Sorry that I could not be there in support of our mayor! Good Job folks,,,

wow, 20 people out of a city of nearly 10,000 residents. I'm so impressed. Best to bring in some union thugs from Pacific to swell the crowd, to perhaps 30 idiots.

20 is more than the *1* village idiot millionaire too cheap to drive to Chesterfield to buy his discount boner pills and Camaro enthusiast magazines and wants his fellow shoppers to pay for the $12 million TIF/payout to Sansone for replacing one eyesore for another.

Mr. Cahill, I live in your district and I am bringing my interest group to vote against you.
I have several questions:
1) Did Mayor Paul tape confidential conversations?
2) If there is enough evidence to suggest he did, then will the 20 protesters agree with the outcome of the investigation?
3) If conversations were recorded, what people listened to them? For what purpose were the conversations used? (see President Nixon)
4) Does the anti-Wal-Mart crowd believe these charges are serious? If not, why?

I do not need to hear back from Moe, Curly and Shemp (you know who you are) today, I already know...

"you can't handle the truth"
Col Nathan Jessup

Where can I get one of those cool signs?

And where can I get one of those Mayor Paul endorsed Monster energy drink Thermos containers, like the one he allegedly used to hold some unspecified liquid refreshment according to Kevin Bookout, who is certain it contained alcohol. Apparently he is so familiar with Vodka, that he can identify it just from looking at the container. Maybe Mr. Bookout was smelling his own breath and was so drunk, that he confused himself for the Mayor. Blaming others is a common tactic for the habitual underperformer, and not a character trait desirable in wither civil or civic service.

Caffie (Shemp),
Very impressive response...an "A" for effort. You stayed focused.
1) Where is the proof that he did not tape conversations? I do not have that info. I assume, that you get to be lawyer, judge and jury? Then how did you get that power?
2) So, if he did tape the conversations (if proven) then who also listened to those tapes? And should not an inquiry take place?
3) Excuse me! If Mr. Mayor taped private conversations, in the council meetings, you do not believe that charge is impeachable?
4) Wal-Mart is not getting the TIF, it is the Sansone group. You should really read the proposal to the city. And remember, people who do not own property, do not have a say, over said property. Every property owner has agreed to sell their property to the Sansone group. Renters do not own property, what is it that you do not understand about that concept? (see John Locke, life, liberty and private property)

Shemp
1) And where is the evidence on his taping an authorized conversation? Who did Mr Mayor have a taped conversation with? Do you have that evidence? Has that been reported or do you have some inside baseball info?
2) Confused hardly. If you have the evidence that the mayor did not do what he is accused of, then you seem to be the one that gets to make the final decision on the case. You see, I am from the "show me" state and until I see the evidence, then I can hardly make a decision regarding the case against Mr. Mayor.
3) I said, if proven, and then the questions is....who also listened to the conversations, maybe you? (I think you happen to be the mayor)

4) You happen to be losing the argument, stayed focused. If in fact, it is proven that the taped conversation was illegal, will you agree with the final outcome? It seems you want to wish the charges away, why is that?
5) Wal-Mart is not getting the TIF and I am not splitting hairs. Please read the proposal to the city. Boy, this statement (splitting hairs) is a common thread with you and Elizabeth.
Here is your statement from an above post:
"I have no problem with Wal-Mart paying their way and going in to an existing commercial zone instead of taking TIFs and displacing residents and businesses."

You state that people are being displaced.
The only people being displaced are the non-property owners and property owners that have agreed to sell THEIR property. Let your personal attacks begin.

Yes. Where is all this evidence?

Why can't the Mayor's attorneys get blank subpoenas from the City, take depositions, obtain exculpatory evidence and prepare for this hearing as they should be allowed to do on behalf of their client?

Shemp, I see Moe has joined,
1) Please explain how the city is embarrassed? I’m not embarrassed. But you have agreed, that Mr Mayor has, indeed, taped conversations. So, what were these taped conversation used for? What is on the tapes? Do you not want to know the truth, even if it hurts?
2) Wal-Mart is not receiving the TIF. Wal-Mart is being enriched, well yea, America is a capitalist society and you won't enrich them if you do not shop there. But, Rockwood schools will also be enriched by the increased sales tax collection; as will the fire department; street department, St Louis County, ect. Remember, it is for the children.

