- 9 -
Respondent also interviewed members of the City Counsel of
Lancaster (LCC) from the relevant time period. Henry Hearns (Mr.
Hearns), a member of the LCC, stated that the LCC had never
discussed condemning the 23d Street property and that the
condemnation was made as a mere accommodation to Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Hearns also provided an affidavit to this effect. Other
members of the LCC told respondent that the City of Lancaster had
threatened Mr. Johnson with condemnation. At this point,
respondent was left with more conflicting accounts regarding
whether Mr. Johnson had been threatened with condemnation of the
23d Street property.
At trial, the Court had to determine the credibility of the
witnesses and reconcile the conflicting documentary and
testimonial evidence. Under the facts of this case, the United
States was substantially justified at both the administrative and
litigation level in positing that neither the LRA nor the LCC had
threatened Mr. Johnson with condemnation of the 23d Street
property or, if there had been a threat, that Mr. Johnson did not
reasonably believe the threat (because the LCC was providing the
condemnation as a convenience to Mr. Johnson).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011