Page 1 of 1
Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:50 pm
by DMS
Posted by Laker Country in local news on February 23, 2010
A ruling on whether the results of a special wet-dry election last November affecting the Jamestown area will stand or not could possibly be rendered before Friday. Pre-trial motions were heard Tuesday afternoon in Russell Circuit Court by Special Judge Julia Adams of Winchester in a lawsuit filed by five local residents challenging the validity of the election held November 24th in the Lake and Jamestown precincts, including the City of Jamestown. A “bench trial” had been scheduled for this Friday, February 25th, however, during Tuesday’s court proceedings Judge Adams said “the material facts of the case are not disputed” and she would be taking the case under advisement and could possibly issue her decision by Friday.
http://lakercountry.com/2010/02/23/vali ... by-friday/
Re: Final Arguments In Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:49 pm
by E_
Which way will it go Denmark?
Re: Final Arguments In Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:44 am
by DMS
E_HILLMAN wrote:Which way will it go Denmark?
Quote Miranda Lambert, "It's a dry town
No beer, no liquor for miles around
I'd give a nickel for a sip or two
To wash me down
Outta this dry town"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC86JtUGfT4
Re: Final Arguments In Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday
Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:39 pm
by DMS
Posted by Laker Country in local news on March 2, 2010
Special Judge Julia Adams has made a ruling in the wet-dry election lawsuit brought by five Russell Countians and although the judge’s findings have not yet been filed in Russell Circuit Court, indications are she has “voided or set aside” the election.
Her full written opinion is expected to be filed today but according to Circuit Clerk Tony Kerr, Adams told him late Monday afternoon that she had “found in favor of the plaintiffs” and indicated she had ruled to set aside the election.
Adams said she placed her decision in the mail yesterday from her hometown of Winchester. WJRS NEWS will have more details on this story once the judge’s opinion is received and filed in the circuit clerk’s office.
http://lakercountry.com/2010/03/02/deci ... y-lawsuit/
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:37 pm
by LC addict
Well at least now we can drive to Danville if we run out of libations! Russell County should be proud that 5 residents have cost them so much revenue!
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:33 pm
by bubbles
I am guessing I will get a few calls from lake peeps (when I am working on Fridays)...wanting me to pick up something on the way down....LOL.
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:08 am
by DMS
bubbles wrote:I am guessing I will get a few calls from lake peeps (when I am working on Fridays)...wanting me to pick up something on the way down....LOL.
That already happens...dont it LC
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:25 am
by Jaybird
My brother-in-law and I were hanging out by the fuel dock at State Dock while the wives were in the ship store when a couple people got off a rental and asked us where they could get some liquor. From their accent they were perhaps from Michigan , maybe Illinois. I asked what kind and they said any, beer, whisky, whatever, they had run out. I said that probably Tennessee would be the closest and explained why; That this area was what was called dry, that no alcoholic beverages were permitted to be sold. After they got done laughing their rear ends off and discussing the backward nature of parts of Kentucky, I had no choice but to agree with them 'thar yankees, to some extent.
It is pretty bad when people from other states look at you as dumb hillbillies with no shoes, bib overalls, rotted teeth, a straw hat, marrying cousins and sucking on a corn cob pipe. Being stuck in last century's prohibition days only adds to the way we are perceived. I don't drink nor do I smoke, however, I don't have anything against it being available for reasonable consumption. Well except for smoking in restaurants.
The people who think that Prohihibition of alcohol is the root of all evil, violence and the answer to people not drinking themselves silly are sadly mistaken. That was answered about 90 years ago when National Prohibition was struck down. In the days of old, people most likely had no issue because home brew and shine were in good supply.
I'm done.
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:32 am
by $parechange
Russel county needs to double the taxes, then see how fast they change thier tune!
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:00 am
by re3too
Jaybird wrote:It is pretty bad when people from other states look at you as dumb hillbillies with no shoes, bib overalls, rotted teeth, a straw hat, marrying cousins and sucking on a corn cob pipe. Being stuck in last century's prohibition days only adds to the way we are perceived. I don't drink nor do I smoke, however, I don't have anything against it being available for reasonable consumption. Well except for smoking in restaurants.
The people who think that Prohihibition of alcohol is the root of all evil, violence and the answer to people not drinking themselves silly are sadly mistaken. That was answered about 90 years ago when National Prohibition was struck down.
I absolutely hear what you are saying, Jaybird, and am not saying you are right or wrong.There is a perverse little part of me that always gets amused when this topic emerges regularly on the forums. That part of me says 1) This is one little area in our lives where one vote can truly make a difference. Thank God. 2) I for one am grateful to live in a country where individual differences are still allowed to exist. Thank God. 3) In this day and age where we rarely get a personal say about things, I'm glad there are still some areas where you can express a beliefthat may be contrary to the mainstream. Thank God.
That being said, please don't start giving me all the old preachers, bootleggers etc. laundry list. I know people who LEGITIMATELY do believe that alcohol is not a good thing and prefer to not be around it. Their arms have not been twisted by anyone. Most of them know that drinking goes on around them. They don't have their heads in the sand about that. As long as the laws are written the way they are, these people will continue to exercise their rights to vote the way they see fit just as those who favor alcohol will continue to vote the way they see fit. Thank God. The only thing I dislike about this whole issue is the way those who vote against alcohol are painted with the same negative brush. I also dislike the way some anti alcohol people paint all who vote for it with the drunk brush.
Holy crap! This is too deep for me! Guess I'll go get drunk! Oh, wait! I don't like to drink! Now what am I gonna do?
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:00 pm
by E_
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:30 pm
by re3too
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:20 pm
by LC addict
What I don't understand is how the majority can be for it, and 5 of those who were against it can file a lawsuit and get the vote thrown out! I guess in this case, the people have spoken...but no one listened despite having the majority. While I think alcohol sales would be good for the economy, I can live with it either way. I've learned to stock up from home
But if it were legal there, I probably would buy it there instead of hauling it 125 miles, thus stimulating the local economy.
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:42 pm
by re3too
Agree, LC. Because the laws are so convoluted, what the petitioners need to do is collectively hire an attorney to advise them how to go about doing the vote so it won't get set aside. Can't blame the judge if the problem lies in the way the law is written, petitioned and voted upon. I wish it could be put to bed once and for all so these types of conversations don't have to continue. Either get the law changed or get the vote done properly. These continued exchanges don't help the feelings among any of the parties involved. Again,JMHO!
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:31 pm
by DMS
LC addict wrote:What I don't understand is how the majority can be for it, and 5 of those who were against it can file a lawsuit and get the vote thrown out! .
Florida and George W. Bush
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:44 pm
by Nautiques R Us
Denmark- wrote:LC addict wrote:What I don't understand is how the majority can be for it, and 5 of those who were against it can file a lawsuit and get the vote thrown out! .
Florida and George W. Bush
That was awesome Denmark!!
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-Dry
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:50 pm
by LC addict
Nautiques R Us wrote:Denmark- wrote:LC addict wrote:What I don't understand is how the majority can be for it, and 5 of those who were against it can file a lawsuit and get the vote thrown out! .
Florida and George W. Bush
That was awesome Denmark!!
Good point, I love politics! (not)
Re: Wet-Dry Lawsuit Heard Tuesday/ Decision Rendered In Wet-
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:26 pm
by E_
LC addict wrote:Well at least now we can drive to Danville if we run out of libations! Russell County should be proud that 5 residents have cost them so much revenue!
Now you have Somerset! lol