The Joel Bieber Firm

Call 1-800-451-6393

Archive for General Law

Man Without a Country

Wednesday, February 4th, 2015

     The Man Without a Country was a short story written in 1863 by Edward Everett Hale. It was intended to be a bit of propaganda for the Union during the Civil War. 

     It is the story of an American soldier named Philip Nolan, who renounced his country during a trial for treason. In the story, he is sentenced to spend the rest of his life at sea without ever hearing any news of the United States or even to have it mentioned. That’s why he was a man without a country.

     Through the years at sea, he went from being bitter about the United States, to desperately wanting his country back. Despite never escaping his sentence, he decorated his room on the ship, with a flag and a picture of George Washington. Later in the story, after he is found dead, the shipmates learn that he had written his own epitaph that patriotically stated:

                                In memory of PHILIP NOLAN, Lieutenant in the Army of the United States. He loved his country as no other man loved her; but no man deserved less at her hands.

     I write this blog because I recently watched a Frontline/PBS show titled United States Of Secrets. It’s the story of the United States Intelligence war on terror, and what was accepted as necessary to provide a secure country.

     There were many in the intelligence community, as well as Constitutional scholars, who believed that the rights of citizens were being trampled. One former NSA employee decided to do something about it. In response, Eric Snowden has become a man without a country.

     You can see it on Netflix. It’s certainly thought-provoking. If the assertions in the show are correct, than the government knows about my blog. And, it might also surprise you to learn the lengths that some businesses will go, to understand your search and spending habits.     

     And our pic o’ is also a bit of snoring technology.

taser

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

The Things of Robin Williams

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015

This is a blog about money and estate planning. And so the adventure begins.

In trying to provide guidance, an IRS auditor supposedly reminded that, “The trick is to stop thinking of it as ‘your’ money”. I guess that’s one way to look at it. Of course Earl Wilson reminded us that, “if you think that no one cares if you’re alive, try missing a couple of car payments”. I learned a long time ago that the definition of a bank is a place who loans you money… when you don’t need it. (Bob Hope)

Jerry Seinfeld reminds us that dogs are happy despite having no money or things. “They are broke their entire lives but they get through. You know why they have no money? No pockets!”.

I remember one actor saying that the only reason that he made an American Express commercial… was to pay for his American Express bill.

And that leads me to Robin Williams who defined “Carpe per diem” as “Seize the check”.

The reminder that people are funny about money.     I end the blog with Robin Williams because his estate has his entire family in an uproar. It’s discussed in the NY Times article Robin Williams’s Widow and Children Tangle Over Estate.

Nearly six months after his death, his widow and the children from a previous marriage are in a legal fight over the division of the estate. According to the widow, she is entitled to the house and everything in the house. The kids say that she is entitled to everyday things in the house… not memorabilia that has value.

The wife is blocking access to the home. The kids basically are saying that she can keep her toothbrush, they want the Oscar statute. Well, in so many words that’s how it breaks out.

The kids claim it is effecting their ability to grieve the loss of their father. The wife says her domestic tranquility is being harmed.

Yep, people are funny about money. As Malcolm Forbes used to say about being rich, “I made my money the old-fashioned way. I was very nice to a wealthy relative right before he died”.

And for our pic o’ day, speaking of legal…

lamp

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments Comments Off

A Jury Super Bowl Caution

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

On a Monday morning after the Super Bowl, it just feels like I need to start the blog with a coffee reference.

coffee pot

 

Last week, I had some comments on my Random Blog. Several asked why I was so random. My answer was that I just couldn’t help it!

For today, I will get right to the point; with the blog,  a legal topic and with it brief! (yep… see what I did there!)

On Thursday, the Aaron Hernandez murder trial commenced. On Friday as the second day was wrapping up, the Judge cautioned the jurors about discussing the trial over the weekend. (ABC News) Then she gave the jurors a stern warning, “I am not going to forbid you from watching this Super Bowl on Sunday, if that’s something really important to you”.

The judge continued, “But I am going to ask you to be especially vigilant. If you’re watching the game with friends or family or any third party, just have your antenna — just be really, really vigilant. You have to avoid anything that has anything to do with this case or Mr. Hernandez,” she said. “If you hear that word, you got to walk out of the room, distance yourself, immediately stop people, and if his name or this case is mentioned on the television screen or computer, just walk away.”

Former New England Patriots football player, Aaron Hernandez is accused of killing Odin Lloyd on June 17. 2012. With the New England Patriots playing this game during the middle of this trial, it would not be that unusual for something to be mentioned about the trial.

The Judge wanted to take every precaution to make sure that the jurors and alterantes (18 total) are not influenced by something that might be mentioned.  I’m sure that she does not want something to cause a mistrial because of the Super Bowl.

Just one final note on the Super Bowl. I admit it, it pains me that the Patriots won. This morning, I could not watch ESPN. Just couldn’t. As for Hernandez, I wonder if he was rooting for or against his old team.

And for pic o’ day:

IMG_1454

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments Comments Off

“I Want My Job Back!”

Wednesday, January 14th, 2015

From the world of employment law comes the story of (Washington Post) 13 United Airlines flight attendants who want their jobs back, after being let go. Because I don’t particularly enjoy flying, this story hit a personal chord.

On July  14, 2014, a United flight was scheduled to fly from San Francisco to Hong Kong. This is what they found on the plane:

 plane

     The flight attendants were spooked by the drawings on the plane. They asked airline officials to do a full search and safety inspection throughout the plane before takeoff. The airline refused to do it and did not take the drawings serious as a potential threat.

The crew then refused to fly. The airline felt that they did the necessary inspections and complied with all governmental requirements. Because the crew refused to fly, they were fired for insubordination. Now, they have filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, asking the Department of Labor to reinstate them and determine whether they are entitled to back wages and legal fees.

The original flight was cancelled without available crew. To date, none of the flight crew attendants have found work with other airlines. The airline continues to assert in response that the flight had been deemed safe to fly.

And now to switch topics. In case you did not receive our January newsletter, you can click here.

And for pic o’ day, the grammar police:

grammar police

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments Comments Off

Two Sides of the Lawsuit

Monday, January 12th, 2015

The news story is titled Woman sues daughter, son-in-law over housing dispute. (PilotOnline.com) So far, it sounds like the usual lawsuit, if such a thing exists among family.

The first part of the article, the reporter tells us the story of the mother-in-law. She claims that she went to live with her daughter and husband in Chesapeake. To accommodate her, the family built a mother-in-law suite. That is undisputed.

She claims that she contributed $70,000 to build the suite and added an additional $10,000 for closing costs, $6,000 for home furnishings and then chipped in $2,000 for a pool in the backyard .  In exchange for the monies, she would be allowed to live in the suite for as long as she wanted.

According to the mother-in-law, she moved into the suite in 2008. About a year later, the relationship went sour. She was denied access to all other areas of the property except her suite, which also meant no swimming for her. She also claims in the lawsuit that she was not allowed to use the refrigerator and was prohibited from walking on the carpeted part of the kitchen floor. As the infomercial would say, “But wait, there’s more”.

She claims that the family installed privacy doors so that they wouldn’t have to look at her. Then, it all went south, when she went to see family and had some physical issues. Upon her return, the lawsuit claims that the family demanded that she leave. She did. Later, she came back for her things. She has now filed suit for $150,000 plus her attorney fees and costs.

So far, that sounds like meanness. shear meanness from the family. “But wait… there’s more”.

The attorney that represents the family tells a different story. The family claims that she left the home by choice. She was having some health issues and went to stay with another family member while they were on vacation.  She didn’t want to be left alone in the house.

When the Murphy family returned from vacation, they expected mother-in-law to return home. She didn’t. They claim that she still has a key to the house and is welcome back at any time. As a result, they say that they don’t owe her anything. The continue to live up to the agreement.

With those facts… you be the judge!

And for pic o’ day,

watch the game

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments Comments Off

Consent to Bad Treatment

Thursday, December 18th, 2014

      You walk into a doctor’s office and they hand you a clipboard and pen. Then, they  ask you to fill out the forms. At the end, you usually find a form called a Consent Form that basically advises you that you are consenting to a whole bunch of stuff when you receive treatment from the doctor.

The big question is whether that consent is binding on you if you sign it. Well, the Virginia Supreme Court, in a dental malpractice case, now tells us that it’s not. You are not consenting to malpractice. The case is styled Fiorucci v. Chinn (McClanahan) No. 131869, Oct. 31, 2014; It originated in the Alexandria Circuit.Court.

The facts of the case showed that during trial, the defendant dentist (through his attorney) sought to introduce the risk of surgery discussion that took place before the dental procedure .

During the trial, the circuit court judge ruled that the risk of surgery discussions between dentist and his patient were not relevant. The Judge would not allow that evidence to be presented to the jury.

