Phoenix XXIV: How many twists does the scriptwriter have left?

[AllByDesign]

To me its a bit of a gray area ABD, and touches on several other socio-political & economic realities going on in the states right now. That the GWI is a pseudo political right wing "think tank" make no mistake. The information thats been available in the public domain for quite some time now is sufficient enough for most Lawyers to determine whether or not the deal struck is legal or illegal, despite GW's constant refrain that they "still need more inf. & time to study". Thats just BS, Looking at it cynically, they could well have arrived at the conclusion that, "ya know what?, its legal, but just barely, and fact is we simply dont like it from a philosophical perspective". So rather than take it to court, they run interference with the letters to underwriters & banks, investment agencies and the like; artificially inflating the interest rates with End of Days claims, These are unelected individuals forcing their will, their ideals, on those that were duly elected by the people.

The question remains; is GW running interference & blocking the deal because its illegal or are they doing so because they simply disagree with the structure & philosophy of it; wanting to close all loopholes in the Az Constitution that the COG is about to drive a Mack Truck through, and doing so legally?. They know they cant win in court, dont want to be painted the bad guys, so have taken the fight to the stakeholders, media & public. I mean, lets face it, the breadth & depth of what Glendale is doing would be equally breathtaking in any other state, none of which even have Gift Clauses' in their Constitutions. But if it is legal, and this has been Goldwaters game all along, whats worse?. The taxpayer being screwed over by a lousy deal or the loss of governance and representation by elected officials through subterfuge by special interest groups with their own agendas?.

I know by this time in the day this is old, but I wanted to touch on it as you have made consecutive posts to me in the same vein. I wanted to acknowledge that I get where you are coming from.

You and I wear the same clothes when it comes to extremely conservative think tanks run-amok with actual due process by elected officials. Saying they know better than the will of the people is very presumptious. On a personal note I have a strong disdain for the Republican party. I feel comfortable in Conservative clothes in Canada, but the GOP has made being Conservative in the US party of the allegance of cronyism.

I know my opinons have not appeared to allign that way since I am a critic of the Hulsizer deal. Make no mistake that my stance of the deal between the COG and Hulsizer is not a justification for the actions of the GWI. The only reason I have not been equally as critical of them is because the laws of the State allow the GWI to use such avenues. It is the people of the State of Arizona that must find the necesity to close that door by ammending their constitution. Since that has not occured we cannot put the rights of one level of governement ahead of the rights of another level. The state provides for these actions until such a tyime the people decide it needs to be changed.

IS that why you think Walker is in there and not Hocking? Hardly. Walker is in there and Hocking is not because the inclusion in a bond offering was part of Walker's mandate - not Hocking's. As I am sure you know, inclusion in a bond offering imposes certain risks of liability on consultants. You don't put a report in a Final Statement or OM just because you want to. You need to retain a consultant for that express purpose. That is what CoG did. IT is not at all a comment on the veracity of Hocking's calculations any more than the number of pages is a comment on veracity of the two reports.

With a lack of time last evening I kept an answer brief to my detriment. The Hocking report on its face is not teh reason it is flawed. Of course we cannot argue that from the standpoint that because it shows favorable results, it is wrong etc etc.. I put more weight in Walker for two reasons. The first being reputation. Walker has the background to be considered an 'Authority' on parking specific forecasts. The second reason is because Walker takes the previous revenues (or lack of) into consideration to their forecasts whereas Hocking does not. There will be a substancial "ramp-up" time that will need to occur before they can realize "maximum output" on revenue.

I apologize for the lateness of these responses.

 

[Evil Doctor]

Considering the speed at which this has been going...

...can we sue for tortoise interference?

 

[MAROONSRoad]

"Fabricates"?

Sorry, chum, but you are way over the line. I have had it with your baseless allegations regarding my credibility.

Here is what I said:


I will not sit back and allow you to suggest that I am fabricating anything.

IF Scruggs' allegations that Clint Bolick assured the CoG that they were okay with the deal are true, then it may be a case where GWI did not act in good faith and deliberately misled CoG. I suspect that there is a considerable amount of discussion and correspondence between CoG and GWI that has taken place in the background of which we are not aware.

GSC2k2, are you saying that Scruggs alleged that Bolick assured COG that GWI was okay with the proposed deal in its current form? I missed that. Do you have a link where Scruggs made that allegation? Thanks.

I find it strange that GWI would say that given they have maintained that they had insufficient information to assess the deal.

