State Senator Breanne Davis’s letter to Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, December 27, 2018, requests AR AG opinion regarding the power of the voters of Pope County to, by initiated ordinance, restrict the authority of the County Judge to act unilaterally with regard to approving a casino applicant under Amendment 100.
Casino Implementing Legislation—Act 371 of 2019, This is the implementing legislation passed in 2019 that, in part, stipulates local support documents must come from current officials. Gulfside contends that this is unconstitutional. It seems to me that it doesn’t violate anything in Amendment 100, but is simply implementing legislation, which is normal for any new amendment.
Application for Casino License and Public Notice, this five-page document contains the Public Notice of the submission period for license applications AND a copy of the application for a casino license.
Act 703 of 2019—To Amend the Laws Concerning Local Government Bonds, and to Allow a Municipality’s or County’s Portion of the Net Casino Gaming Receipts Tax Revenues to be Pledged for the Repayment of Certain Local Government Bonds
Conflict between Amendments 100 and 14, dismissed with prejudice
Ordinance 18-O-42 is in direct conflict with Amendment 100 to the Arkansas Constitution and is unconstitutional and void.
Specifically that Ordinance 18-O-42 was unconstitutional and void at the time that the Quorum Court passed Resolution 19-R-14 (support for CNB.
Request for declaratory judgment finding 19-R-14 invalid or of no legal effect denied and dismissed with prejudice.
Ordinance 18-O-42 is unenforceable as an attempt by Pope County to regulate gambling in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated §14-14-806(4). Court agrees and grants motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have not pleaded sufficient facts to demonstrate that a meeting by Defendants occurred in violation of the FOIA. FOIA violation assertion dismissed.
To the extent there was a FOIA, that violation was cured by an open meeting. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for FOIA violation that would warrant invalidation of 19-R-14. Request for declaratory judgment dismissed.
Motion to Disqualify Judge—Plaintiff’s tried to have Judge Pierson disqualify himself because of an alleged endorsement on Facebook by Defendant Ben Cross. The Facebook endorsement was created without the knowledge of either Pierson or Cross. (November 1, 2019)
Notice of Appeal—Plaintiffs appeal CNB’s Motion to Intervene and the Court’s Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Citizens for a Better Pope County and James Knight vs Ben Cross et. al. Appeal to the Supreme Court
Gulfside vs. Racing Commission et al (Case No.60CV-19-5832)
Initial filing—Verified Complaint to Appeal Agency Decision, For Declaratory Judgment to Determine Validity of Rule, For Declaratory Judgment to Hold Ark. Code Ann. § 23-117-101 Unconstitutional, and For Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (August 15, 2019)
Change of Venue—transferred certified record to the Pope County Circuit Clerk for civil assignment (August 22, 2019)
Order—scheduling hearing in Pope County for September 23, new case number 58CV-19-462
Allegations of Violations of Open Public Meeting Requirements of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and other alleged ethical issues
Complaint—Violation of Arkansas Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Law for Public Officers and Employees; Ethics complaint by William Ogles–a Jacksonville lawyer.
Investigation Report—AR AG Public Integrity Division, Special Agent JayP Massiet, Charge: Violation of FOIA
Application to US Army Corps of Engineers requesting authorization for the placement of dredged and fill material in waters of US for construction of a 70-acre multi-business commercial development, consisting of a grocery store, eateries, movie theater, lodging, and retail shopping centers.
Search Public Records—Use this to search for existing permits, plans, inspections, code cases, requests and licenses.
ReImagine Russellville 2040—September 2020, a narrative report on the Comprehensive Plan for Russellville. The plan serves as an official policy statement of the City of Russellville for directing growth and development within its city limits and planning area.
Litigation
There are currently NO active cases related to the Pope County Casino. There have been 18 cases filed so far, including appeals:
58CV-18-768—Knight v. Gibson; filed 12-27-2018
58CV-19-439—CFABPC & Knight v Cross et al. filed 8-13-2019.
60CV-19-5832—Gulfside Casino Partnership v. ARC, filed 8-15-2019. This was a judicial review of the ARC denial of Gulfside’s application. Judge Tim Fox ruled in favor of Gulfside. This ruling was reversed and remanded by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Fox again ruled in favor of Gulfside. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed his ruling and dismissed the case.
60CV-19-5858—Knight et al v.ARC, filed 8-15-2019
58CV-19-462—Gulfside Casino Partnership v. ARC, filed 8-22-2019. A week after 60CV-19-5832 was filed in Pulaski County, Judge Tim Fox said the proper venue was Pope County and sent it there, where it was filed under this case number. Judge William Pearson found that the proper venue was Pulaski County. The case was returned to Pulaski County, where it was refiled under the original case number and Judge. filed 8-22-2019
CV-19-968—Gulfside Casino Partnership v. ARC, filed 12-23-2019
60CV-19-9172—CFABPC & Knight v. ARC, filed 12-27-2019
CV-20-145—CFABPC & Knight v Cross et al., filed 3-2-2020
CV-20-211—CNB v. Gulfside, filed 4-2-2020
CV-20-438—CNB v. ADFA, filed 7-8-2020
58CV-20-429—Cross et al. v. ARC, filed 10-13-2020
60CV-21-1217—Legends et al v. ARC et al., filed 2-16-2021
60CV-21-1653—Gulfside v. ARC, filed 3-09-2021
CV-21-289—CNB v. Gulfside, filed 6-28-2021
60CV-21-7742—Goodin v. ARC, filed 12-7-2021
CV-23-50—Legends v. Gulfside, filed 1-26-2023
CV-23-541—Knight v. ARC, filed 8-11-2023
60CV-23-7266—Goodin & Thone v. ARC, filed 9-25-2023
…….
Your voter registration information at Arkansas Secretary of State website: address, party association, ballot statuses, and polling place locations – also all of the districts that are applicable for your location.
Article 5 § 1 – Initiative and Referendum–“no local legislation shall be enacted contrary to the Constitution or any general law of the State, and any general law shall have the effect of repealing any local legislation which is in conflict therewith.