9 Comments

    • It is the council’s job the over see the town’s business by majority vote. It seems to me that at the beginning of the Mackenzie project a number of issues and concerns surfaced and the council by majority vote rescinded the permit to loyd Mackenzie.(Who is not the owner of record). The permit was incomplete, in the wrong name, misleading and riddled with false information. Who issued the permit at who’s direction? I am not sure if the council voted to issue it in the first place. I do know council rescinded it before major construction began and the Mayor did not follow thru on halting work thru proper channels and Mackenzie continued construction at a very raid pace despite knowing the council’s vote to rescind his permit, wonder why that is? Mayor gets full responsibility from start to finish on this one.

      • Your points are well made. The Mackenzies however, were never notified that there would be a subsequent town council meeting regarding their building permit, which had indeed been approved. Neither were the Mackenzies ever given a verifiable notice to cease and desist. That burden of proof falls solely upon Mayor Miller. She must provide actual documentation that phone call did indeed take place. Given Miller’s previous statements regarding photographic timestamps, I am doubtful she can provide such proof. Additionally, town hall requested a survey of the property in May 2018. The survey results were provided in July 2018. Litigation began in September 2018. In the meantime the Mackenzies continued to build. Miller and her town council were notified several times regarding this ongoing construction. Council member Bill Gruel lives 2 blocks from the site of the pole barn. They did nothing for over 6 months. That’s called culpability.

        • More points of fact that the mayor did not do her job and owns it start to finish (when court is over?) She just goes on and on and on. What’s next? There will be more. Maybe the new atty can slow her down but what’s that cost us?

    • Thank you for your input Jerry! It is tfa’s understanding that what was dismissed was an “ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS (COUNTERCLAIMS)”. In essence when TOF initially sued Mackenzie etal, Mackenzie etal then counter-sued The Town of Fromberg and Mayor Shirley Miller, Jim Perkins, Tim Nottingham, Nate Caton and Bill Gruel, individually, in a separate lawsuit because they are/were members of Fromberg Town Council during the first vote to approve Mackenzies’ building permit and the second vote to rescind that previous vote. The above Order dismissed the “Counterclaims” suit only.
      The following 1.24.2020 tfa post link explains this further: http://the-fromberg-advocacy.com/cause-no-dv-18-101-order-granting-motion-to-dismiss-counterclaims/
      It is tfa’s position that the original lawsuit is still indeed in play, as evidenced by the fact that a “Notice Of Substitution of Council” was issued replacing Hope Freeman as TOF’s counsel with Jeffrey A. Weldon and Kyle A. Moen on January 30, 2020. If the entire Mackenzie litigation was indeed a fait ​ac​com​pli, why the substitution of counsel?
      tfa’s 2.15.2020 following post reflects this: http://the-fromberg-advocacy.com/cause-no-dv-18-101-notice-of-substitution-of-counsel/

    • Jerry, hows come city hall in Fromberg never, ever tells us what’s up? How much old biz is stinking? Roto rooter bill, perkins alley, kids court paving bids, micenzey, ‘oops we forgot’ water billing, never ending audit, ongoing late fees due to incorrect filings, irs late filing fees, never explained monthly bills – just pay em. $1000 sign on bonuses and then the 2 new employees just up and leave. How’s the publik works doing. Did Jeremy pass his water test? How many hours are those boys putting in a week? Shovin all this under the carpet aint workin boys. The lump in the middle o the floor be getting might high. Unlike Fromberg’s reputation.

    • Jerry, it is my understanding from a source close to the matter that the portion of the litigation that included the mayor and council members individually was dropped not dismissed and that the main issues are alive and well! But I am at a loss due to disinformation or no information coming from city hall. Now that the video audio is back on line at council meets perhaps you could ask a few questions to try and get clarified where it is all at. So answers will be recorded and can’t be denied later. I don’t know what the new atty said but it would be nice to know if you we were mislead or we miss understood. This site is very good at showing factual documentation and asking these types of questions with few or no answers. Many of the answers, which are few, are smoke screen and lies. I have personally been a part of such and have no respect or trust in liers. Particularly one ones who have taken an oath to serve the people. I also understand mmia (insurance) is involved and it would not surprise me if they have taken up this case and settle with our money. Maybe that’s why they claim it’s dismissed. I hope no t but it would not surprise me. I truly pray the new city atty is above all this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *