Falmouth Wind Turbine "Motion To Intervene" A Quagmire

On June 20, 2017, Barnstable Superior Court Judge Cornelius Moriarty issued the order to shut down Falmouth's Wind 1 and Wind 2.The judge agreed with the Falmouth Zoning Board the wind turbines are a nuisance. The time to appeal the case has long expired.

On June 18, 2017, a group of Falmouth residents filed a "Motion to Intervene" in the case an unusual legal step considering the time to appeal is over. The motion was sent by email and US Mail in which the response time of ten days to the motion would have started three business days later June 23, 2017. The ten-day response time deadline is also coincidentally when Falmouth Town Meeting begins.

Note # If the motion is served by mail, these time periods shall be increased by 3 business days pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 6(d) - The motion was sent VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR US MAIL

A confirmed anonymous source confirms one of the people seeking to intervene in the Falmouth wind turbine case leaked the Motion to Intervene to the news media days before it was served to the Falmouth town attorney on October 18, 2017, by email. This normally would be a cause to seek a "Request For Relief" from the opposing party.

The agenda of leaking documents to the media have a multitude of reasons such as gaining public support or convincing the Falmouth Select Board to join the motion using taxpayer funds to finance litigation or just getting a step up on the other party by denying them a chance to present their side to the public. We don't know why the residents produced the Motion to Intervene to the news media before the service dates.

The news media did nothing wrong they did their job. The local news media enjoys public interest privileges but attorneys and "others" who assist in facilitating this exchange of information may not be so fortunate.

Attorneys or others that accommodate this uncontrolled appetite by providing judicial pleadings to the press and on the internet through emails etc. may find themselves and their firms named in claims for defamation by the parties they originally sued or many other types of litigation.

This is especially true if the attorney or others utilize the pleadings as a litigation tool by transmitting them to the news source without solicitation or for example, interjects their "own" biased commentary regarding the judicial pleadings when interviewed by the press.

Regardless only one side got what they wanted and/or the publicity they wanted.

So now what? The residents who requested to intervene in the case could be asked for a Request For Relief from the court for sending their motion to the news media and conducting interviews before the service dates were complete.

"Request for Relief" a legal remedy, also judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a civil court enforces a right, imposes a penalty or makes a new court order.

The case has already been decided and we know who the winners are and it is not the Falmouth residents who filed the Motion to Appeal and leaked it to the news media for whatever reasons.

In a Request for Relief, you tell the court what relief you should get if you win. The relief may be an award of damage or it may be something else allowed by statute.The court is not bound by the request for relief and can grant whatever relief you are entitled to if you win.

There are Falmouth residents that have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and years fighting to shut down the 110-decibel chest pounding wind turbines complete with shadow flicker.

The Superior Court has original jurisdiction in civil actions and in matters where equitable relief is sought.

The Falmouth residents who asked for the Motion To Intervene should be careful what they wish for.