- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/4/14 at 10:43 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
he does have a home in BR.
So he is against his own city and is for the new city of SG even though he doesn't even live there. Do you not wonder why?
Probably the same reason he was/is so "concerned" about politics in the city of Central.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 10:52 pm to Asgard Device
Do his motivations affect his standing?
Posted on 8/4/14 at 11:00 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Do his motivations affect his standing?
Apparently not, according to the judge. I guess he is not negatively affected by the mall deciding to be part of the city.
My father actually grew up with the dude and said he was a really good kid. They used to live near Plank Rd in the heart of what is now the ghetto and used to ride the bus all over baton rouge when they were like 10. Did Elwood move back to North Foster mansion? If so.. damn.
When he was fooling around with Central politics, he used to tell people he lived in Central. This was like 3 years ago.
This post was edited on 8/4/14 at 11:09 pm
Posted on 8/4/14 at 11:03 pm to Asgard Device
People keep quoting the Plan of Government bit but don't actually understand why the suit was dismissed.
He attempted to say that police forces would be stretched too thin. The BRPD Police Chief testified that it wasn't the case. That is pretty much it.
Jenkins does mention that it is not political because he would've included the General if it were, as then it would be concerns for the map for SG. That is a hilarious statement as trying to keep the MOL inside the SG lines is the biggest indicator of it being entirely political. Clearly isn't about principle at all. All $$.
quote:
Pierson ultimately said she'd stipulate, or agree, to the fact that Jenkins is a citizen of Baton Rouge -- though without a real and actual interest in the case, she added. She points to state law, which says "any interested citizen of the municipality or of the territory proposed to be annexed" may file suit, and defines "interested" as having a "real and actual personal stake" in the annexations.
He attempted to say that police forces would be stretched too thin. The BRPD Police Chief testified that it wasn't the case. That is pretty much it.
Jenkins does mention that it is not political because he would've included the General if it were, as then it would be concerns for the map for SG. That is a hilarious statement as trying to keep the MOL inside the SG lines is the biggest indicator of it being entirely political. Clearly isn't about principle at all. All $$.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 11:09 pm to Barrymanalow
quote:
Clearly isn't about principle at all. All $$.
SG didn't file suit, some guy named Jenkins did.....
I don't think most SG supporters care about the mall.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 11:12 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
So he is against his own city and is for the new city of SG even though he doesn't even live there. Do you not wonder why?
Holding the belief that the MOLA annexation was not done properly doesn't mean he is "against his city"
He does support SG philosophically. As for why, you would have to ask him. He is no fan of Bernard Taylor though, and he also supported the previous attempts at an ISD.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 11:15 pm to Sprocket46
Yeah, some guy named Jenkins that runs this outfit called St. George Leader. Completely unrelated to the SG thing. Totally.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 11:18 pm to Barrymanalow
quote:
Yeah, some guy named Jenkins that runs this outfit called St. George Leader. Completely unrelated to the SG thing. Totally.
Of course he has an interest, same as central. That doesn't mean squat legally. His motivations may be financial for himself, but that doesn't have anything to do with SG organizers motivation.... legal, financial, or otherwise.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 11:24 pm to Sprocket46
So we agree its about $$ and not principle?
So...yeah. I'm having trouble following whatever you are trying to say.
So...yeah. I'm having trouble following whatever you are trying to say.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 11:54 pm to Barrymanalow
Youre not making sense. One minute you are speaking of Woody Jenkins' motivation, the next you are making broad SG generalizations. If you want to debate something you'll need to be more specific.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:04 am to Sprocket46
I guess asking for clarification as to what you were saying is the same as dancing around a subject. I stated why his suit was dismissed and mused about how his statements are misleading when compared to his actions. You generally pick one thing to quote and ramble incoherently. Or so I've seen thus far.
I wasn't particularly debating, but we can if you like. I read what you had posted in response and gathered that we were in agreement that motivation is more money based than say, anything else. If that is incorrect, let me know.
I wasn't particularly debating, but we can if you like. I read what you had posted in response and gathered that we were in agreement that motivation is more money based than say, anything else. If that is incorrect, let me know.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:15 am to Barrymanalow
quote:
I read what you had posted in response and gathered that we were in agreement that motivation is more money based than say, anything else. If that is incorrect, let me know.
Jenkins motivation for the suit can be explained by his support for SG, or possibly just because he saw the sheisty shite that went down with the annexation of MOLA and Kip and it made him mad.
Jenkins motivation for supporting SG can be explained by my previous post on the subject of schools, his previous support for the ISD, and his disdain for Taylor. He may also support SG because he wants to profit from another newspaper, but that doesn't have anything to do with a MOLA annexation lawsuit.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:34 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:Would the Louisiana Department of Revenue, a state agency, classifying him as a resident of Louisiana suffice as proof of residency? If Jenkins could produce a Louisiana resident income tax return he would be able to argue that the state of Louisiana considers him a resident of Louisiana. Combine that with ownership of property in Baton Rouge and he might just qualify as a citizen of Baton Rouge despite any challenge.
If his domicile was challenged further, he would have to prove a lot to establish that he really did change his domicile back to Louisiana.
He'd still have to clear the "real and actual stake" hurdle though.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:36 am to Sprocket46
quote:
Jenkins motivation for the suit can be explained by his support for SG, or possibly just because he saw the sheisty shite that went down with the annexation of MOLA and Kip and it made him mad.
Oh. Well those aren't the things he said in court today. And none of that would've worked either.
When I say $$, I thought it was implied that he was working towards the support of SG in order to keep the MOLA in the SG proposed limits. My bad if I was unclear.
quote:
Jenkins motivation for supporting SG can be explained by my previous post on the subject of schools, his previous support for the ISD, and his disdain for Taylor. He may also support SG because he wants to profit from another newspaper, but that doesn't have anything to do with a MOLA annexation lawsuit
Ok then. Good insight.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:16 am to Barrymanalow
quote:
Oh. Well those aren't the things he said in court today. And none of that would've worked either.
The hearing today was simply Clark/the city challenging his right to bring the suit, it didn't get into the merits of the suit itself.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:24 am to Sprocket46
quote:
Judge Janice Clark, of the 19th Judicial District, agreed after more than three hours of testimony that plaintiff Woody Jenkins, lacks a “real and actual interest” in the annexations, which is necessary for legal standing.
The annexation does not affect Jenkins. Case closed.
The annexation is a done deal.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:29 am to Sprocket46
quote:
The hearing today was simply Clark/the city challenging his right to bring the suit, it didn't get into the merits of the suit itself.
Right. He might have wanted to make the hearing about that then. Because the hearing was to determine his standing, which does explore his motivations for bringing the suit. Goes back to that bit about a real stake in it. Which he did not make clear. He tried, but that police chief kind of explained that he was wrong. Or so I've gathered. The annexation doesn't actually harm him, according the courts at this point and he couldn't make his case that it does.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:30 am to LSURussian
quote:
The annexation is a done deal.
Except its not. It's going to be appealed, as expected, as we knew all along how Clark would rule.
You can say it's likely, probable, etc....hell I'd agree with that....but it's not a "done deal".
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:31 am to Sprocket46
quote:
we knew all along how Clark would rule.
How did we know that? I'm curious. I was unaware that it was a foregone conclusion other than Jenkins's flimsy argument.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News