Monday, March 13, 2006

How Much Does Mike Whalen Love Gambling?....A LOT

So much so that he went to the Iowa Supreme Court three times in to try to collect on revenues he thought he was entitled to that were generated by a riverboat casino - the first in Davenport - in which he was part owner.

An astute reader dug up this information on Whalen's economic opportunity. I wonder how long it will be before we see one of these for FEC v. Whalen:

------------------------------------------

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 218 / 98-2070

Filed December 20, 2000

MICHAEL L. WHALEN,
Appellant,

vs.

JOHN E. CONNELLY, J. EDWARD CONNELLY ASSOCIATES, INC., Successor to DELLA III, INC., PRESIDENT CASINOS, INC., and PRC-IOWA, INC.,Appellees.

_________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, James E. Kelley, Judge.

Appeal from order granting summary judgment on issue of conversion in favor of the defendants. Cross-appeal from order granting summary judgment on issue of malicious prosecution in favor of the plaintiff. REVERSED ON APPEAL AND REMANDED; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.

Mark McCormick of Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach Flynn, P.L.C., Des Moines, and Martha L. Shaff and Jean Dickson Feeney of Betty, Neuman & McMahon, Davenport, for appellant.

R. Richard Bittner and Jeffrey S. Bittner of Carlin, Hellstrom & Bittner, Davenport, and Lawrence C. Friedman and Fernando Bermudez of Thompson Coburn L.L.P., St. Louis, Missouri, for appellees.

Considered en banc.

SNELL, Justice.

This is the third time these parties have been to the Iowa Supreme Court. This appeal involves enforcing the judgment from the first decision made by this court. Whalen v. Connelly, 545 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 1996) (Whalen I). The judgment of the district court on the appeal is reversed. The judgment of the district court on the cross-appeal is affirmed.

I. Factual Background and Proceedings

Whalen I involved a dispute over how much Michael L. Whalen should be paid for his share of the riverboat gambling partnership with the defendants, collectively referred to as The Connelly Group, L.P. (TCG). Id. at 290–92. The district court held in a declaratory judgment that Whalen was entitled only to what TCG had originally offered to tender to him in 1993—$61,531.45 and 55,904 shares of stock. Id. at 292. Whalen appealed the judgment to our court arguing he was entitled to a more favorable buyout under the partnership agreement. We affirmed the declaratory judgment on March 20, 1996. Id. at 292, 296.

While the appeal was pending, Whalen sought the money and shares from TCG. In a letter of demand, Whalen informed TCG no appeal was pending. TCG knew this to be incorrect because it had already received notice of the appeal. TCG refused to surrender the money and stock because of the pendency of the appeal. Whalen’s appeal to this court in Whalen I was unsuccessful. By the time Whalen’s stock was delivered to him in May 1996, it had depreciated substantially. For this reason, Whalen filed the present and third appeal, which we will refer to as Whalen III, claiming a division of TCG illegally converted his property under the Iowa tender law, Iowa Code chapter 538, by keeping it until the appeal was resolved.

In the interest of providing a complete background we mention Whalen’s second appeal briefly. Whalen v. Connelly, 593 N.W.2d 147 (Iowa 1999) (Whalen II). This was a derivative claim. Whalen was again unsuccessful. Whalen II has no relation to the present facts or suit.

Whalen III revolves around Whalen’s assertion that John E. Connelly and J. Edward Connelly Associates, Incorporated (Connelly), a division of TCG, committed the tort of conversion by refusing to deliver the judicially determined buyout to Whalen pending his appeal in Whalen I. Connelly filed a counterclaim which charged Whalen with malicious prosecution for his suit in Whalen I. This appeal involves Whalen as the Appellant/Cross-Appellee and Connelly as the Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

-------------------------------------

Usually conservatives seem to oppose the spread of gambling, but not Mike Whalen...he started the spread of it here in Eastern Iowa. Then again, time and time again we see that Mike Whalen just isn't your usual conservative. How long are Republicans going to let this guy run under their banner?

22 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is amazing.

He can't remember how much, or when, he gave to Dave Nagle, the Democratic party, or Ross Perot.

But by golly, screw him out of his gaming revenues and he's gonna haul your ass into court. Not once, but THREE times!

I wonder what he thinks about TouchPlay machines being on every single street corner. Oh wait, no I don't. I don't really care what he thinks.

The next thing we'll find out is that he owns a couple of strip clubs and a "waste hauling" business. I never knew Kennedy and Dix were running against Tony Soprano.

4:57 PM, March 13, 2006  
Anonymous Paulie said...

Hey! Don't disrespect da' bing....

This Mike Whalen character seems like a real wiseguy. And I don't mean that in made-guy in the family sorta way neither. More like a Fredo type me thinks.

This fella would'nt last a second back in Jersey. We knows how to handle stoolpidgeons and RINOS. Seriously, this guy wants a piece of the dice action? Well then he's got to pay the family.

Whalen, just wait till the boys down at the local 238th finds out that yous is move'n in on our turf.

Mikey run'n for Congress?

FOGEDDABOUTIT!!!

6:21 PM, March 13, 2006  
Anonymous Chris Moneymaker said...

I wonder if there are Touchplay machines at the Machine Shed?

6:42 PM, March 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's what hacks me off about Whalen. First, to listen to him you'd think he was the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. Second, to hear him, you'd think he's been pushing Iowa Ag for thirty years. Third, to read his story is to think he's a good Iowa corporate citizen who has scrapped together a successful business.

WRONG.

He gave money to Dave Nagle. To the Iowa Democratic Party. He wants to raise social security taxes. He does nothing more for Iowa ag than slap some pork chops on the table. And he has built this business, which is headquartered in Illinois, by using money he made in the gaming industry.

