[den-the-coach]

I don't know,, but it sounds to me the football gods are dropping major hints but nobody in Saint Louis is listening

That's what happens when you make a deal with the devil:

[Hacksaw]

isn't that the Karate Kid?

[Elvis]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... ed2cb.html

Help Wanted: Judge, to hear stadium funding case

4 HOURS AGO • BY DAVID HUNN

Updated at 3:58 p.m. with news on the removal of Judge Joan Moriarty and her replacement, Judge Thomas Frawley, plus, at 5:01 p.m., with some of Frawley’s rulings on prominent cases.

ST. LOUIS • The lawsuit to sidestep a public vote on stadium funding has its third judge in nearly as many days.

The first, Circuit Judge David Dowd, removed himself. About midday Wednesday, attorneys removed the second, Circuit Judge Joan Moriarty.

By late afternoon, her replacement, family law Judge Thomas J. Frawley, had the job.

The public board that runs the Edward Jones Dome filed suit last month against the city of St. Louis. Its beef: a 2002 city ordinance that requires a public vote prior to the use of tax dollars on a new stadium. Dome authority attorneys argued in the suit that the city law is “overly broad, vague and ambiguous.”

On Friday, Dowd removed himself from the suit. He had canceled the first hearing on the issue, scheduled for last week. One of his assistants said then that he was “under the weather.”

On Monday, the St. Louis Circuit Court’s presiding judge, Bryan Hettenbach, reassigned the case to Moriarty. Hettenbach said on Wednesday that Dowd was home under a doctor’s order, and would be for two weeks.

Dowd isn’t trying to get out of hearing a contentious lawsuit, Hettenbach said; he is simply unable to handle the case in a timely way. “This is not something either party wants continued indefinitely,” Hettenbach said.

Moriarty was next in line to take the case, he continued. She and Dowd were both assigned to the “equity/pre-trial motions” docket at the start of this year.

Then, just after 11 a.m. Wednesday, the attorneys for the Edward Jones Dome authority exercised their option to strike one judge from the case. They requested that Hettenbach remove Moriarty.

Wednesday afternoon, Hettenbach reassigned the case again. He said he called the judges to see who was taking vacation and who had time to hear a case. He drew names from those who said they were available, and picked Frawley.

Bob Blitz, attorney for the Dome authority and a member of Gov. Jay Nixon’s new stadium task force, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

His firm is asking the court to rule that the city law requiring a public vote on stadium tax funding doesn’t apply, conflicts with Missouri statutes or is unconstitutional.

City tax dollars are key to the $985 million stadium funding plan, and could help sway National Football League decisions about team relocations. Nixon’s two-man task force is counting on at least $250 million from the state and city, not including extra taxes, tax incentives and seat license fees.

Mayor Francis Slay’s staff said in April that, despite the mayor’s support for the stadium, city attorneys would energetically defend the public-vote ordinance.

A few weeks later, St. Louis University law professor and legal clinic supervisor John Ammann filed suit on behalf of three city residents who sought to intervene. His filings say city ordinance requires a fiscal note, a public hearing and a public vote. He said the three residents feared the city would provide money for the stadium without fulfilling those.

Moriarty has ruled on contentious cases. Last year, she prohibited Lyft ride-sharing cars from operating in the city before a hearing that summer.

Two years ago, she slapped the hands of city jail administrators after they errantly charged a man with 10 fingers instead of the correct suspect, who had only eight.

Frawley has largely handled criminal and family law cases, and has a tough-on-crime track record:
In 2007, he ruled that a 15-year-old suspected of killing St. Louis police Officer Norvelle Brown should stand trial as an adult. In 2010, he threw the book at Montrell Moore, giving him two back-to-back life sentences, plus 15 years, for beating and scalding a 2-year-old boy to death.

In 2011, he gave 12 consecutive life sentences to convicted rapist Antonio L. Johnson, linked to three rapes by DNA evidence.