3)Yes, I just took a little trip and I passed the empty Best Buy building, the empty building that connects to the Shop and Save building, the empty Gordman’s, the empty Long John Silver’s, the empty restaurant building, the empty corner of Clarkson and Manchester, the empty lot by the Ford dealer. So, now you’re changing the argument to “we have a plethora of existing big-box….” I thought you were not anti Wal-Mart?
4) The animal and veterinarian agreed to sell their property, as did the auto repair company, as did the owners of the apartment complex. Why have we not heard from any of the legal owners of the land? Are they against developing the site? They agreed to sell their property. Renters do not have any property rights.
5) Remember, the truth eventually comes out and I will accept the findings, will you?

K Huggard,

Nixon was re-elected by one of the largest majorities ever, in 1972. He would have been impeached because he taped people without their knowledge.

Please stop feeding the trolls.

Nixon was on his way to being impeached because there was factual, corroborated, actual *evidence* of his wrongdoings and the charges were brought before an impartial special prosecutor.

There are no similarities between Nixon and Mayor Paul, as you imply, Mr. Kerr.

Moe, Curly and Shemp,
It did not take long for you two to get personal. I did not make a connection between Mr. Mayor and President Nixon. President Nixon taped private conversations in the White House and the tapes were subpoenaed by the courts. Nixon balked, but in the end the tapes were made public. Some tapes were erased by the White House. You see, it was the cover-up that cost Nixon in the end.
Please answer:
1) Shemp agrees that the mayor taped conversations (see his post above). If that is so, then are you concerned about that?
The charge against Mr Mayor is that he taped private conversations in council meetings.
2) If the charges are found to be true, will you accept the consequences of that action?
3) You see, Shemp argues, that the taping is not an issue for him, what about you, Moe?
4) Do you allow your private conversations to be taped? And if so why?
5) The property owners have agreed to sell THEIR property. Renters do not have property rights.
6) As a matter of fact, I do not think you even live in Ellisville.

I read books, not websites.

You see Moe; I will debate you anywhere, anytime. Your arguments are weak and lack depth. When one loses the ability to argue logically, they usually resort to personal attacks. And your degree is from where and in what discipline? You are more than welcome to come to my classes anytime, but of course, you will need to pay for them.

Mike K
I was in a family business for 20 years and currently involved with a business.

It's a forgone conclusion Mayor Paul will be found "guilty" on March 27th by a group of people who are judge, jury and executioner using a process that doesn't guarantee "due process" as they have already conferred with the one attorney who is presenting the charges and the other who is acting as "hearing officer" AND legal counsel to the City Council.

I understand from the most recent interview with Chet Pleban that the Mayor and his legal team have not been able to get blank subpoenas, begin depositions, view documents or begin assembling exculpatory evidence or testimony because of a rigged process.

This hearing will be nothing more than political Kabuki theater.

Virtually no one will accept this decision.

Caff,

Are you Moe or Shemp? I want to be Curly.

Which one of us is Larry?

Nyuk,nyuk.nyuk.

Please let it be known, that I was making the comparison between Mayor Paul and JFK who are and were both loved by the vast majority.

Ms Schmidt,
I do not know that at all. The question is: is there evidence that warrants the charges against the mayor and since I am not privy to the evidence, which I assume will be made public eventually, how can I make a judgement on the issue. I have nothing against the mayor and I am sure he is fine person. I agree with you that he should get his day in court and have the evidence be presented, so a decision can be rendered. The mayor has a fine counselor and I am sure he will present a good case in favor for the mayor...it is hardly a kangaroo court. If it is rigged, then a lawsuit, I assume, can brought against the city and if it is discovered that a cover-up was perpetrated, the city will pay dearly. But, I will accept the outcome, based on the evidence. "Facts are stubborn things" John Adams defending the British soldiers at the Boston Massacre trial. (By the way, the British soldiers received a fair trial, in Boston)

"How do you shoot golf, without guns" Curly "Oh A wise guy" Moe

Moe,
Yes, it was the cover-up, and tapes that proved to be fatal to Mr Nixon, dear. Please google (I read books), Nixon and the "Saturday night massacre." But, again, we are not talking about Nixon, anyway. By the way, you are Moe. Caffie is Shemp, Mike is Larry.

