Description Of Legal Dispute
“YOU CAN’T FIGHT CITY HALL?”
Most people understand the catch phrase “you can’t fight city hall” that got its start in the days of the corrupt Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall administration in NYC, in the late 1800s, where an estimated 75 to 200 million dollars was swindled from the City coffers, unobstructed by the efforts of the citizenry to stem the tide of this corruption, a text book example of “justice denied.”
Since that time, tens of thousands of citizens have exercised their rights to secure justice against towns, cities and states throughout America encountering the obstacles of insurmountable and inexhaustible legal funds available to these government bodies and sometimes illegal legislative laws and ordinances that quash their just lawsuits. Not lawsuits dismissed on the basis of law, but rather on an administrative technicality, slanted in favor of the municipality.
But, little is reported as to what personal repercussions unfold when these lawsuits are dismissed by the courts? What becomes of the “little guy” who took on Goliath to right a wrong?
The legal plight of local entrepreneurs Kenneth and Francine Bray against the Town of Buchanan was featured with three front page articles in the Roanoke Times, subsequent exposure in 38 prominent newspapers across America, and a scathing op ed article submitted by the Institute for Justice ridiculing the town’s ordinance in prohibiting dancing activities.
The Brays, after coming out of retirement to create a much needed entertainment venue for the county and S.W. Virginia, built a one-of-a-kind Glow-A-Rama Blacklight Entertainment Complex featuring 18 holes of indoor blacklight mini-golf, blacklight haunted house, unique blacklight game room, 3 party rooms and a “safe haven” blacklight party and dance room. However, after two years of successful operations the Town of Buchanan decided that “they did not want dancing in the town.” The Brays tried unsuccessfully to reach an accommodation with the town but were met with unproductive opposition at every level. Negating the dance & party activity from the Entertainment Complex reduced their summer camp patronage from an average of three to four thousand children for the preceding two years, down to a meager 168, with the elimination of dance & party activities. This loss of income forced the closure of the Glow-A-Rama Blacklight Entertainment Complex.
Having no other alternatives, the Brays entered a 2.8-million-dollar lawsuit against the Town of Buchanan for destruction of their business. However, not having the funds for legal representation they elected to take their lawsuit to court on a pro se basis [acting as attorneys on their own behalf]. Unfortunately for the Brays there was a 100-year-old statute within the Rules of Civil Procedures that negates an individual from representing their own corporation in a lawsuit. The Brays argued before the court that a recent statement by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in the recent Hobby Lobby decision, that “a closely held corporation and its individual owners were one and the same” had no effect on the local judge, prompting their case against the Town of Buchanan to be dismissed “without prejudice”, meaning it could be refiled with proper legal representation. This meant that the dismissal of the case was not because the action did not have merit, but rather, because of this 100-year-old statute technicality.
With no other avenues available to achieve justice the Brays embarked on an aggressive program of critical political signage, displayed in their front windows, to garner public support for their cause. Ignoring advice of their attorney that “the signage was protected by the First Amendment Right to Free Speech,” the Town of Buchanan held a meeting where they leveled eight signage infractions against the Brays bearing a $100. per day fine to be leveled until the signage was removed. Not having the finances to pursue yet another just lawsuit against the Town of Buchanan, the Brays relented to removing their legal signage.
Kenneth Bray stated, “after 40 years as an entrepreneur it is difficult to comprehend how a lawsuit supported by dozens of successful nationwide actions upheld against municipalities trying to quash legally protected dance activities, the Supreme Court determinations that dancing is protected under the constitution and the common knowledge, and laws, that political signage cannot be infringed upon, that we did not prevail in our actions. Even the 1980’s Footloose movie documented the foolishness and illegality of such action.”
So, going back to the original catch phrase “you can’t fight city hall,” what did the Brays lose in their quest for justice? According to Ken Bray the list is not only lengthy, but personally devastating. “We not only lost four precious years of our retirement, but also, all our retirement funds, the crippling of a viable business entity, the prospect of eventual bankruptcy, the continued deterioration of our health and the fact that we could not achieve justice. In fact, we are now true believers that you can’t fight city hall. Our only remaining option to garner a few good years that we may have left in our retirement is to offer to R/E investors, or entrepreneurs, our 22,000 sq. ft. buildings, including the Glow-A-Rama business, at one-third of its valuation, just to cover our existing loans and mortgages. This will result in our losing over $265,000. of our retirement funds.
As cynical as the statement may appear Bray cautions, “before anyone decides to take on any government agency, no matter how sound your case may be, thoroughly evaluate what the possible emotional, medical and financial repercussion costs may be to yourself, and your family.”
With the fact that the merits of their lawsuit fully support the fact that the Town of Buchanan systematically violated the Brays civil rights, continued a course of harassment and discrimination against the Brays, and were ultimately responsible for the demise of their business and total finances, the Brays have begun a campaign to raise $45,000. For legal fees to pursue their cause in court.
Can you just imagine how you would feel if your 74-year-old parents were unjustly subjected to these losses, through no fault of their own? There is absolutely no question that with proper representation our case will prevail in court, and, that subscribers who assist in securing the required financial support of the $45,000. will be rewarded with a substantial return of a 500% from their donation.
Please help us achieve our goal of securing rightful justice and let the world know that “you can fight city hall, and win!”
Thank You
Username
|
| |
glowarama
|
E-mail Address
|
| |
brayk@glowarama.com
|
Country Where Your Dispute Is Located
|
| |
United States
|
How Much Litigation Funding Do You Want To Raise?
|
| |
$40,000.00
|
Headline For Your Litigation Crowdfunding Campaign
|
| |
HELP US FIGHT THE ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF CITY HALL!
|
Description Of Your Legal Dispute
|
| |
“YOU CAN'T FIGHT CITY HALL?”