The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court judge in ruling that Plaintiff’s awareness of the risks of the extractions was not a defense against his claim that defendant deviated from the standard of care in misdiagnosing the condition of plaintiff’s wisdom teeth or negligently performing the surgery. Evidence of the informed consent discussions was neither relevant nor material to the issue of the standard of care.

The case now affirms that just because we sign that form doesn’t mean that we are saying that we are ok with negligence. Something to think about the next time that they slide that clipboard to you through that little window.

And for our pic o’ day… a bit of medicine:

Sa

 

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments Comments Off

How About Larry the Cucumber?

Monday, November 17th, 2014

Bob the Tomato, Larry the Cucumber and Junior Asparagus. They were soon to be on the screen, following their theme song, “Never ever ever ever ever been a show like VeggieTales”.

veggie

The VeggieTales are an example of an initial idea that was going the wrong direction until improvements were made, which turned it into a tremendous success. Overcoming difficult beginnings.  Wiki tells us that VeggieTales is an American series of children’s computer animated films that featured anthropomorphic vegetables (had to look that up. means vegetables with human form).  Their episodes frequently tell Bible stories in a modern pop culture way.

Here’s why they are part of the blog. It’s because their story arose out of mistake and difficulty to a continuing and thriving TV enterprise. Then, the rights of a contract stepped into the program to change the content.

The show was initially created by Phil Vischer and Mike Nawrocki, who also provided many of the voices. Vischer was testing out new computer hardware in the early 90′s. Due to the limitations of the hardware for animation purposes, he decided to avoid being too technical in creating characters with arms, legs or hair.

So, his first character was a talking candy bar. His wife suggested that he change the main character because parents would rather focus on good healthy eating rather than a friendly candy bar. So, the characters became fruits and vegetables.

The shows were originally just sold on video. Then, NBC picked them up as part of their Saturday morning program and the series aired from September 2006-2009. Then it began airing on Trinity Broadcasting Network. Now, Netflix has announced that it has joined its programming this month.

NBC removed any mention of God in the programs, including removing the original ending of each show that contained, “Remember kids, God made you special and he loves you very much!”. NBC was more comfortable with an ending that simply had a character saying “Good-bye!.

Because they owned the show through contract, they could determine the content. So, what had been a religious program was now being shown as a positive message for kids.  That meant that Archibald Asparagus could not star as Jonah. Still, they can’t stop Jimmy and Jerry Gourd or Madame Blueberry from being part of a Bible story in their past episodes.

So, will Netflix show all past episodes or just new?

And for pic o’ day,

hurry take it

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Authority is the Authority

Wednesday, October 29th, 2014

You know the old saying that everyone has a boss… even when they are the boss. I have had a judge tell me that a trial was going to be scheduled during my vacation, and that his courtroom was not dictated by my schedule. Sure enough… he was not controlled by my schedule.

This week, the National Basketball Association kicked off its season. They have 3 referees at the game calling fouls and enforcing the rules. The refs are paid significantly less than the players but they are still the authority.

The rules of evidence, just like rules in a sports contest, are ultimately the rules that govern the play. There is always authority and consequences for not obeying authority, just as there are prison inmates who would ruefully tell us that they broke the rules.

I started the blog with all of that to lead to this video below. I know that you might have a device that will make it difficult to click and watch. In brief description, it shows a boxer who was not happy with a referee counting him out and stopping the fight. Then, he punched “the authority”. I am sure there will be consequences to pay!

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Batch of Laws

Tuesday, September 9th, 2014

I have been collecting facts and laws to put in a blog or to qualify as part of DID YOU KNOW. As I was scrolling through my ideas for the blog today (that’s code for “what am I going to write?”), I realized that I probably should put together a bunch of the collection. I guess this blog is almost like a quilt. So… here goes:

In New York, it is against the law to shoot at a rabbit from a moving trolley car.

In Idaho, it is against the law for one resident to give another resident a box of candy that weighs more than 50 pounds.

In Kentucky, by law ,citizens must take a bath at least once per year. (Just as a side note, a Harris poll says that 70% of men take a shower daily. Women? 57%. Not sure of the stats in Kentucky)

In Florida, “If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid, just as it would for a vehicle”.

In Alabama, “It is legal to drive the wrong way down a one-way street if you have a lantern attached to the front of your automobile”.  However, in St Johns County, lanterns and flashlights are strictly prohibited during turtle season.

And for our pic o’ day… responsibility:

responsibility

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments Comments Off

Some Colts History Because!

Sunday, August 17th, 2014

Yesterday was my birthday. So, I almost didn’t write the blog. Then, I decided to go a different direction.

