Government

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION No. 64 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 218th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 1, 2018

CORRECTED COPY HOUSE BILL NO. HB0093

Fire Hydrants, Bus Stops, & the 3 No s

NATIONAL REPORT: SPAIN. At 31/12/2015

Merits and demerits of Franchising. Chapter2

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FLORIDA NEW MOTOR VEHICLE ARBITRATION BOARD

Lessons from a recent Judicial Review case on IT security and the LSC tendering process:

USAACE & Fort Rucker Preventative Law Program. Alabama Lemon Law

Corporate Communications. Media Information 15 March 2011

10 Critical Paint Meter Mistakes That Cost Unsuspecting Car Dealers A Fortune

International Research Journal of Applied Finance ISSN Audit Practices for Automobile Dealerships

No Specifications on Labels, Failure to Meet OEM Specifications, Wide Variations in Properties and Quality By Thomas F. Glenn

Extract from the 4 Corners program transcript from Jonathan Holmes' report into energy efficiency in Australian households, "The Home Front".

NEW HAMPSHIRE LEMON LAW SUMMARY

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D02-75

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA %% CHARLESTON

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

RECOVERING A SEIZED VEHICLE

UMW-OG ACHIEVES PRETAX PROFIT OF RM76M IN 3Q14

REGULAR MEETING, TOWN OF BROOKFIELD, March 11, 2013

American Arbitration Association Automobile Industry Special Binding Arbitration Program. and, AAA Case:

Price List. Catalog Eleven. Rigging. Effective February 16, Specialties Inc. manufacturer of stage equipment

No. 52,415-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *

Refining Profits: How Californians Get Fleeced at the Pump

mew Doc 2578 Filed 02/16/18 Entered 02/16/18 12:17:29 Main Document Pg 1 of 7

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Transcription:

! 1 Sleeper v. Lilley et al. Media Statement (from sworn testimony) Lawsuits must be based on factual evidence. The jury in this case heard very emotional testimony from Mr. and Mrs. Sleeper ( Sleepers ) on how they lost their farm and their seed business because of the actions of their seed purchaser, Agway Corporation; six years later they then said the reason was because Daniel G. Lilley Law firm ( Lilley) did not present the case properly before the Judge at the Arbitration hearing and they should have gotten more money. So they sued Lilley. Lilley commenced representing the Sleepers by filing a lawsuit in US District Court in Bangor, Maine the fall of 2002 based on the facts represented by the Sleepers and their personal retired attorney, Peggy Parker, Sleepers friend and sometimes lawyer. Their original story was compelling and they appeared to be very sympathetic victims. They initially told the Lilley office that Agway wrongfully held back payments for seed potatoes and Agway had a monopoly on the sale a purchase of seed potatoes in Aroostook County; that the Agway executives were pocketing tens of millions of dollars in profits and were putting potato farmers out of business. Lilley took the case on a contingent fee percentage and paid all the out of pocket costs. The Lilley firm only got paid legal fees if his firms won the case the higher the recovery for the Sleepers the higher the fee for the firm so Lilley had financial incentive to

! 2 maximize the award the Sleepers got. He also was raised in Aroostook County and has a fondness for those folks as he did for the Sleepers (Half his law office staff comes from the county.). As the case progressed, depositions were taken and witness interviewed and documents examined. The result was that the original story could not be supported by most of the evidence that unfolded. Indeed, the story they first told was simply not factually correct more fiction then fact. Unfortunately, and compounding the challenge for Lilley, Agway went out of business and filed for Bankruptcy in 2002 shortly after the suit was filed which hurt the case. They were declared bankrupt and no longer exist. Nevertheless, despite these setbacks, Lilley went forward and presented the most favorable evidence available at a 3 day arbitration hearing in New York in 2005. Lilley won that hearing and the Sleepers were awarded $102,000 against Agway (Lilley got them an additional $26,000 when they came into the case in 2002 and did not charge them a fee). The Agway Bankruptcy factually destroyed the claim that Agway was earning millions cornering the seed market and it affected the collectability of the award which ultimately was partially paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Court s reduced dollar amount for all creditors.

! 3 The Sleepers, ostensibly pleased with the way the Lilley firm handled the administrative hearing, wanted Lilley to continue to represent them and file an appeal claiming fraud in the administrative judge s decision to the 1 st Cir. court of Appeals for a low money award and if necessary to the US Supreme Court. They wanted more money. Lilley did not believe there was any merit in going further with the case and declined to represent them further. Six years later after they lost in the 1 st Cir Court of appeal and their petition to the US Supreme Court, the Sleepers sued Lilley claiming for the first time that Lilley did not represent their case properly. Mary Sleeper testified tearfully that they lost their farm because of Agway and Lilley did not prove it. There was no evidence to support that claim. In fact the evidence showed that at the time of the hearing in 2005 the Sleepers still owned the farm, were current on their mortgage payments, and had over $800,000 equity in the farm. Evidence also showed that Agway continued to buy and sell seed to the Sleepers for as long as they wanted. Moreover in 2000, Mr. Dewitt of Farm Family Credit testified contrary to the Sleepers, that the Sleepers could get financing for farming if they choose to or they could get out of farming. The Sleepers told him they wanted to get out of farming; they choose to get out of farming since they had never made a profit with seed potatoes from the time they bought the farm from Sleeper s

! 4 father, Rodney Sleeper, in 1998. Lilley could not prove that Rodney Sleeper ever made a profit selling seed in the entire decade of the 1990s (he refused to produce his tax returns). The Sleepers choose to stop planting seed in 2000 at which time Vaughn Sleeper was quoted under oath that he would rather jump in a barrel of piranhas then farm potatoes in Aroostook County. There was no evidence that the farm was sold at any loss whatsoever or that the Sleepers seed business ever made money. In fact the Sleepers borrowed over $100,000 to purchase and fix up a beer tavern in Island Falls. That tavern too failed. Mrs. Sleeper blamed it on the closing of a local business where they got most of their customers. Mrs. Sleeper tearfully testified, without any supporting appraisals, or evidence of any kind, that the Sleeper farm they had purchased in 1998 for $300,000 was worth between $1M and $2M. The trial was held in Portland and ran over the holidays. Six of the nine jurors returned a $1.1 Christmas verdict for the Sleepers. Lilley is filing a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict motion with the court to dismiss the entire case for lack of evidence. His position is that the Sleepers actually won their case; but they now blame the Lilley law firm because they were not awarded

! 5 more money. They made the choice to get out of potato farming, which has been on the decline in Aroostook County for 20 years; they must take responsibility for their own choices. The Sleepers fist blamed Agway, then the Administrative Judge, then Lilley for their misfortunes. They must be held accountable for their own decisions.