Subscribe Today!
Networked Blogs
Feb
15
Majestic Star v. City of Gary
Filed Under Gary Indiana, lawsuit, Majestic Star, Rudy Clay | Comments Off
The Majestic Star
The Majestic Star has filed a lawsuit against the City of Gary in Marion County and is threatening to withhold money from the city, reports Joe Carlson in the Northwest Indiana Times.
The Majestic Star Casino is threatening to withhold all revenues it pays to Gary until city leaders make good on what casino owners call promises to build a highway interchange and access roads to the gambling boats.
In a lawsuit filed Monday in Marion County court, the casino alleges the city has failed to live up to its 1999 contract agreement — which was reiterated in an updated contract in 2005 — to build convenient access roads to the property from Cline Avenue.
During that time, the casino has paid the city more than $285 million in tax revenue and has invested $269 million in the construction of its two casino boats, the lawsuit says.
Monday’s lawsuit claims the casino intends to place “the amounts that would otherwise be paid to the city” into an interest-bearing account so the city will have money to fulfill its obligations and pay any court-ordered damages for its breach of contract.
Feb
11
Could Lawyers Be Planning Clinton v. Obama Lawsuit?
Filed Under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, lawsuit, Superdelegates | 4 Comments
Theodore B. Olson writes about the possibility of Democratic lawyers playing out a repeat of the 2000 election legal showdown over popular votes vs. those cast by Democratic Party superdelegates resulting in a Clinton v. Obama lawsuit.
Could a convoluted process result in the nomination of the candidate who didn’t receive the most voter support?
What splendid theater the Democratic Party presidential nominating process is shaping up to be. And they are just getting started. The real fun would be a convention deadlock denouement a few months from now, the prospect of which is already quickening the pulses of scores of Democratic lawyers who have been waiting more than seven years for an encore of their 2000 presidential-election performances.
Press reports following super-duper Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses gave Sen. Clinton a narrow popular vote lead over Barack Obama. At the same time, Sen. Obama’s supporters were claiming a narrow lead among pledged delegates. The delegate count keeps changing, of course, and Sen. Clinton’s team is also claiming a delegate lead, based in part on a larger share so far of what are known in Democratic Party circles as superdelegates: 796 slots (20% of the total) set aside for members of Congress and a menagerie of assorted elected officials and party Pooh-Bahs.
These superdelegates, Byzantine hyper-egalitarian Democratic Party delegate selection formulas, and the fact that many delegates are selected at conventions or by caucuses rather than primaries, combine to offer the distinct possibility that by convention time the candidate leading in the popular vote in the primaries will be trailing in the delegate count.
How ironic. For over seven years the Democratic Party has fulminated against the Electoral College system that gave George W. Bush the presidency over popular-vote winner Al Gore in 2000. But they have designed a Rube Goldberg nominating process that could easily produce a result much like the Electoral College result in 2000: a winner of the delegate count, and thus the nominee, over the candidate favored by a majority of the party’s primary voters.