GHOST

 

[CasualFan]

Decided to weigh in? Got over that "need to be qualified to practice in AZ" thing?

Excellent.

That might be true, if they are going to use Ontario law and apply that standard or if the standard in AZ is the same.

You might note the high degree of similarity between the fact situation here and that in the Reach case that you referenced. Would you care to discuss that?

Watching out for the interests of the international bond investor community is assuredly not in the Goldwater mandate, much as PMAC's mandate was exceeded in the Reach case.

Add to that their material misrepresentations as to the test of the Turken case. and voila. Concise enough, I hope.

We are blurring the line between speculation and fact again. Let's clarify that you speculate there was a material misrepresentations. There has been no finding of fact to support your position.

ARIZONA COMMERCIAL TORTS Interference With Contract
(Elements)

To establish this claim, plaintiff must prove:
1. [Name of plaintiff] had a contract with ;
2. [Name of defendant] knew about the contract;
3. [Name of defendant] intentionally interfered with the [name of plaintiff]’s contractual relationship with , which caused a breach or termination of that relationship;
4. [Name of defendant]’s conduct was improper; and
5. [Name of plaintiff] suffered damage caused by the breach or termination of [name of plaintiff]’s contractual relationship with .

The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 767
Contracts -- tortious interference with contractual relationship -- factors to consider when determining whether conduct improper.
In determining whether an actor's conduct is intentionally interfering with a contract or a prospective contractual relation of another is improper or not, consideration is given to the following factors: the nature of the actor's conduct, the actor's motive, the interests of the other with which the actor's conduct interferes, the interests sought to be advanced by the actor, the social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the actor and the contractual interests of the other, the proximity or remoteness of the actor's conduct to the interference, and the relations between the parties.

Where the factors found in Restatement (Second) of Torts §767 do not lead to an obvious conclusion, it is necessary to offer a generalized rule to aid in defining the term "improper"; the real question is whether the actor's conduct was fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Footnote @ Contract in 1
The issue whether a valid contract existed between the plaintiff and a third party may require further instructions. See RAJI (CIVIL) 4th Contract Instructions. RAJI Instructions provide for proposed transactions as contracts.

 

[PitbulI]

Annnnnnnnnnd we still have no idea where the CoG is going to come up with $18 million for their gift, I mean subsidy, I mean management fee.

Well DUH! It's going to come from either the Coyotes profit or surplus tax revenue.

And about who the COG is going to sue. We all better watch out (Well, the anti Coyote/Glendale posters) because the COG might so us for posting negative comments. The Winnipeg Free Press is most certainly a defendant. How dare they say anything anti Glendale.

The fact that the Coyotes aren't going 82-0 this season is a problem. The COG might sue the teams that beat them so far. Watch out Vancouver, you got a shutout on them last month.

 

[GSC2k2*]

So the argument now is Clint Bollick told Hulsizer that GWI had no problems with lease yet in December 2010 GWI subordinates are on record warning COG prior to and after lease vote

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/hockey/2010/12/14/16553311.html



http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2010/12/15/glendale_coyotes_lease/



http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/br...waits-tonights-vote-on-Coyotes-111844654.html



http://www.azcentral.com/community/...6phoenix-coyotes-glendale-deal-objection.html




If this was the case why wouldn't Hulsizer have replied- I am assured by Clint Bolick there are no problems with the lease.


VIDEO of Clint Bolick DECEMBER 19, 2010- Coyotes talk starts at 3:53

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uXTtM8Z7RA

quote" if we conclude it's a subsidy we will challenge it "

either Hulsizer didn't understand what Bolick told him or Burnside has been fed some bad intel

Alternatively, and more likely, people working for a partisan organization say one thing, which certain groups take as the gospel, in public but say something completely different across a boardroom table to their supposed adversaries in private.

Seems like this is another situation where both sides are likely "right".

Hulsizer: "So if we structured the deal like XYZ, what would you think?"
GWI: "It's possible it could fly, call me when you have the details."

One step removed, this can be interpreted as absolutely anything from "They love it!" through "They'll go to their graves fighting it".

As others have pointed out, GWI was publicly, in directly quoted statements, raising concerns about the deal structure, so I guess it's also possible the conversation took place at the Y and Hulsizer had water in his ears and didn't hear things exactly as he recalls.

Perhaps, although that is one version of about a billion different potential ways the discussions proceeded.

See above regarding other possibilities.

I just have to say I love having Mork here and hope he will stick around.

Obviously very knowledgeable on the subject, yet no pomp and circumstance, no grandstanding, no arrogance and no belittling other posters.