Let me warn you. The following is long. It’s a story of why the Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis and what happens when there is a threat of eminent domain. For Baltimore, it was crushing. So much so that the mayor cried.

Today, Baltimore blames the Colts owner even though it was his father that moved the team to Indianapolis. In additon, these fans are not troubled by their double standard in taking the Cleveland Browns from their fans and turning them into the Ravens.

Yes, this is a long blog. Probably too long. I promise to have some shorties the rest of the week. In case you can’t take the time… well here’s our pic o’ day.

nope

Now, the story of the Colts to Indianapolis as compiled by Brian Casserly from sources including Wikipedia, and then placed on Stampede Blue as a fan post.

Back in 1969,  Baltimore’s Memorial Stadium originally built in 1922, had grown old and was considered inadequate by both the Colts and Orioles ownership. In spite of this, in May of that year, the city of Baltimore announced it would seek a “substantial” increase in Memorial Stadium rental fees from then Colts owner Carroll Rosenbloom. Rosenbloom himself had long since called Memorial Stadium “antiquated” and had threatened to move all Colts home games out of the stadium unless improvements were made. He even considered using $12–20 million of his own money to help fund the building of a new football only stadium on land in adjoining Baltimore County. 

Flash forward 3 years to November 1971, Rosenbloom announced that the team would not return to Memorial Stadium when their lease ran out following the 1972 season and that he was not interested in negotiating with the city anymore. He wanted out of Baltimore completely. A few of the reasons being – overall team revenue, conflicts with Baltimore Orioles ownership relating to Memorial Stadium’s use and the revenues it generated, a running feud with the local Baltimore press, and his new wife’s desire to move to the West Coast. Rosenbloom had decided to either move or sell the team. 

Real estate investor Will Keland was prepared to buy the Colts from Rosenbloom and the two had moved from small talk to serious negotiations. However, ultimately Keland could not generate enough funds necessary to purchase the team, but his golfing buddy Robert Irsay, (who originally was only slated to be an investor and own 1% of the franchise) did possess the necessary funds and decided to make the purchase himself. Under the terms of the arrangement, he bought the Los Angeles Rams for $19 million, and then traded them to Rosenbloom for the Colts and $3 million in cash on July 13, 1972. Irsay would now have to overcome the same obstacles that forced Rosenbloom to quit Baltimore. 

In 1971, Baltimore mayor William Donald Schaefer and the state’s governor, Marvin Mandel, created a stadium committee to examine the city’s stadium needs. The committee’s report was a blow to Memorial Stadium. Some of the problems mentioned: 10,000 stadium’s seats had views that were “less than desirable”; 20,000 seats were out-dated bench seats that had no back support; 7,000 so called seats were actually poorly constructed temporary bleachers that were installed for football games only. Also, there was not enough office space adequate enough for the front offices of either the Orioles or Colts, much less both teams combined. Both teams had to share locker rooms, the upper deck of Memorial Stadium did not circle the field, ending instead at the 50-yard line, thousands of potential seats (and added revenue) were missing. Any expansion plans for the stadium had usually mentioned less attractive (and less expensive) end-zone seats, not upper deck seating. And the number of bathroom facilities in Memorial Stadium was deemed inadequate. 

As a result, Maryland’s planners came up with an ambitious project that they nicknamed the Baltodome,[5] the project was to create a facility near the city’s Inner Harbor known as Camden Yards. The new stadium would host 70,000 fans for football games, 55,000 for baseball and 20,000 as an arena for hockey or basketball. For an estimated $78 million, the city and both professional franchise owners would be able to build a facility that would have kept everyone happy. Unfortunately the proposal did not receive support from the State of Maryland’s elected legislature. And on February 27, 1974 Maryland’s Governor Mandel pulled the plug on the idea.

 

In response Orioles owner Jerold Hoffberger was blunt: “I will bow to the will of the people. They have told us what they want to tell us. First, they don’t want a new park and second, they don’t want a club.”

Robert Irsay on the other hand was willing to wait: “It’s not a matter of saying that there will be no stadium. It’s a matter of getting the facts together so everybody is happy when they build the stadium. I’m a patient man. I think the people of Baltimore are going to see those new stadiums in New Orleans and Seattle opening in a year or two around the country, and they are going to realize they need a stadium … for conventions and other things besides football.” 