Obviously the event was put 2gether by his little college home wrecker. @Khuggard howd u feel if u were his wife? Ur not even tryin 2 hide it. It's a sin u should be ashamed.

**sigh.
@runningscared
Look i don't know who you are... All i can offer right now is reasonable suspicion. But if you are who I think you are, well people who live in houses that park their cars on the lawn and steal our internet, should not throw stones. I'm not surprised you jumped on the pro Walmart wagon, as a product of poor parenting you were never taught that appearance is everything... In general it is best not to buy your clothes where you buy your groceries. High school was 6 years ago, its time to let go of old grudges. If you would like to talk about it sweetheart, we can meet in the middle of the street as I refuse to wander into that lord of the flies cesspool you call a home. (If you are not my neighbor, the insults still apply, direct them toward yourself)

I have bigger fish to fry than to worry about someone obsessed with making up a sex scandal, so I'll fall on that knife for you, as long as you leave Adam alone. All of this is COMPLETELY FALSE.*
Being compared to Marilyn Monroe is hardly insulting... She was beautiful... So thank you? I hope that means you'll treat Mrs. Paul with the same respect that you would Jackie Kennedy. If I were his wife I would be really angry that people are still trying to find ways to hurt my husband. I wasn't trying to hide anything since nothing existed and as far as sin goes, that seems hypocritical to even mention.
Do what you need to to entertain yourself just don't hurt him or his family anymore.

PS. @runningscared and other annoying ellisville residents.... I'm pretty booked through the rest of March but I am gearing up for April Fools Day like its nobody's business... You have been warned

Good Readers of the Patch,

If you are sick and tired of the disgusting turn this campaign against Mayor Paul has taken, please contribute to his legal fund at:

Pleban & Petruska Law, L.L.C.
2010 S. Big Bend Blvd
St. Louis MO 63117

memo line: Adam Paul Defense

...and vote Tuesday, April 2nd...

I'm not sure I understand all of this. What is/was the point of the Charter Review Commission? Did this "panel" review the allegations against Adam Paul at some point and decide to go forward with a recommendation for impeachment? The initial complaint from Katie James alleged Mayor Paul violated the charter. That complaint was then reviewed by the three member commission and dismissed by the full council. On the heels of that dismissal, several more allegations were made that Mayor Paul violated the charter and, because of these new charges, should be impeached. I guess this is where I'm getting confused. Why is the same review process not being followed?

Conference Call on Mayor Paul’s Impeachment Monday, March 18th, City Hall at 3:00 PM

Mayor Paul’s attorneys, Chet Pleban and Lynette Petruska, will have a conference call with other attorneys involved in the upcoming Impeachment/Removal Hearing.
The other attorneys do not want to meet face to face or in front of the public to discuss why they have not allowed the Mayor’s legal team to obtain blank subpoenas, take depositions, view documents or obtain exculpatory evidence which may clear the Mayor of the charges/allegations at his hearing scheduled for March 27, 6:00 PM, at Ellisville Elementary School.

The attorneys want to hide in their offices away from the crowd rather than appear in person in Ellisville on Monday for this important meeting.

Please attend to listen to the conference call so you can understand just how rigged the process is in favor the City Council who brought the charges and will act as judge, jury and executioner.

There will be press there so you can voice your dissatisfaction with the process which is looking more like a Kangaroo Court by the minute.

The charter provides an option for the City Council to originate and proceed without the process outlined in the municipal code, Since the charter is the governing document of the city, that process in section 3.6 likely supercedes the one found in the municipal code.

Today (Monday) at 3:00 PM some of the issues may get clarified. Since we are 10 days out from the hearing, it will be interesting to hear if and when the City ever plans to issue blank subpoenas to the Mayor's legal team can begin preparing to defend their client.

Why is the City not giving them the standard legal tools to begin preparing?

Who is paying for all of this? There are two additional lawyers and their firms involved billing hours on this "case."

