Attorney not surprised that G.O.B. would seek other injunctions against BGYEA
On Friday, the Supreme Court did away with G.O.B.’s injunction against BGYEA prohibiting that association from planting corn on sixty acres of land in Harmonyville which they say is a buffer zone. It was seen as a victory for the grassroots organization pending the hearing of the substantive matter. This morning government issued a press release because, according to G.O.B., they felt compelled to clarify Friday’s decision. The release states that the interim injunction expired on Friday, and that government has the option to apply for another injunction. Today, BGYEA attorney, Audrey Matura-Shepherd, told News Five that she isn’t surprised that government would seek other injunctions just out of malice.
Audrey Matura-Shepherd, Attorney for BGYEA
Audrey Matura-Shepherd
“It’s just a nice, diplomatic way of admitting that they lost…because they cannot refute the fact that the interim injunction was removed. And that’s a given. I can even recap why it was removed if you want…but most importantly the Judge even said clearly that if there is any other application for any other injunction it will not be ex-parte. That means it will not be in the absence of Mr. Petillo or anybody else they want to injunct. It has to be that we get notice before. Of course I expect government to be malicious and to seek anything possible, as many injunctions as they want, but no matter how many injunctions they seek, at the end of the day the law will prevail. The court will be utilized to deal with this matter civilly and I just ask that they stop harassing my client. Because no matter what you do, government, the fact is that you can’t have this ex-parte injunction, you lost it, you disobeyed your very own court order. I wish the media could have been allowed in chambers to hear when the Judge said that the government needs to learn how to act lawful, and not unlawful. I understand that there’s a fixed date claim form being served. That’s what the release says. We were in court on Friday. Interestingly nobody came and served it on me. I understand that they have found Police to go and serve it on my client. That’s rather illegal and unethical, and the Office of the Solicitor-General knows that once the person has an attorney, from office to office we exchange documents. They simply need to serve it on my office, I receive it and I document whatever we receive. The government is at liberty to bring as many cases as they want against anyone. We will go to court and defend it.”
The G.O.B. release states that the substantive claim for trespass will be heard on June thirtieth, 2014.