But Hyman Pressman, Baltimore’s City Comptroller, was against using any taxpayer funds to build a new stadium for the Colts or the Orioles. And during the 1974 elections, Pressman had an amendment to the city’s charter placed on the upcoming ballot. The amendment was known as “Question P”[3] and it called for declaring “Memorial stadium (then called the 33rd Street stadium) as a memorial to war veterans and prohibited use of city funds for construction of any other stadium. ” The measure was passed by the citizens of Baltimore by a margin of 56% to 44%. 

I believe that if you reverse-engineer the entire process back and look for turning points, the franchise’s move to Indianapolis was ultimately a result of Pressman’s actions and the subsequent vote by the citizens of Baltimore. 

In 1979, Indianapolis politicians, business & community leaders were united in their desire to attract major sporting events to central Indiana. And to facilitate this they created the Indiana Sports Corp. The next year, Mayor William Hudnut appointed a committee to study the feasibility of building a new stadium that could serve as home to a professional football team. That study proved positive and in 1982 construction of the stadium (Hoosier Dome) began. 

On December 18, 1983, The Colts played what was to become their final home game in the city of Baltimore. 27,934 fans showed up at Memorial Stadium, 516 more fans than attended the team’s first home game in 1947. And by February 1983 the relationship between Irsay and the politicians in Baltimore had deteriorated significantly.

That year Baltimore Mayor Schaefer asked the Maryland General Assembly to approve a paltry $15 million for renovation to Memorial Stadium. However, the Maryland legislature did not approve the request until the following spring, after the Colts’ lease had already expired[3] and only half of that $15 million would go towards improvements that the Colts were seeking (The other half for the Orioles).

 

Then in January 1984, Baltimore’s mayor Schaefer put it bluntly: “We’re not going to build a new stadium. We do not have the bonding capacity. We don’t have the voters or taxpayer who can support a $60 million stadium. One-third of the people in Baltimore pay taxes. Unless private enterprise builds it, we won’t build it. (This appears to have been a ruse to pit the taxpayers of Baltimore against Irsay because Schaefer well knew that the city could not legally use taxpayer money to build any new stadium as a result of the aforementioned question P). 

Irsay held discussions with several cities hungry for an NFL franchise (New York, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Birmingham, Jacksonville and Memphis[11]) eventually narrowing the list of cities to two, Phoenix and Indianapolis.[12] The Phoenix Metropolitan Sports Foundation, headed by real estate developer Eddie Lynch, along with Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt and other top Arizona officials, had secretly met with Irsay early in January 1984.[10] And preliminary talks seemed promising. Phoenix was offering a below market rate $15,000,000.00 loan and rent free use of the 71,000 seat Sun Devil Stadium on the campus of Arizona State University. A second meeting was scheduled between Irsay and the Phoenix group. But when word of a second scheduled meeting leaked out and was reported in the local Baltimore press, Irsay canceled. 

Meanwhile in Indianapolis local leaders and real estate developer Robert Welch were lobbying the NFL to bring an expansion team to the city, with Welch as team owner. But NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle announced that expansion had been put on hold. As a result of that announcement, Indiana Pacers owner Herb Simon contacted Colts’ officials on February 1st in order to take negotiations between the franchise and the city of Indianapolis to the next level. On February 13th Michael Chernoff, vice-president and general counsel of the Colts, responded by visiting Indianapolis as well as the Hoosier Dome and expressed an interest in the possibility of relocation.

Mayor Hudnut then assigned deputy mayor David Frick to begin negotiations with Michael Chernoff. The Colts and the Capital Improvement Board of Managers of Marion County, Indiana (“CIB”), the owner of the Hoosier Dome, began discussing the possibility of leasing the Dome to the Colts. Then on February 23rd Colts owner Robert Irsay visited.

 

“He [Irsay] was visibly moved,” former deputy mayor Dave Frick said commenting on Irsay’s reaction to entering the brand new domed stadium. “Emotionally, he was making the move.” 800px-RCA_Dome

Back in Baltimore, the situation continued to deteriorate. On February 24, 1984, a bill was introduced in the Maryland Senate authorizing Baltimore officials to condemn professional sports franchises for eminent domain purposes. On March 2nd, 1984, the NFL held a special meeting in Chicago. In a privileged executive session, with Irsay and other Colt personnel absent, the League decided that it would take no action with respect to any possible move of the Colts.

The League decided that the consideration of a Colts’ move would not be a League matter. Then Irsay was allowed to enter the meeting and he stated that he was considering relocation of the team to Indianapolis specifically, but was still negotiating with both Indianapolis and Baltimore officials. The League expressed neither approval nor disapproval of the possible move. NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle later testified: “the effect [of this League position] was that Bob Irsay could move the Colts … to whatever city he chose,” without interference from the NFL. 

