John Nelson, Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore’s attorney in her separation of powers suit argues next about how Trustees’ lawyers in the firm of Ancel Glink has “misapprend(ed) the law in their attempts to disenfranchise the supervisor and the electorate.”

All the members of the Grafton Township Board.

“In their brief the defendants have omitted key portions of relevant statutes in order to lay claim to the supervisor’s duties.”

He refers the “defendant’s lengthy argument are more sour grapes than anything.”

Discussing some Trustees’ desire to have electronic access, Nelson writes,

“The electronic access discussed in the testimony before the court may have been a nice plan that (previous) Supervisor (John) Rossi was deeply committed to when he was in office. But he lost the election. Things have gone, and should go differently. In the vernacular – there is a new ‘sheriff’ in town.”

Concerning bills that Moore has refused to pay on Nelson’s advice, he explains,

“Defendants apparently take the position that anyone can send a bill to Grafton Township for anything. If the bill is sent then the bill must be presented. If audited and approve the bill then must be paid.

“This blanket procedure would open up the township for numerous false and unjustified claims.”

“A hypothetical is in order,”

he writes while about to cite a specific.

“Assuming that one of these trustees ordered up some consulting like compute consulting. Let’s say a bill was then presented and vote for payment from miscellaneous account. Finally, let’s say there was not justification for the bill or that the bill was really for use in a legal battle for which the funds had been exhausted in the line item.

“Defendants actually argue that the bonded supervisor has to pay the bill. That argument did not work too well 120 years ago in Purcell v. Town of Bear Creek.

“Chances are it still won’t work.”

More tomorrow.