MOTION DENIED

Pierce County Superior Court Judge Vicki Hogan presiding July 10, 2009 at 10:25:

TRIAL TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 13TH.

Judge Hogan denying motion on both sides instructs attorneys to file any further motions by July 20. Need to cut off motions 2-3 weeks before trial to allow time to respond. Need to pick jury and assemble jury instructions by August 4th. Attorneys need to check with court August 6th or 7th for final date set for trial.

MOTIONS DENIED.

Bad news for the Town of Ruston. Legislating their largest taxpayer out of business with a targeted tax increase will not be looked on kindly by the court. This was always a private lawsuit filed using the resources of the Town. Remember we don't like your sign!!! Boomerang big time on the Town of Ruston but for for those looking to put the Town out of existence by annexation or bankruptcy another victory.

Final act judge signs order denying both motions.

It started smoothly. In attendance the Fabres, myself and Dan Albertson plus Ruston Town Attorney David Britton and Attorney for the plaintiff, POINT DEFIANCE CAFE AND CASINO, Joan Mell.

After a long back and forth on the validity of the Ruston Ordinance 1253 increasing the gambling tax from a floating four percent to twelve percent targeted at the Casino.

Basically, the Town's position was that the courts had no jurisdiction in the matter based on the Separation of Powers doctrine. The plaintiff attorney argued that the Supreme Court was not court of original jurisdiction and as this was a challenge to voting requirements, document is not an issue.

Summary as best I can do:

David Britton, Ruston Town Attorney, first to argue. This is a motion for Summary Judgment dismissing all claims. Issue is whether Ruston Town Council Ordinance is valid. Very narrow issue on a quasi administrative procedure. Plaintiff argues that the Town Council violated the law. The Supreme Court defined Separation of Powers doctrine. Proper interpretation does not allow court to second guess correct number of votes or pass fail. Separation of Powers doctrine does apply here, no difference than case I cited, exactly analogous. Ruston Town Council has its own internal rules giving it express authority.

Joan Mell, Attorney for the plaintiff Point Defiance Cafe and Casino: Supreme Court not court of original jurisdiction. This is a challenge to voting requirements, document does not apply. We are asking court to review and for Summary Judgment to void Ordinance as implementation provisions did not follow rules. The Ordinance is suspect in several ways as defendant was not allowed to testify. Town of Ruston asking for precedence in legal theory challenging the court.

David response: Apply separation of Powers doctrine. Actions of Ruston Town Council immaterial. I know their problem (referring to plaintiffs). Same arguments as previous motions and no new evidence. Procedural and process violations do not apply. Separation of Powers doctrine has been applied. Powers specifically mandated by legislature ...

Judge Hogan interrupts: That is not what Plaintiff attorney is arguing.

David Britton reading from a case law book cites Spokane case based on charter. Citizens of Ruston were told, entitled to deference. Fabres not citizens of Ruston.

Joan Mell court is being asked to second guess Supreme Court, addressing failed laws, no parliamentary rules.

David Britton tries to introduce new motion. No way to file new motion?

Judge Hogan NO. We need to pick jury. Cutoff is two to three weeks before trial on August 13th. Advance notice of new motion is required. Must be filed by July 20th to allow time for response.

Note: Panic time !!!

-30-