Erie County Common Pleas Court Once Again Rules
with Unfair Bias to Benefit Erie MetroParks
This mishandling of the law could adversely affect over 20 landowners' properties.

Erie County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter forced the Nottke family - members of CPPR - to prove in court that they are the rightful owners of land that ErieMetroparks is trying to steal from them for their controversial Greenway project. Baxter has said that he will recognize the ownership of all of the remaining properties affected by the Greenway project in whatever way the court ruling in the Nottke case indicates.

The Nottke family went to court where their attorney showed clear and convincing evidence that the Nottkes are the superior and rightful owners of their property. ErieMetroparks' own "expert witnesses" changed their testimony once under oath, and agreed with the Nottkes.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence in the Nottke's favor, visiting Judge J.T. Patton - assigned to this case by Judge Ann Maschari - ruled on April 23, 2004 that "ErieMetrparks' owns the disputed property in fee simple." There was no explanation given for his decision. In fact, the only details given are those in the ruling itself.

The CPPR landowners are asking the judge to explain the logic of his ruling.

On April 29, 2004 and pursuant to Civil Rule 52, CPPR attorney Jeff Rengel filed a "Plaintiff's Request for Separate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law." This request asks that the "Court state in writing its separate findings of fact and conclusions of law made in reaching the April 23, 2004 decision granting defendants' (Erie MetroParks) motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs'..." In other words: Judge, how in the world did you decide Erie MetroParks owns the Nottke's land when all of the evidence - and even Erie MetroParks' own expert witnesses - point to the Nottke's?

CPPR requests that the judge revisit the facts and evidence in the case, and reconsider his initial ruling.

On April 29, 2004, CPPR attorney Jeff Rengel also filed a "Motion for Reconsideration of April 23, 2004 Judgment Entry" which outlined the extenive facts and evidence to prove that the Nottkes are, indeed, the rightful propery owners. This motion asks the judge to look at the facts again and to change his ruling in accordance with those facts.