TACK OR TACKY TIME

in Ruston. It will be interesting to see which way the Ruston Town Council tacks on June 7 Monday regular council meeting. In the judge's decision just released the Town attorney and the council were unable to determine what a majority of the council is under their own rules and procedures.

Jim Hedrick did vote no seeking more time for discussion and public comment but they could not be saved from themselves.

Doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Either they were oblivious to the facts or this was a deliberate action? They do not know what they are doing or this was a malicious act? If it was a mistake would they spend two years in court defending it? Spend $100 thousand dollars trying to justify a mistake? You tell me.

Mr. Fabre's card room booking and most of his income lost. forty five people lost their jobs and possibly their homes. The Town of Ruston lost $32 thousand dollars annually in gambling taxes. Make sense yet?

Something tells me the ramifications of this are just beginning.

Bankrupt the Point Defiance Cafe and Casino while simultaneously bankrupting the Town of Ruston. Two for one with Ruston footing all the bills. What was their reasoning? I will try to find out.

They may appeal but it will have to be done during Regular Council meeting and not Executive session.

Judge Frank Cuthbertson's decision here. You may need to click twice to see document image.





-30-

FEDERAL WAY HALVES GAMBLING TAX

article by Steve Maynard, The News Tribune, page A4 Thursday June 3, 2010:

Click here: FEDERAL WAY

CASINO TAX HIKE TOSSED

South Sound The News Tribune page A3 byline Jordan Schrader Wednesday June 2, 2010

click here: CASINO TAX HIKE TOSSED

More to follow. Looks like the Ruston "bedroom community" clique got exactly what they wanted with the Town of Ruston footing the bill.

VOID

In Fabre v Ruston Pierce County Superior Court VOIDED the Ruston Gambling tax increase. No word yet on awarding court costs. Details later.

Point Defiance Cafe and Casino and its employees have been wronged and apparently the Town of Ruston could be in line for further lawsuits before this ends. Maybe years of lawsuits. All this over a sign????

VOID. What a catastrophic outcome for the Town of Ruston which will pay for the willfulness of a small group who wanted their own way: Rule or ruin.

This has a lot further to go!!! Stay tuned.

-30-

RUSTON/FEDERAL WAY - DIFFERENT APPROACH

WORD ON THE STREET - TNT

What a novel idea cut taxes to keep gambling business open and revenue flowing and 85 people employed.

In contrast the Town of Ruston raised gambling taxes 400 percent to raise money for the general fund. Oh yes, the business closed costing them $32 thousand dollars annually in gambling taxes.

One makes sense? The other, ask your council person. Learn anything here Ruston?

click here:
Federal Way panels advances gambling tax cut Posted By Steve Maynard on May 25, 2010.

Lets see. SEATTLE figures out how to collect $5 dollars for a cup of coffee. TACOMA bans gambling but collects gambling tax revenue for three years. Little old FEDERAL WAY lowers gambling tax allows business to stay open, keep people working.

RUSTON just raise taxes through the roof, close them down, throw people out of work, lose tax revenue and batten down the hatches, big storm brewing.
-30-

CASINO v RUSTON -DAY THREE - CLOSING ARGUMENT - DAVID BRITTON

Wednesday May 19, 2010 12:10 pm courtroom 2A Judge Fred Cuthbertson

Please note:
No written or audio recording available. Transcript only on appeal. I have done my best but hard to keep up so post may not contain all testimony/arguments but I believe I have captured major points of interest.

This takes a lot of time be patient. Judge's decision may come before I can finish testimony. Judge very precise on issues both sides. Each side says they have the law on their side but Judge Cuthbertson makes the final determination.

Attorneys:
Joan Mell for plaintiff Steve Fabre. (m)
David Britton for defendant Town of Ruston. (b)