Are they taxpayers of Ellisville paying for this? Is the City's legal liability insurance paying for this? (Of course the taxpayers pay that premium too.)

Some other "donor" or "contributor?"

I think any optional process for forfeiture would have to be outlined in the charter. There is no option for the City Council to bypass the Municipal Code with respect to an elected official violating the charter. That would be like making the rules up as you play the game. The resolution charges the mayor with charter violations. There is a process for reviewing those violations. What's the point of due process then if it's just ignored? I guess we'll find out.

More TIF ??? - Important Meeting Tonight at 6:30 PM on RPA-2

March 18, 2013 Eco. Dev. Comm. Meeting

6:30 p.m. Economic Development Commission convenes at Ellisville City Hall

I. Call to Order

II. Pledge of Allegiance

III. Roll Call

IV. Approval of Agenda

V. Discussion and recommendation regarding submittals to the Request For Proposals for RPA-2 at the southwest corner of the intersection of Kiefer Creek and Manchester Roads.

VI. Adjournment

It's clear they don't want your stinkin' input, but the press does and they are camped out at City Hall.

Hope you can make it at 6:30 PM for the "Big Reveal."

E. Just called and left a message for you apologizing for being rude and not really making conversation at today's meeting... A very confused woman called back. Guess I no longer have your number... Whooops! Sorry!

I may come, Dan had to go back to work so I won't have anyone to hide behind, so I'm unsure right now

So, any disclosure of any of the "public" RFPs they received by Friday?
What was the "discussion" about? Whether they were going to saddle the shoppers of RPA2 with the same 10% sales tax rate (regular + TIF) as the Wal-Mart next door to pay another $12 million to the Sansones, or whether they were going to put a "premium" on it with a 12% sales tax rate (regular + TIF) and pay out $15 million to the Sansones so Walmart can still undercut their neighbors' prices?

The City only received one proposal. It was from Sansone.

(Big surprise...since we already knew Sansone had plans drawn up for RPA-2 since last year.)

The project costs total around 30 Million dollars and Sansone is asking for about 10 Million in "incentives." TIF, CID, TDD, Tax Abatement, the Kitchen Sink...?...Etc..

No details were given to those attending. Not even one lousy handout of the meeting agenda, the site plan, pro-forma numbers.

The Economic Development Commission meeting agenda was posted on the inside bulletin board at City Hall rather than the glass case in the vestibule. No one even knows if there was proper 24 hour notice to the public since we saw no Notice of Public Meeting also posted with a time and date of posting.

Kudos to Andy Banker and Fox 2 News who hung in there and covered the meeting. He and his crew hung around Ellisville from before the 3:00 PM legal conference call to the bitter end doing a "Live" report in the dark across the street from RPA-2 for the 9 PM news. That's dedication.

From the Post-Dispatch article

>>>Martin decided to bring in an outside prosecutor. He chose Keith Cheung, a principal in Paul’s former law firm: Curtis, Heinz, Garrett and O’Keefe.

Martin said he chose Cheung only because his former colleague is an “excellent prosecutor.”<<<

This is how "excellent" Keith Cheung is...See below...

From the STL Today article:
“I’m the lawyer,” Martin said. “I do what my client instructs me to do.”

That's not what I heard during the City Council meeting held to consider an amended resolution to remove Mayor Paul. I distinctly heard Mr. Martin directly addressing City Clerk Demeter and instructing her to write removals from the amended resolution, striking the additions he proposed ("upon information and belief") and existing charges he proposed and was recommended by external counsel in discussions that he clearly stated included the lawyer hired to act as an impartial judge in presiding over the hearing.

Anyone record that council meeting to clarify who said what and if Robert's Rules of Order were even followed?

And where is Michelle Murray in all of this? I mean, after all this is *her* resolution, that *she* personally, introduced. I don't think that the City Attorney or anyone other than a Council member can introduce resolutions, correct? Wouldn't that be a clear overstepping of the Charter definitions of the authorized activity of the City Attorney?

Anyone care to bring a Charter Commission violation to the Council regarding Council-member-wannabe Martin's disregard for the Council's properly vested authority to introduce legislation (resolutions and ordinances) to the Council?