And in 2013, he sentenced Elex Murphy to 55 years in prison for sucker-punching and killing Yen Nguyen in the so-called “knock-out game.”

[Hacksaw]

Toonerville

[den-the-coach]

Good God this is getting like the Saturday Night Massacre in Watergate when Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox who had asked Nixon to reveal his tapes. Because of that his Attorney General Elliot Richardson resigned and when Nixon went to the Deputy Attorney General to promote him (Ruckelshaus) he resigned too.

You see the common denominator is the politician with the surname of "Nixon."

[BuiltRamTough]

Good God this is getting like the Saturday Night Massacre in Watergate when Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox who had asked Nixon to reveal his tapes. Because of that his Attorney General Elliot Richardson resigned and when Nixon went to the Deputy Attorney General to promote him (Ruckelshaus) he resigned too.

You see the common denominator is the politician with the surname of "Nixon."

LOL

[Hacksaw]

I know the pro LA argument and still put my stock in it. However a thought struck me when reading Nixons presser. He says the timeline having been moved up is a good sign for their Riverfront project. How can that be a good thing?
Is it remotely possible that because the 'task force' (which is way ahead of Carson) somehow gets (or has gotten) the approving nod by the league which will shut down Kroenke quicker allowing for the Charaiders to make better deals faster for themselves in LA sooner?
If the Chargers have been slated as one of the LA teams and after looking at the bay area market analysis where they already have 2 to many teams (not to mention a hopeless stadium situation) is the Carson project really what the NFL wants?

Some one asked how is the "anemic" StL proposal is still alive considering all that has (and hasn't) gone on? How is Carson still alive considering no written discussions occurred until ESK made his announcement,, not to mention the toxic mess they want to build it on? Is it simply legal posturing?

Taking off my homer glasses, Carson still seems like a mistake on many fronts,,,, BUT, ALL three stadium issues get fixed NOW,, and the least amount of fans get whacked in the process in this scenario,, which might play into this.

The alleged frequent Gov/task force discussions with the league and NFL support of StL (Grubmans comments were pretty clear) and fixing the CA stadium problems within CA makes me understand the StL fans perspective,,, that the Riverfront stadium and their hopes are not being built on the banks of that river in Egypt...

It is already 2 (Charaiders) against 1 (Rams) and if the league jumps in even ESK can't beat 3 against 1,,, or 31 against 1 if you will.

Somebody please talk me off of this ledge.

[moklerman]

I don't think that the projects are "alive" is much of an indicator. As you say, they're ALL alive so it doesn't really mean much. They're not all going to be built.

As far as the least amount of fans being "whacked", I'm not sure I'd agree that Carson was the least damaging. SD loses. Oakland loses. LA loses. If the Rams move to Inglewood and the Chargers stay in SD, then St. Louis loses. Oakland's left hanging but I think the Raiders stay another year and then have LA as leverage.

[Hacksaw]

I don't think that the projects are "alive" is much of an indicator. As you say, they're ALL alive so it doesn't really mean much. They're not all going to be built.

As far as the least amount of fans being "whacked", I'm not sure I'd agree that Carson was the least damaging. SD loses. Oakland loses. LA loses. If the Rams move to Inglewood and the Chargers stay in SD, then St. Louis loses. Oakland's left hanging but I think the Raiders stay another year and then have LA as leverage.

Thanks molker. It's more my questioning what the league thinks. They feel LA will be happy with football period so that's cool. StL keeps their team so that's cool. SD isn't far enough away to feel SD fan is out so that's cool. And the Raiders already have fans in LA and Oakland is dead anyway and they're still in Ca and Oakland fans are used to it, so that's cool. None of which is cool IMO..

[Elvis]

Let's not forget the league survey supposedly says the Raiders have the most support in L.A. so if you want to play Devil's advocate. But that's probably number people who identify as fans not number of dollars that will be committed to the team, including corporate dollars.

As for Nixon and St. Louis, if things are going so well on the Rams front, why do the keep dissing Kroenke and talking generically about keeping St. Louis an NFL city?