David Britton CLOSING ARGUMENT
Please the court plaintiff letter of claims others without merit. Will not talk about oligarchies. Will address declaratory judgment not entitled to.
1-Legal equable right.
2-Immediate invasion of privacy.
3-Immediate injury.
Even with favorable tax rate losing money continues to operate.
Validity of Ordinance 1253.
Every imaginable theory retaliation not legal authority RCW 94613 gambling enforcement argues exactly opposite of their argument.
Municipal Ordinance presumed to be effective must have overwhelming argument.
Judge-Plaintiff believe burden of proof is.
b-Ordinance was active retaliation fear. Must prove beyond reasonable doubt is unconstitutional.
New argument referred to is ordinance not provided to me. Difficult to respond to. Ask court to disregard in interest of fairness.
Two WA Supreme Court cases:
1-BROWN
2-AMERICAN LEGION POST v WALLA WALLA.
Court whether mayor Everding passed was ministerial or discretionary. Discretionary not subject to review. Language from BROWN holding lies in to facts.
Petitioner claim to respondent not subject to mandamus whether votes legally counted.
What Ruston mayor does: calls for vote, counts votes. signs passed by council. Mayor signs clerk attests. Under BROWN discretionary function.
Judge-Describe function of mayor?
b-That particular section says signs small towns not updated. Lots of cases RCW does not sat a lot exercise police power under 3527.
Council person Hunt testifies not town attorney.
Judge- mayor not parliamentarian?
b- Town attorney is parliamentarian. Town attorney does little unless requested.
Provision called rules of procedure defined by resolution not same force as ordinance.
WA State legislature both houses have parliamentarian.
BROWN no no authority to intercede or second guess.
Judge- switch to- appropriate to invalidate taxing ordinance appealed to Superior Court and ruled invalid.
b-Applicable to Charter cities. First class cities to pass home rule authority.
Cited Seattle, Vancouver supports the within city organic law of state.
No analogous provided by plan has to follow its resolution.
People of Spokane were denied right of referendum.
Argument that city adopts for other cities Division of Appeals rules does not apply not fourth class cities.
Judge- Several holdings improperly enacted ordinance is void. Question really trying to get at argument extends to separation of powers court is concerned about. Sure I have been able to find or ascertain difference between fourth class city like Ruston or Charter Spokane.
b-spokane charter violated own charter.
city charter is law of the state.
This whole case is based on Spokane Charter limited to legal effect of charter prescriptive effect on city council.
Judge-Difficulty for me council can adopt resolution of Rules of Procedure for elected council. Rules of Procedure apply to law enforcement. Police enforce resolution when citizens speak. Nobody has power and isn't law.
b-Legal authority binding on court. Resolution is statement not policy, chose to adopt policy. Has to be fundamental choice council not bind itself.
Citizen in audience pop up silence person or allow to talk not enforce.
Judge-Review opinion on majority can vote.
b-Says two is enough. Problem here if court distinguish serious not serious.
Children's bike ride if wanted to enact ordinance could of done that.
Comes back to deference from judicial branch creating right by third party to pick apart ordinance.
Based on BROWN 165 court has abstained from proceedings, separation of powers court restrained whether requisite number of votes. What court is being asked to do is court play parliamentarian.
Tell our backwards little town how to govern itself.
Judge-Cog in law of intrusion into legislative body court has right to protect individual from oppression by 3 or 5 or whatever. When levy passed when does it take effect? Has right to know.
Hunt amended ordinance. Amendment does not appear in ordinance. Do I have to show license?
b-That amendment applies to prospective gambling establishment, not ambiguous even if improperly codified. Required to have Book of Ordinances. Do have that law.
Judge-Question is not book of ordinances, book of warrants,... If ordinance does what required.
b-Supreme court requires that court understands violation of due process.
Pointing out that all gambling tax no legislation enforce to gambling act enforcement.
Walla Walla has low gambling enforcement costs due to general law enforcement. Entire budget came from general fund not line item. No allegations spent on other items than gambling tax enforcement.
Case law on generally quiet. Reinhold did walk throughs quieted crime hourly walk throughs. Walla Walla number of calls 1985-1987 exactly same worse than Unicorn.
Judge-Let me ask you about that.
American Legion case tax was placed in police budget. In this case went to general fund whereas clauses of ordinance to meet annual budget shortfall.
Not reasonable under 946 that town has sufficient revenue to support town operation in police force.
Went into general fund no line item to police. Not specific to gambling but went to police department.
Only one gambling issue. 619 to alcohol. 495 alcohol less to gambling. Do not have those facts here.
Walla Walla had additional training in gambling and vice.
Can be drawing around parking lot nobody on Pearl street playing dice at midnight.
No evidence of that here at all.
David - Mr. Fabre cheating.
Judge-Extra $9 thousand dollars a month. A pretty penny going to gambling to general fund.
Judge-Where is evidence of $5 thousand dollars going to gambling enforcement to gambling act?
Where in any deliberation of council. Where in recitals is that?
b-Adoption by reference is in our ordinance. Ordinance on its face complied with act. Supreme court that position is untenable general police presence.
Tax is placed in police budget is indisputable. Continuous acts of police deter illegal gambling. Goes into general fund no line item.
Goes into general fund not police budget. Comes from general fund all could be said to go to police.
Judge-What else came out of general fund?
b-All activities except sewer harbor. All except required by statute to be separate.
Judge-Ruston have fire department.
b-Yes volunteer. Police very important to Ruston. Makes Ruston Ruston.
Judge-I think that point is established. Hypothetical either on face of ordinance 1435 during any deliberation to suggest that legislative intent was for purposed described in 946 or to suggest things we could tax.
b-We are allowed to use gambling taxes for above and beyond if not required for gambling enforcement. Do have by reference every chapter is in our reference.
Too far afield in answering forgot part of question asked.
Remind court ordinance presumed valid guidance to lower court.
Respectfully disagree entire case decided on Spokane charter if legal force of charter allows court to step in not general enforcement. Charter separate level than resolution to provide procedures.
Judge-One other question referring back to AMERICAN LEGION case defining primarily no statutory we go to dictionary at first instance.
Random House in Webster first instance no part as substantially tax must be first to enforce gambling act. If five percent required that is all they can tax. Any suggestion tax utilized first of all to enforce gambling act?
b-Unenforceable.
Judge-First of all Supreme Court.
b-Presumption of ordinance validity. Nothing have to prove that tax as to be traceable.
Judge-Law enforcement budget is undefined part of general fund.
b-Probably 30 to 40 percent of budget.