We need you here to show some others how to behave. Thank you!

I assume you are referring to me, albeit without the desire to single me out and violate the Board rules. No one belittles anyone here except for you and a cadre of like-minded posters who have spent a number of pages doing exactly that at the expense of the actual topic. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am not retaliating.

I will interpret your post as loving to have someone here who says what you want to hear. Good stuff.

Someone on the forum, I cannot exactly recall whom, has provided several lengthy dissertations on why information from the media should generally be disregarded as inaccurate.

Anyone linking to the Burnside article without severely questioning it's veracity would do well to go and find those opinions about media reports before they used anything in Burnside's column as the basis for their position.

AS noted above, I did not assume that the allegations reported by Burnside were correct. In fact, I took pains to qualify my post by noting IF [the allegations] ... are true".

But you know that.

Some people either like to twist 'the rules' to suit their own argument, or they believe they are above the rules they advise others to follow.

Do as I say not as I do.

See above. I carefully followed my own advice.

I'm not sure if this was posted yet, but the PBJ chimed in on the possible lawsuit between the COG and the GWI.

However, unlike Burnside, Sunnucks doesn't say they will actually follow through on the lawsuit.





Seems like maybe Burnside jumped the gun a little. Or, maybe Sunnocks isn't as close to the deal as Burnside. It's a coin flip!



It's too bad the city didn't make a statement. That would go a long way....

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/morning_call/2011/03/glendale-could-sue-goldwater-over.html

I think I mentioned when this story broke last night that we would all be well advised to wait until Monday and see if it were true. Unfortunately I got sucked into this morass.

I still think the threat of a lawsuit by COG is nothing but a negotiating tactic.

The thing I find the most interesting is that Burnside was the first to report that they're planning a lawsuit. Sanders hasn't written about it yet and Sunnucks is just going on what ESPN wrote. It's almost like COG wanted to leak this to the media and went right to ESPN.

The timing is also what I find strange. Why leak that you're planning on a filing a lawsuit on a Saturday?

IMO, COG knew exactly what they were doing and wanted to give GWI the weekend to worry in hopes that they would back off on Monday.

I agree that the threat is a tactic. Litigation threats are generally tactics to try to drive a settlement, and I agree that drove the leak. If they file, though ...

Different journalists have different sources. I imagine Sanders and Sunnick are trying to check it with their own sources. It is my observation that other journalists generally don't like acknowledging the scoop of another, at least right away, unless they have no choice.

We'll see Monday. Or maybe later.

IF he is wrong, Burnside's source will get a talking to, I bet.

 

[GoJetsGo55]

Considering the speed at which this has been going...

...can we sue for tortoise interference?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X_Ot0k4XJc

 

[cbcwpg]

Well DUH! It's going to come from either the Coyotes profit or surplus tax revenue.

And about who the COG is going to sue. We all better watch out (Well, the anti Coyote/Glendale posters) because the COG might so us for posting negative comments. The Winnipeg Free Press is most certainly a defendant. How dare they say anything anti Glendale.

The fact that the Coyotes aren't going 82-0 this season is a problem. The COG might sue the teams that beat them so far. Watch out Vancouver, you got a shutout on them last month.

If the CoG should sue anybody, it should be whomever suckered them into building the arena in the first place. That's who's to blame for this mess.

 

[mudcrutch79]

I haven't read the entire thread, although I've flipped through some of it, nor have I read any of the case law on point. It appears to me that this is all starting to collapse. I'm not optimistic about the future of a team in Winnipeg but there doesn't seem to be a future in Arizona without massive government subsidy, regardless of whether it violates the gift clause.

The litigation has, however, caught my eye. Has there been any discussion of how having a government actor involved changes things in the context of an action for interference with economic relations, or whatever the specific name of the tort is down there? I've read the linked Goldwater letter and, assuming that it's factual, I can't see how that could possibly be illegal. The very idea that it might be is actually sort of chilling when you're dealing with a government actor as part of the deal - this isn't just two private parties trying to get a business deal done, one of them is a government actor and should expect to be subject to a much higher degree of scrutiny. If others trying to do business with them don't like it, they're free to do business with private actors only. There are broader issues here than just this deal - this is also an issue about the permissible limits of oversight of government and what's offside. Personally, I don't like to think that what GWI has been doing might be offside. In any sane process, Glendale could do what they're apparently going to do now and ask for a declaration that the deal was legal - the issue could be dealt with properly and GWI could decide whether to get on board or not. They've chosen, for whatever reason, to piss around, which has put them in the position that a gun can be held to their deal.