On March 26th the Maryland state Senate took up consideration of the bill authorizing Baltimore to condemn professional sports franchises. And a second bill where the state of Maryland would offer Colts Owner Robert Irsay $40 million in order to purchase the team and then sell it back to local Maryland investors. The first bill called for the state to condemn the Colts and begin eminent domain proceedings taking the team from Irsay outright (an idea first floated in a memo written by Baltimore mayoral aide Mark Wasserman). In what would later be an obvious error, the Maryland politicians chose the eminent domain route first and on March 27th the Maryland Senate passed emergency legislation which authorized the City of Baltimore to condemn the Colts franchise and related properties. 

Colts owner Robert Irsay said that the move to Indianapolis was “a direct result” of the eminent domain bill and[7] Colts counsel Michael Chernoff would say of the Senate vote:

 

“They not only threw down the gauntlet, but they put a gun to his head and cocked it and asked, ‘Want to see if it’s loaded?’ They forced him to make a decision that day.”

 

Citing the recent moves by the Maryland legislature, the Phoenix group withdrew their offer. Robert Irsay then called Indianapolis Mayor Hudnut in order to expedite negotiations. Indianapolis offered the Colts owner a $12,500,000 loan, a $4,000,000 training complex, and the use of the brand new $77.5 million, 57,980 seat Hoosier Dome.[14] Irsay agreed in principle and immediately instructed Chernoff to officially conclude the Hoosier Dome lease and the loan transaction with Indianapolis’ Merchants National Bank. In addition, he instructed Chernoff to move all the Colts’ property from Owings Mills, Maryland, to Indianapolis immediately. In turn Mayor Hudnut called his neighbor and friend, John B. Smith who was the chief executive officer of Mayflower Transit, an Indiana-based moving company, and Hudnut asked him for assistance.

That evening, Chernoff flew to Baltimore with an agent of Mayflower Transit to coordinate the move. Twenty-two Mayflower trucks along with Mayflower personnel arrived and they worked through the night of March 28-29 at the Colts’ Maryland training complex, loading most of the team’s physical possessions – including both office and athletic equipment. The obvious motivation for the overnight move was the realization that the following business day, the Maryland House of Delegates would also approve the eminent domain bill which if signed by the Maryland Governor, would result in Irsay losing ownership of his NFL franchise.

 

By 10:00 AM on the 29th the Colts franchise was completely gone from Baltimore.

 

That day the Maryland House of Delegates did indeed pass the Eminent Domain bill by a vote of 103-19 and the legislation taking control of the Colts was then sent to Maryland Governor Harry Hughes who signed it immediately.

 

Departing Maryland, each of the Mayflower trucks took a slightly different route on the way to Indianapolis in order to confuse the Maryland State Police, who could’ve been called on to put a stop to the move. Once each van was at the Indiana state line, it was met by Indiana State Police, who escorted each van to the Colts new home in Indianapolis.MAYFLOWER

Later that day the City of Baltimore officially served a letter upon the Colts at the team’s corporate headquarters in Skokie, Illinois, offering to purchase the team for $40 million. The offer, which terminated at noon the next day, was not responded to. That evening Baltimore’s Mayor Schaefer, appeared on the front page of the Baltimore Sun in tears.

 

After the Colts left and in spite of his earlier stance that the city of Baltimore would not build a new stadium,[6] the politician immediately prioritized the building of a brand new stadium. Putting it at the top of his legislative agenda.[7] On March 30th the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore enacted Emergency Ordinance No. 32, and immediately filed a condemnation petition in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, attempting to acquire the Colts by eminent domain. Something the United States District Court would later rule was illegal. Later John Moag, Jr., chairman of the Maryland Stadium Authority, stated in sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate subcommittee responsible for the Fan Freedom and Community Protection Act:

 

“It was the failure of our local (Baltimore) and state elected officials in Maryland to provide the Colts with a firm proposal for a new stadium that led Mr. Irsay to accept an offer from Indianapolis to play in a new dome in that city.”

 

Indianapolis Mayor Hudnut held a press conference March 29 to announce an agreement had been reached and the team was on its way to Indianapolis. The deal was sealed March 30th with approval by the Capital Improvement Board, which operated the Hoosier Dome. Two days later, 20,000 new Colts fans cheered as Mayor Hudnut proclaimed March 29, 1984……”one of the greatest days in the history of this city.”

 

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments Comments Off