REBUTTAL Joan Mell
m-Ruston did not do basic act to enforce gambling act already had enough money.
Judge-Section K Mr. Britton arguing.
m-Relates to pull tabs, punch cards.
Public has right to know.
Desirable limitations not enforceable when authority by 946 RCW have never been destined for gambling enforcement. Never done that.
Only Ruston can enforce separately have to define. Decision made to refer to gambling commission.
Judge-Chief Reese policy?
m-Her policy when Mr. Fabre requested. She has authority to decline unless Ruston specifies.
Judge-Nobody plays dice in alley shoots when playing pull tabs.
m-Unless council says spend it all under BROWN to understand arbitrary and capricious.
1:15 pm Judge-
Obviously important and difficult case. After lunch go over exhibits render decision quickly.

Comment: This is a tedious undertaking. Hard to keep up with counsels speaking, not slowing down as judge recommend so blog may have gaps. Make out of it what you can. So far ahead of Judge's decision.
Judge's comments are notable.

Comment: No decision as of yet.
-30-

CASINO v RUSTON -DAY THREE - CLOSING ARGUMENT - JOAN MELL

Wednesday May 19, 2010 11:00 am courtroom 2A Judge Fred Cuthbertson

Please note:
No written or audio recording available. Transcript only on appeal. I have done my best but hard to keep up so post may not contain all testimony/arguments but I believe I have captured major points of interest.

This takes a lot of time be patient. Judge's decision may come before I can finish testimony. Judge very precise on issues both sides. Each side says they have the law on their side but Judge Cuthbertson makes the final determination.

Attorneys:
Joan Mell for plaintiff Steve Fabre. (m)
David Britton for defendant Town of Ruston. (b)