I've also read Gerald's comments above in which he speculates on what might happens if Scruggs' (or Hulsizer or whoever) allegations that "...Bolick assured the CoG that they were okay with the deal are true, then it may be a case where GWI did not act in good faith and deliberately misled CoG."

I'm even a bit puzzled by this. How can GWI owe any duty to CoG in the absence of any sort of relationship? What obligation does it have to act in good faith or operate on their timetable? I recognize that the confluence of law and politics is a murky place but I'm having a hard time seeing how there could be any duties there.

 

[RAgIn]

I wonder if the reporter who claimed the bond sale "failed" will also get sued for Torturous Interference...

Who? McCown? Haha. He's the one who broke the news.

 

[Killion]

lol, I just realized that it's not tortuous interference but tortious.....

Tortuous Atoll is a private island near Bimini & the much bigger isle of Tortuga. The NHL's Secret Base & home to the 30 Supeheros' of the Guardian Project. Nice move letting that one pils out htiw your tcerrocni anglais tnatibah...

 

[Whileee]

GSC2k2, are you saying that Scruggs alleged that Bolick assured COG that GWI was okay with the proposed deal in its current form? I missed that. Do you have a link where Scruggs made that allegation? Thanks.

I find it strange that GWI would say that given they have maintained that they had insufficient information to assess the deal.

GHOST

Even if Scruggs alleged that, on what possible basis should we trust her statement to that effect? Need I refer to anything further than the "Fact Sheet" produced by the COG to justify the Hulsizer lease? If so, I am quite sure that I can find plenty of instances in which she has been less than forthright in her public pronouncements.

 

[RECCE]

Tortuous Atoll is a private island near Bimini & the bigger much bigger isle of Tortuga. The NHL's Secret Base & home to the 30 Supeheros' of the Guardian Project. Nice move letting that one pils out htiw your tcerrocni anglais tnatibah...

Why is it that every post you make sends me to google

 

[pucka lucka]

I've also read Gerald's comments above in which he speculates on what might happens if Scruggs' (or Hulsizer or whoever) allegations that "...Bolick assured the CoG that they were okay with the deal are true, then it may be a case where GWI did not act in good faith and deliberately misled CoG."

I'm even a bit puzzled by this. How can GWI owe any duty to CoG in the absence of any sort of relationship? What obligation does it have to act in good faith or operate on their timetable? I recognize that the confluence of law and politics is a murky place but I'm having a hard time seeing how there could be any duties there.

This is a good point. I asked myself the same question. GWI isn't negotiating with CoG or MH. Why would GWI statements to CoG or MH be relevant?

I look forward to the speculation on the following "If MH and/or CoG invented Bolick saying the deal was all good". Seeing we are discussing unsubstantiated closed door conversations, might as well cover all our bases.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

Even if Scruggs alleged that, on what possible basis should we trust her statement to that effect? Need I refer to anything further than the "Fact Sheet" produced by the COG to justify the Hulsizer lease? If so, I am quite sure that I can find plenty of instances in which she has been less than forthright in her public pronouncements.

Agreed, but I missed the part where Scruggs made such allegation. Anyone have that?

GHOST

 

[Confucius]

If Glendale really does intend to sue Goldwater for intentional interference and a declaration that the deal is valid, I think Goldwater is in a very good position to defend.

The intentional interference claim is, in my view, utter nonsense. Others may disagree, but I haven't yet seen any legal authority that overcomes the need to prove Goldwater used illegal, unlawful or improper means. They are within their rights to make their views known, and to bring legal action if and when they choose to do so.

As for a declaration that the deal is constitutionally valid, Hallelujiah! At last a court can decide that based on evidence in a proceeding in which Glendale has to produce all the evidence that is relevent to the constitionality of the deal. I don't think Goldwater would mind for one minute responding to that claim.

Furthermore, the institution of legal proceedings all on its own likely blows the Hulsizer deal out of the water once and for all, meaning that Goldwater wins the battle and the war.

I concur
It's the way I feel. Just wish most of the legal people could put it out there so briefly and simply. It would make this thead so much easier to read. All types of people read this thing, not just lawyers.

 

[RAgIn]

Agreed, but I missed the part where Scruggs made such allegation. Anyone have that?

GHOST

She said it during her presser at Jobing.com. You will be able to find it within the first few minutes of her speech.

