re: Landrieu says there will be a 30 day delay in removing PGT Beauregard Monument

quote:

---

You all want to bring shite up that was not before the court. I'm anti-removal like most in the city.

Given the pleadings, exhibits and argument before the court, Reese had to deny the restraining order.

He's a good judge and well prepared.

When you guys get a license to practice law, let me know. Your opinion would change on Reese's ruling.

---

Thank you. They have no clue what the case was even about

quote:

---

It says the city will have negotiations to see which side actually owns the statue.

---

So then it's not clear the city has authority to do this.

Which is why you grant TROs. Not because one side is right, but to figure out what side is right.

How bad must this be for the city, after all the time, to suddenly admit this?

quote:

---

So then it's not clear the city has authority to do this.

Which is why you grant TROs. Not because one side is right, but to figure out what side is right.

How bad must this be for the city, after all the time, to suddenly admit this?

---

READ

quote:

---

"The City maintains its position, which has been affirmed by the Courts, that it owns the PGT Beauregard statue and property which the statue sits on. The letter from the City Attorney, which was also signed by City Park Improvement Association clearly states that both sides agreed to engage in discussions over the next 30 days regarding any land ownership questions that the City Park Improvement Association has going forward. However, as the letter confirms, the City Park Improvement Association acknowledges that the City can and will move forward with removal of the monument.

---

quote:

---

lsupride87

---

You getting mad. You clerk for him or something?

The city is saying they think they have authority, but someone else is also saying they have authority, so, they are gonna get together and figure it out.

Clearly, it's not that clear. If CPIA claims were bogus, the city would say so and move on. The fact that the city is engaging CPIA here tells me that there is a chance, just a chance, there might be an issue here.

Not a guarantee. The city may be 100 percent correct. But obviously, there is something the city must be concerned about.

I'll give the Landrieu admin credit for taking this step. It will help to ensure the legitimacy of all of this.

As for the judge, again, he didn't actually rule the city was right... he ruled this has gone on long enough, and the plaintiff didn't prove his case.

So... then... master attorneys... what the hell transpired between Wed and Friday?

quote:

---

Not a guarantee. The city may be 100 percent correct. But obviously, there is something the city must be concerned about.

---

Rubbish according to Prideboy. 30 day grace period must have been decided on a whim. Maybe PGTB will come down tonight since there's no legal issue at hand re: ownership.

Whenever they get to Lee Circle that's going to cost a pretty penny.

quote:

---

There is absolutely nothing that has changed legally. I am sorry you and Houston can't comprehend that

---

what does that even mean, nothing has changed legally.

The city has said all along they had the authority to do this. Landrieu has essentially mocked his opponents about this. Now all of a sudden, they are admitting that they "might" be a problem.

There might not be a problem. This issue may get resolved shortly and the teardown can continue.

Or this could turn into litigation.

In any event... the correct course of action here given the "possibility" of a problem is to issue the TRO and figure out out. Essentially, the city has bailed out Judge Reese here.

For you to say anything else is completely ignorant.

Edit: In case I'm not clear enough. I'm not saying city park / monumental task force is in any way correct. But they have raised enough questions that this should not have been so quickly dismissed by the judge. We've waited a year and a half here, what's another month? That's my issue with the judge.

quote:

---

They have yet to say in anyway there might be a problem. Why can't you understand this?

---

Are you unable to read and comprehend?

quote:

---

According to a letter from New Orleans City Attorney Rebecca H. Dietz, The New Orleans City Park Improvement Association has asserted legal rights in the property which the monument is situated.

---

quote:

---

“Though the City does not agree with NOCPIA’s assertion, it recognizes NOCPIA’s authority to own, manage, and maintain park property and wishes to resolve the competing claims to the Property and any issues arising therefrom in an amicable and expeditious manner.”

---

I would certainly think the possibility of competing claims means there is the possibility of a problem.

quote:

---

They have yet to say in anyway there might be a problem.

---

Given the above, your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Just admit you jumped the gun here, and move on. My personal feeling is that the city has full rights and ownership. But, again, why not just make sure everything is correct?

quote:

---

An Orleans Parish Civil District Court judge ruled Wednesday that the city of New Orleans owns all of City Park and can move forward with the removal of the P.G.T. Beauregard monument.

---

quote:

---

The ruling came days after a pro-Confederate monument group held a news conference to announce that it believed the board that governs City Park, and not the city, owns the monument at the entrance of the park.

---

quote:

---

Reese denied the injunction, which would have stopped the removal of the monument until it was determined who owned the monument. He said a previous state Supreme Court case on Audubon Park also determined that the city owns all of City Park.

---

LINK
So why the 30 day delay?