Judge CLOSING ARGUMENTS Ready to proceed?
JOAN MELL (m)
m-Plaintiff exhibits 33 and 34 entered. Pl exh 59 card room rates.
j- Admitted without objection.
m-July 7, 2008 two citizens convinced third to take 400 percent increase in gambling tax rate. Increase allowed them to act outside of power to tax. An oligarchy behind scenes to control local businesses.
No opportunity for Mr. Fabre to be heard to be less detrimental on his business.
There were hearing discussions but not in public. Only June 23 Dan Albertson wanted maximum tax now.
Ruston has limited power to tax due to due process concerns.
Resolution 415 Procedures elected not to follow.Dan Albertson, Jane Hunt and Bradley Huson violated principles two months before deliberations on tax increase.
Ignored WA State regulations under Gambling Act regarding enforcement.Mr. Fabre largest taxpayer in Ruston targeted social card games.
Legislature enabled Gambling tax primarily for enforcement by local police authority not public safety as rejected by legislature. Law enforcement expensive spending on other businesses besides casino.
In the deliberative process no determination of enforcement costs.
Did not contact gambling commission or talk to police chief former deputy director of Gambling Commission, particularly impressive.
Supreme Court decision not need to know primary for law enforcement. To protect Supreme court from Separation of Powers definition of law enforcement.
First instance revenue for law enforcement can spend all.
Second Walla Walla decision - not enforcing Sharon Reese delegating to Gambling commission.
Go beyond to Ruston as public safety. Legislature rejected this argument.
No determination for enforcement or to increase gambling act enforcement.
Police activity logs did not know. Line item for police budget $400 thousand dollars.
Under statute in proceedings or process to increase tax.
More than needed per Kim Wheeler.
Dan Albertson wanted maximum.
Jane Hunt as deterrent. A ban could stay in business two years.
Raised to 20 percent to deter gambling. Not what tax is for to mitigate gambling act only enforcement. Tax was improper.
Walk through procedural violations:
1-Lack of effective date.
2-Not two readings, not enough votes.
3-No public comments.
Essential component for any tax unless you know ordinance effective date. Makes ordinance unenforceable. Council did adopt 414 Procedures page 30 rule 22 rules should specify effective date. Should not shall. Should is a derivative of shall and is mandatory.
California Racing Commission sanctioned party for should.
Dictionary definition of should - must.
No debate effective date is compulsory.If required and none what do we do. City will give effective date if presumptive. None for town - steps into separation of powers. Everding mayor July 14 publication date.
Vague and ambiguous ordinances are void.
Subject to reasonable publication date published on date passed.
Only legislature can do Court needs to send back as void.
Judge- Vague and ambiguous in brief?
m-Did cite law legal effective resolution Ruston.
Dan Albertson resolution not law.
Resolution 415 formally voted on and adopted made available to public requiring law enforcement more than simple guidelines formal resolution.
Resolution under Ruston code have authority of ordinance. Meaning of Resolution.
Parties have litigated over Resolution when effective.
Violation of constitutional rights. Not a wish list.Ambiguity Jane Hunt amended license from Gambling Commission ask for business license.
Ordinance 1253 always had license requirement.
Judge-Testimony was after license from Wa Gambling Commission not underlined. Jane made sure had effective license for gambling Act or local business license.
m-Vague and ambiguous definitely, lack of enforceability.
Section D and C have to do with pull tabs. Added social card games provision without including in enforcement.
No authority for town clerk to make sure taxes paid or collected.
Enforcement and specificity tax B and C by clerk treasurer as adopted by Pierce County or WA State gambling commission.
Pierce County makes effective date. Bypass usual effective date and make emergency makes for unreasonable tax.
Cannot equate Charter and Constitution. Town can operate certain ways, Rules of procedure allowed. They are enforceable.
Judge-Never said what makes emergency.
m-Clearly tell us what is emergency?
Mirror language in 3533091 important statute to look at.
Ability of tax payer to be heard absolute right.
Emergency not defined.
Dan Albertson testimony bypassing second reading.
Judge- Is emergency defined in Ruston Code?
m-Not arguing emergency but what citizens expect. Closest is tax measure. Have to be justified.
Steve Fabre footing large part of tax revenue.
Employing hundreds of people not lobby, send letters, but in open public forum.
Open meetings act people do not delegate authority. People may reclaim control, deliberate, discuss and offer amendments.
Only ordinance amendments on second reading.
Albertson set rate at 20 percent.Did not follow procedures, no public input, emergency. Becomes oligarchy.
Judge-One other question. Assume arguably has been no formal legislative declaration of critical facts seem to be pursuant to 946 that tax is primarily for gambling act enforcement testimony Mrs. Hunt Mr Albertson that was really what it was for.
m-Did not state that.
Judge- Important for court to recognize that if they thought that.
m-Testimony legislative members that is what I was thinking Ruston argued Ruston.
Dan and Jane do not represent Ruston, define what intent was.
Judge-Wrap it up.
m-Vote count is indisputable. May present rule 22 enforcement finaln passage one more than majority of council.
Dan Albertson not a dumb guy.
One more than majority of members or members of majority. Jim Hedrick thought should be argued and debated. Still no logic for two members not good government.
Judge-Interpreting rule 22. Isn't that the province of Mayor Everding? Take us to BROWN if it does interpreting rule 22 discretionary act of mayor.
m-No parliamentary rule. Ruston not mayor council rule 12 no discussion either way.
BROWN not decide whether measure passed. Asked to void due process violation as unconstitutional. Allowed to look at procedural rules. Did not do it right.
Vote count unconstitutional declaratory act not do that.
Under Superior court is certainly in a position to determine if parliamentarian erred. Described as arbitrary and capricious WALKER decision as well as BROWN decision.
Ask court to do, apply what did occur to what required.
Rules allowed to be set aside by motion. Have to be uniform and predictable or discretionary.
Ruston failed to meet it's burden.
11:55 am Judge BREAK for five minutes.

Comment: This is a tedious undertaking. Hard to keep up with counsels speaking, not slowing down as judge recommend so blog may have gaps. Make out of it what you can. So far ahead of Judges's decision.
Judge's comments are notable.

Next David Britton CLOSING and REBUTTALS.
-30-