WEEK TV reported at 5:00 that the City and the theoretical old/new (maybe) owner of the Grandview Hotel, Kris Jain, went to Court today to see if the Judge's earlier order to close the Hotel for 30 days (60 days suspended) was followed.
It wasn't. If you require a refresher in this bizarre drama, be reminded that Chase Ingersoll claims he purchased the hotel one day after the Judge issued his ruling to close the problematic, crime ridden property.
In order to give legitimate residents time to find new living quarters, the Judge order the Hotel closed by November 11th. The 11th came and went. The City did nothing. In all fairness, it was Veterans Day, Courts were closed. Monday rolls around. Nothing. More guests register at the Hotel. Life and business goes on as usual. The City seems not to mind. Same with Tuesday and Wednesday. Ah, but TODAY the hot shot legal team goes to Court, but only because the Judge scheduled this date, a status review, at the same time he issued his original order to close the place down. Nice of you guys to make it.
Now, those of you who didn't go to law school (or fail to watch Boston Legal) may not be familiar with a handy motion known as "Rule to Show Cause." Any attorney who occasionally stayed awake during Civil Procedure class should be familiar with it. When a Judge's order is not followed, the injured party (The City) can waltz into Court and demand to know why the delinquent party (The Hotel) has not come into compliance. Rarely, a Judge's order is not obeyed for a good reason. If the Hotel was the only structure left standing after a major earthquake, for instance. Otherwise, the offending Party is typically held in contempt and the Judge can order the Sheriff will to put people and their possessions to the curb before locking the doors and wrapping the building in barbed wire to enforce the Order. (Greater legal minds might disagree with Polly. Some would say a new owner would be enough for the Judge to re-think his original order.) Oddly, the Judge can't do anything to remedy the situation until the City files a Rule to Show Cause Motion. The Judge might know his order is being ignored, but until the injured party files a motion, his hands are tied. (Quirky, eh?) Today the Judge ordered the Hotel be closed for the full 90 days instead of just 30. Judges don't like to be ignored. So will the Hotel close? Nope. Why? BECAUSE CITY ATTORNEYS STILL HAVE NOT FILED A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE MOTION.
Randy Ray should have filed one Monday, at the latest. That he didn't have one ready to go at today's proceedings is pathetic to say the least. Clearly this case is not a priority for the City. Uh, does anyone know of one that is?
Kris Jain, the former/new (maybe) hotel owner believes the sale between he and Ingersoll is void. According to WEEK, Chase hasn't made a mortgage payment. Apparently Jain is one guest who won't be living at the Grandview Hotel any more. The Judge tossed Jain's temporary restraining order, which previously kept Ingersoll from evicting him from the property. The Judge did this because he can't uphold a Temporary Restraining Order (which would essentially uphold Jain's room lease), on a property that he has CLOSED.
If all of this is too boring for you, just remember, there is sex and drugs involved. Ingersoll alleges Jain demanded sex in lieu of rent money from some guests. Ingersoll also says that Jain illegally taped some of those sex acts. Employees at the Hotel have said that Jain was very aware of the drug activity on the property, he simply demanded a cut of the profits.
Anyone care to place a wager when and/or if Randy Ray will ever file a Motion to Show Cause? It has probably dawned on the neighborhood by now that The City of Peoria V. Jain/Ingersoll/Grandview Hotel could be litigated for years and years. A sound strategy considering the pathetic performance of the City's legal team.
P.S. Chase, how about the following for a new name?
Just a suggestion.
4 comments:
This has likely been written about a few times, but could someone please tell me if the Kris Jain sex tape thing has ever been in the Journal Star? From my understanding, it has not... if that's so... why?
In journalistic circles there is a rule that you should have more than one source for an assertion.
I haven't written about the sex tapes in the Peoria Times-Observer either.
I won't until I have more than one man's word they exist.
The cops won't talk about what they have because the case is under investigation.
If the cops want to tell me about them I'll print it.
If they talk about them in court during a legal proceeding I'll write about it.
But, it's going to take more than one man's claim they exist to print that story.
It is just good journalistic practice to hold off.
Come on, Dewayne... since WHEN did a moral compass ever stop a good journalist, huh?
I felt okay about writing about the "sex tapes" after watching WEEKs TV coverage. In WEEKs "Peyton Place" report, two women who work at the hotel had seen them and one was supposedly in them, making Ingersoll's accusations "write worthy." The word "alleged " was created for instances like this - when there is more than just rumor but not absolute proof.
Until the Judge's latest decision, the JP Star seems to have stopped reporting about the Grandview at all. Not only was the "sex, lies, and video tape" angle ignored, but I don't remember any article written when the Hotel remained open on the 11th despite the Court Order.
I think the guys at 1 news plaza got bored.
Post a Comment