And besides, shouldn't being found liable in a trial have at least some consequences? And wouldn't society being allowed to freely examine the evidence of one's now proven malfeasance be among them? Would it really make any sense for a Court to deny the public knowledge of what exactly it was that sank the defendant? Of course not. It's not like you lose your case and the very next day everything goes back to the way it was. Susan's quest here was absurd from the start and stone cold dead on arrival.
The first item on the list Susan Henderson attempted to supply to the Superior Court in hopes of obtaining an injunction on trial testimony and findings was the following:
"Information was leaked to the Sierra Madre Mayor who announced at a televised Council Meeting that the City of Sierra Madre should be hesitant to continue its contract with the Mountain Views Observer because he had received information that 'an adverse ruling against the paper' had been made that would effect the contractual relationship between Grace Lorraine Publications, Inc., owner of the Mountain Views Observer and the City of Sierra Madre."
As discussed yesterday, this was included in the 7 page document that Ms. Henderson would have given to the Superior Court had they been willing to accept it. And Ms. Henderson did note in this document that she was making her claims with the understanding there could be legal consequences should she be found to have perjured herself. So in light of all this, is what she said here about the Mayor of Sierra Madre really true?
Here is what Mayor Kurt Zimmerman actually said at the City Council meeting in question. This transcription was taken directly from a video tape of the meeting.
"I was advised this afternoon that a trial involving the newspaper concluded with the Court indicating that it was going to make some adverse findings and enter judgement against the defendant and I would request that the City Attorney obtain a copy of any judgement or order issued by the Court to clarify whether that judgement or order would have impact on our contract with the newspaper."
Note the clear difference. In Ms. Henderson's statement to the court she claimed the Mayor had publicly concluded that the verdict in this case "would effect the contractual relationship" between the City and her paper. But by reading the transcript of Kurt Zimmerman's statement we can see that this is decidedly false. What he did say was that he wanted the City Attorney to examine the Court documents and make sure everything was still in order, and to make certain that the City's legal advertising needs would not be put into jeopardy by the decision. In other words, this was simply a call for due diligence.
In light of what we've seen here it seems obvious that Ms. Henderson's claim to the Superior Court is not true. And had her statement been examined by the Superior Court this could have been easily discovered.
One other thing. Susan's conspiratorial claim to the Court that "information was leaked to the Sierra Madre Mayor" is nonsense. Trials in the United States of America are open to all, and members of our community attended this one. And nobody swears people to secrecy when they go into a courtroom to attend a public trial. They're allowed to talk to anyone about anything they've seen or heard. After all, and as Susan Henderson once said in a completely different context, this is still a free country.