Link: http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/podcastplayer.htm?pid=335&iid=29707

 

[GSC2k2*]

GSC2k2, are you saying that Scruggs alleged that Bolick assured COG that GWI was okay with the proposed deal in its current form? I missed that. Do you have a link where Scruggs made that allegation? Thanks.

I find it strange that GWI would say that given they have maintained that they had insufficient information to assess the deal.

GHOST

No, that is not what I am saying or what I was saying.

I was responding to the report by Burnside, who reported:

Hulsizer outlined the deal at that point and was left with the impression that there were no major issues.

THe espn link is back there somewhere.

I thereafter commented:

IF Scruggs' allegations that Clint Bolick assured the CoG that they were okay with the deal are true, then it may be a case where GWI did not act in good faith and deliberately misled CoG. I suspect that there is a considerable amount of discussion and correspondence between CoG and GWI that has taken place in the background of which we are not aware.

[emphasis added]

I took note to add the caveat "if", as it was the first time anyone has reported such a thing here.

As you will note by now, I referred to Scruggs instead of Hulsizer, due to the relatively contemporaneous press conference of Scruggs, who also referenced Bolick being satisfied with the extent of disclosure.

I agree with you that it is strange. IF true, then the GWI public statements and private statements would be hugely different. IF true, it might explain why CoG was not taking legal action much earlier to counteract GWI's positions. I think most reasonable people would be as puzzled as I (and others) have been about why CoG has not taken more aggressive steps to assert their position.

 

[Dado]

Why would GWI statements to CoG or MH be relevant?

Apparently, democracy can't function properly if people publicly vocalize opposition to backroom political deals.

 

[cbcwpg]

All I heard Scruggs say is that 2 months ago the GWI "had every thing needed" document wise. Nothing about agreeing to the CoG's plan. Doesn't sound like the GWI said it was good to go.

http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/podcastplayer.htm?pid=335&iid=29707

 

[bleuet]

If the CoG should sue anybody, it should be whomever suckered them into building the arena in the first place. That's who's to blame for this mess.

The art to make a very long story short.

God! If we could get back to 1995...

Good job!

 

[Whileee]

She said it during her presser at Jobing.com. You will be able to find it within the first few minutes of her speech.

Link: http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/podcastplayer.htm?pid=335&iid=29707

Nope. She alleged that Bolick said that the GWI had everything they needed to analyze the deal, not that he thought the agreement was valid. For those who like to parse statements, note that she did not say that the GWI said that they had already analyzed the agreements. Moreover, it is interesting to note that since that time the COG has reportedly handed over an additional 650 pages of documents to the GWI.

 

[Dado]

All I heard Scruggs say is that 2 months ago the GWI "had all they needed" document wise. Nothing about agreeing to the CoG's plan.

Just listened to it - confirmed - in that clip she never said or even suggested that anyone at GWI had greenlit the deal, even in principle-only.

 

[MountainHawk]

The art to make a very long story short.

God! If we could get back to 1995...

Good job!

The US teams would have been smart enough to say 'no' to the "Save Canada's teams because our dollar sucks" fund, and there would only be 2 teams in Canada right now?

 

[Brominator]

On the whole "tortious interference" thing...

Would the simple act of sending a letter, advising against buying bonds, count as unlawful? It's not like GWI lied in the letters - they said that they think the COG-Hulsizer agreement was against AZ law, and that they might sue. That's the truth, isn't it? Is sending letters to bondholders outside of GWI's mandate? Obviously. Is that illegal? I don't see how.... not that I'm a lawyer.

Since we're so caught up in the Coyotes saga, maybe it would help to think of an analagous scenario. Suppose you are an eco-activist protesting the pollution of the athabasca river by oil sands producers. Is it illegal for you to send letters asking businesses to avoid investing in Oil Company X because of the ecological implications of their business? Perhaps you are an activist organization that funds lawyers representing a First Nations community downstream of the tailing ponds. Is it illegal to remind businesses that your organization is funding an effort to investigate the health effects of tailing ponds runoff on the downstream communities and that you may file a lawsuit?

If Store XYZ rips me off, am I not allowed to hand out flyers telling people that they ripped me off, telling only truths, as long as I don't do it on their property?

In the above situations, I'm a 3rd party that is purposefully interfering with a potential business relationship between 2 other parties. Are those situations illegal in AZ or elsewhere?

I don't really see the difference between those situations and GWI vs COG.

Regardless, I really think this lawsuit, if it actually happens, is COG's last gasp on the Coyotes front.