Evidence-free slots litigation
Why is Judge Ronald Silkworth even bothering to hold hearings on the proposed referendum to block slots parlors at Arundel Mills mall? I thought the litigation was about determining whether the pro-referendum petition signatures were valid. But each time slots developer David Cordish's people profer evidence that some of the accepted signatures are phony, Silkworth disallows it.
First he rejected testimony on handwriting analysis. Now he refuses to hear from signers who said petition canvassers lied to them by saying the petition was pro-slots.
Reports Nicole Fuller in today's paper:
Silkworth also denied requests from Cordish attorneys to allow testimony from several other witnesses — Tom Chuckas, president of the Jockey Club; Heather A. Ford, president of CASM; a representative from FieldWorks; and Joseph Weinberg, a vice president at Cordish.
Judge Silkworth seems to be preparing for a precedent-setting exploration into a new branch of law: The faith-based ruling.
Comments
money, money, money! This case was set when the judge decided to hear it as a judicial review. That gave him an excuse to throw out all meaningful evidence in this case. He can now say.. " Gee, I was only follwing the rules!"
The closer you get to Magna et al and the MJC, the more mud you get on you.
Posted by: diogene4 | May 27, 2010 10:49 AM
This is so ugly Jay. It's an inside job, pure and simple. Free enterprise and entrepreneurship is trumped by cronyism. What a sad farce. If I were Cordish I'd buy a huge Billboard on 95 and promote Dover Downs, the Borgata and Charlestown.
Posted by: Jason Manelli | May 27, 2010 11:05 AM
Jay,
You are completely wrong. You need to read the law before you speak out. This is an administrative review and for slots at Arundel Mills or not, Judge Silkworth is absolutely correct with respect to the law in each of his actions to date.
Posted by: christian | May 27, 2010 6:00 PM
Jay, you are a fool. The law is clear...when the Court reviews a decision of a state agency they do so under 'Judicial Review.' The judge is following the law.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2010 6:57 PM
Slots belong at the racetrack, and Jay Hancock's writings belong on the opinion page.
Posted by: Tim R | May 27, 2010 8:29 PM
Jason,
What is your definition of free enterprise? I know mine does not include state owned and operated video lottery terminals which pay a 33% fee to the licensee.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2010 8:46 PM
"This is so ugly Jay. It's an inside job, pure and simple. Free enterprise and entrepreneurship is trumped by cronyism."
Let's see, THE PEOPLE want to have a say in whether to locate a casino at their local mall and that is "cronyism"? Wow, we have a new definition of cronyism!!!
Posted by: ConsDemo | May 27, 2010 9:29 PM
i dont think they lied they. came to me and said it was against the slots..a few of my neibors and me discussed it. its a bad idea to try and bring such into our community. its going to bring a lot of unecessary trouble
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2010 7:08 PM