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 ARGUMENTPlease 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 Mellm-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-
