"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
The Big Picture
By Greg L | 9 March 2007 | Rack & Roll Scandal | 3 Comments
With all of the different posts I’ve written on the various facets of the Rack & Roll scandal it’s been hard for readers to grasp what the big picture is amongst all the bizarre pieces of this disturbing puzzle. Now it’s time to take a step back and provide an overall perspective on the story of the owner of a local pool hall who is involved in the fight of his life against his city council, the state alcohol beverage control board, and his local police department. How this all fits together into one outrageous tale helps to make sense of a story that might otherwise seem to defy our understanding of how municipal governments and elected officials can possibly behave.
The first few incidents of harassment didn’t seem to make any sense. Police began intrusions into a businessman’s personal life. They circulated rumors, damaged the reputations of both the owner and the business, and generally carried out a smear campaign. These started as isolated incidents, but it happened again and again. No one could understand why this was happening, but hoped it would eventually blow over. It didn’t. Instead the police became involved in the sale of illegal drugs inside the pool hall by recruiting informants to sell drugs to undercover officers, and the problems only got worse.
Meanwhile, as these things are going on a casino company has won preliminary approval to open a betting facility on the property where the pool hall enjoys a long term lease and has scheduled the development project to go to a citizen referendum for final approval. There’s big money to be made here. Everyone scrambles for their piece of the action which will only happen if the referendum is approved, and any inconvenient obstacles can be cleared.
With this referendum on the near horizon there comes a sense of urgency. Police plan a drug operation in which dealers are driven from the other end of the county into the city by informants for the express purpose of engaging in drug sales with undercover officers. The narcotics raid is aborted when the pool hall owner uncovers the plan. A little later a multi-jurisdictional task force raid involving about 90 officers takes place. This unprecedented paramilitary operation nets a trivial ABC violation consisting of 2 sample beer bottles that were improperly labeled by the distributor. In total, 2 police informants were arrested for selling drugs, and an undercover officer is “arrested”. When questioned about the legal basis for the raid, the police claim they didn’t need a warrant because it was a regulatory inspection.
The publicity from this raid crushes the business. Police do everything they can in order to make the business a place good citizens would avoid. The narrative of the drug dealing and subsequent raid allows the beverage control board to to strip the pool hall of it’s alcohol license and the city council to revoke the owner’s business license. The owner appeals this decision, fully expecting to be exonerated as the evidence comes to light. Instead, he faces an ABC agent functioning as judge and jury who refuses to consider or admit his evidence and gives improbably unquestioned credibility to the police. Having exhausted all local means of remedy, the owner files a civil lawsuit in US District court. This suit is promptly dismissed citing police immunity and that the ability to run a pool hall does not constitute a property right. It’s looking pretty grim.
At this point selling the business looks like the only real way to avoid a complete financial collapse for the owner and permit him to pursue his claims against the city and the police. Prospective buyers mysteriously walk away from negotiations after talking with the city, seemingly removing this way out. The city tries to use this as leverage to get the owner to drop his appeals, but the negotiations break down after this brazen coercion is exposed.
Not everywhere is the owner losing, however. The Board of Zoning Appeals reinstates the owner’s business license and the city promptly sues the BZA in an attempt to overturn this decision. The case is then heard at the Virginia Circuit Court where the judge finds in favor of the BZA and the pool hall owner. The court additionally determines that the ability to run a pool hall is in fact a property right, which gives the owner a solid decision on which to appeal the owner’s federal civil suit and allow discovery in that case to proceed. In a strangely similar case in Seattle the city settled for $1.2 million when it was faced with producing such discovery. Perhaps there’s the possibility that justice is only deferred here, and not forever denied.
There are many more details to document in this continuing story, and the action is definitely heating up as city officials scramble to find some cover now that the spotlight has turned on them. Stay tuned…
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
3 Comments
Views: 1402
Loading ...
I’m sorry, but I hope Dave can see this through to the bitter end. If fowl play was involved here, and it definitely seems like it is, these people need to be punished! I’m not sure that will happen if Dave settles out of court.
I wish I had some extra money to help Davse out.
Thanks for helping to connect the dots.
YA KNOW…I’ve kept up with this story since you started reporting on it…I feel really bad, from all appearences, what government officials have or are continuing to do to this man.
My Story:
So one day I’m walking with my 83 year old mother, who is retired and sold her business YEARS ago, as she starts to tell me the story that she had just read in the paper about Ruttenberg…”that sorry so & so”…I said “Why do you say that?” It seems that some years ago Mr. Ruttenberg had made a purchase from my mother for the Jerry’s subs shop that he owned and he did not settle up his account. So to Mr. Ruttenberg…what goes around comes around…
[Ed note: I contacted Dave Ruttenberg before approving this comment, and he can’t figure out what this might relate to. He built the Jerry’s and didn’t buy it from someone, and can’t figure out what this might relate to. If you have any additional information on this please pass it on, as Dave is concerned about this and wants to know more about whether there may be some unresolved claim out there. If there are unresolved business dealings, I believe he wants to address them fairly if only he can figure out what they might be.]