He's an arrogant ego driven fraud.

10:17 PM, March 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Casino case: Court rules in favor of hotelier

Kauffman Clark Register Staff Writer DM

Mike Whalen wins his lawsuit against John Connelly and the President Riverboat Casino, but the legal battle continues. By CLARK KAUFFMAN REGISTER STAFF WRITER

After seven years of legal wrangling and three trips to the Iowa Supreme Court, a battle between two of Iowa's riverboat gambling pioneers continues to escalate. The court ruled Wednesday in favor of Davenport businessman Mike Whalen in his million-dollar lawsuit against John Connelly and the President Riverboat Casino. The court also ruled in Whalen's favor on a counterclaim filed by Connelly against Whalen. Whalen said Wednesday he was pleased with the court's ruling, but attorneys for Connelly said the long-running dispute will go on. "We're disappointed, but we intend to petition the Supreme Court for a rehearing," said Jeffrey S. Bittner, an attorney for Connelly.

Whalen, who owns several hotels and restaurants in Iowa, is credited with introducing Connelly, a Pittsburgh hotel owner, to the concept of riverboat gambling. In the late 1980s, Whalen brought Connelly to Davenport, where the two eventually won approval to open the President Riverboat Casino, one of the nation's first gambling boats. Whalen put up $5,000 for a 5 percent share of the business and worked on the project throughout 1989 and part of 1990, court documents say. The relationship between the two men soured within a few years of the casino's 1991 opening. Whalen sued Connelly and President Casinos Inc. in 1993, arguing that his stake in the company had been diluted through various financial maneuvers. A Scott County district judge ruled in 1994 that Whalen was entitled to shares worth $1.4 million, not the $7 million to $17 million that he had claimed. Two months later, Whalen asked Connelly for the shares the court said he was owed. Connelly refused, citing a pending appeal filed by Whalen, but in May 1996 the company agreed to surrender the stock. During the intervening 17 months, however, the value of the company had plummeted. Shares that sold for $9.50 in January 1995 were selling for $2.37 in April 1996. Whalen had been given what he later described as a "melting ice cube." Whalen took Connelly back to court, demanding that he be paid the 1995 value of the shares. Connelly then sued Whalen for malicious prosecution over the original lawsuit. Both parties had their cases dismissed at the district court level, and both appealed. The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the district court was right to dismiss Connelly's claim of malicious prosecution, but wrong to dismiss Whalen's claim on the value of the shares. The court said the case should be sent back to district court for a determination of Whalen's financial losses. If the Supreme Court denies Connelly's petition for a rehearing, Whalen could stand to collect as much as $1.2 million, plus interest. In a $58 million deal announced earlier this year, President Casinos sold its Davenport gambling operation to Isle of Capri Casinos, a company that runs a casino riverboat in neighboring Bettendorf.

10:21 PM, March 13, 2006  
Anonymous Michael Corleone said...

Mike "Fredo" Whalen....

YOU BROKE MY HEART!

9:43 AM, March 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

is there a revolving door we can trap this guy in?

10:54 AM, March 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, where are all the Whalen bloggers? Have they given up?

11:07 AM, March 14, 2006  
Anonymous Don Vito Corleone said...

Whalen bloggers? Don't you mean Brian Dumas bloggers? It is afterall he that we actually hear from on that campaign.

6:18 AM, March 15, 2006  
Blogger Maverick said...

So is the Whalen campaign really just a shadow campaign for Dumas?

LOL. He's off to a bad start.

7:23 AM, March 15, 2006  
Anonymous Merlin said...

word...

7:59 PM, March 15, 2006  
Anonymous RINO hunter said...

Ok, Mike Wahlen is a fraud and a RINO. We got it.

The real burning question is how much does Bill Dix love gambling?

1. How much money has Dix taking from gambling interests over the years?

2. How many times was Dix and his approps committee briefed by the lottery board about touchplay?

3. How did Dix vote on approving touchplay?

4. How has Dix voted over the years to expand the size and reach of gambling in Iowa?

5. Why now is he appalled at touchplay? Hypocricy anyone?

11:40 AM, March 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rino Hunter

I'm sure these questions will go unanswered as long as the question about Dix's goofy immigration bill and the reason he missed 25 votes last week while he was schmoozing in Washington.

He must have been measuring curtains for his office...

12:42 PM, March 16, 2006  
Anonymous William Richards said...

Come on Scoop, we are counting on you to dig up some answers for us.

Lord knows Dix won't ever say.

1:10 PM, March 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

William Richards... I get it now, William Richards=Bill Dix.

Funny

6:57 AM, March 17, 2006  
Blogger DixHead said...

Yeah, funny

9:12 AM, March 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very nice! I found a place where you can
make some nice extra cash secret shopping. Just go to the site below
and put in your zip to see what's available in your area.
I made over $900 last month having fun!

click here to make extra money

7:20 PM, March 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scoop,

What the hell? Whalen spammers trying to slow your blog down?

Mike should be the "mystery candidate".

10:42 AM, March 20, 2006  
Anonymous RINO Hunter said...

yeah, don't click on that link because Whalen will just want a percentage of the proceeds like his riverboat casino.

4:51 PM, March 20, 2006  
Anonymous Yoda said...

Fooled by the Blue force link Yoda was.

7:46 AM, March 31, 2006  
Blogger Zy said...

The politicians need to come to the realization that gambling can no longer be monopolized by governments and special interest groups. People should have the right to gamble in the comfort of their own homes over the Internet or in a land-based casino.

8:59 AM, December 25, 2007  
Blogger Juli GS said...

it is really awesome to discover your site on the web as it really those ones who are just starting to explore the topic http://pokerreviewsguru.com

8:55 AM, April 16, 2013  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home