Most people understand the catch phrase "you can't fight city hall" that got its start in the days of the corrupt Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall administration in NYC, in the late 1800s, where an estimated 75 to 200 million dollars was swindled from the City coffers, unobstructed by the efforts of the citizenry to stem the tide of this corruption, a text book example of “justice denied.”
Since that time, tens of thousands of citizens have exercised their rights to secure justice against towns, cities and states throughout America encountering the obstacles of insurmountable and inexhaustible legal funds available to these government bodies and sometimes illegal legislative laws and ordinances that quash their just lawsuits. Not lawsuits dismissed on the basis of law, but rather on an administrative technicality, slanted in favor of the municipality.
But, little is reported as to what personal repercussions unfold when these lawsuits are dismissed by the courts? What becomes of the “little guy” who took on Goliath to right a wrong?
The legal plight of local entrepreneurs Kenneth and Francine Bray against the Town of Buchanan was featured with three front page articles in the Roanoke Times, subsequent exposure in 38 prominent newspapers across America, and a scathing op ed article submitted by the Institute for Justice ridiculing the town’s ordinance in prohibiting dancing activities.
The Brays, after coming out of retirement to create a much needed entertainment venue for the county and S.W. Virginia, built a one-of-a-kind Glow-A-Rama Blacklight Entertainment Complex featuring 18 holes of indoor blacklight mini-golf, blacklight haunted house, unique blacklight game room, 3 party rooms and a “safe haven” blacklight party and dance room. However, after two years of successful operations the Town of Buchanan decided that “they did not want dancing in the town.” The Brays tried unsuccessfully to reach an accommodation with the town but were met with unproductive opposition at every level. Negating the dance & party activity from the Entertainment Complex reduced their summer camp patronage from an average of three to four thousand children for the preceding two years, down to a meager 168, with the elimination of dance & party activities. This loss of income forced the closure of the Glow-A-Rama Blacklight Entertainment Complex.
Having no other alternatives, the Brays entered a 2.8-million-dollar lawsuit against the Town of Buchanan for destruction of their business. However, not having the funds for legal representation they elected to take their lawsuit to court on a pro se basis [acting as attorneys on their own behalf]. Unfortunately for the Brays there was a 100-year-old statute within the Rules of Civil Procedures that negates an individual from representing their own corporation in a lawsuit. The Brays argued before the court that a recent statement by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in the recent Hobby Lobby decision, that “a closely held corporation and its individual owners were one and the same” had no effect on the local judge, prompting their case against the Town of Buchanan to be dismissed “without prejudice”, meaning it could be refiled with proper legal representation. This meant that the dismissal of the case was not because the action did not have merit, but rather, because of this 100-year-old statute technicality.
With no other avenues available to achieve justice the Brays embarked on an aggressive program of critical political signage, displayed in their front windows, to garner public support for their cause. Ignoring advice of their attorney that “the signage was protected by the First Amendment Right to Free Speech,” the Town of Buchanan held a meeting where they leveled eight signage infractions against the Brays bearing a $100. per day fine to be leveled until the signage was removed. Not having the finances to pursue yet another just lawsuit against the Town of Buchanan, the Brays relented to removing their legal signage.
Kenneth Bray stated, “after 40 years as an entrepreneur it is difficult to comprehend how a lawsuit supported by dozens of successful nationwide actions upheld against municipalities trying to quash legally protected dance activities, the Supreme Court determinations that dancing is protected under the constitution and the common knowledge, and laws, that political signage cannot be infringed upon, that we did not prevail in our actions. Even the 1980’s Footloose movie documented the foolishness and illegality of such action.”
So, going back to the original catch phrase "you can't fight city hall," what did the Brays lose in their quest for justice? According to Ken Bray the list is not only lengthy, but personally devastating. “We not only lost four precious years of our retirement, but also, all our retirement funds, the crippling of a viable business entity, the prospect of eventual bankruptcy, the continued deterioration of our health and the fact that we could not achieve justice. In fact, we are now true believers that you can't fight city hall. Our only remaining option to garner a few good years that we may have left in our retirement is to offer to R/E investors, or entrepreneurs, our 22,000 sq. ft. buildings, including the Glow-A-Rama business, at one-third of its valuation, just to cover our existing loans and mortgages. This will result in our losing over $265,000. of our retirement funds.
As cynical as the statement may appear Bray cautions, “before anyone decides to take on any government agency, no matter how sound your case may be, thoroughly evaluate what the possible emotional, medical and financial repercussion costs may be to yourself, and your family.”
With the fact that the merits of their lawsuit fully support the fact that the Town of Buchanan systematically violated the Brays civil rights, continued a course of harassment and discrimination against the Brays, and were ultimately responsible for the demise of their business and total finances, the Brays have begun a campaign to raise $45,000. For legal fees to pursue their cause in court.
Can you just imagine how you would feel if your 74-year-old parents were unjustly subjected to these losses, through no fault of their own? There is absolutely no question that with proper representation our case will prevail in court, and, that subscribers who assist in securing the required financial support of the $45,000. will be rewarded with a substantial return of a 500% from their donation.
Please help us achieve our goal of securing rightful justice and let the world know that “you can fight city hall, and win!”
Thank You
|
Featured Image For Your Litigation Funding Campaign
|
| |
|
End Date Of Your Litigation Crowdfunding Campaign
|
| |
2016-07-31
|
How Much Compensation Can You Receive If Your Case Wins?
|
| |
$1,000,000.00
|
Percentage Of Future Potential Compensation You Are Offering As A Reward (Success Fee / Contingent Fee)
|
| |
20% Of Amount Recovered
|
| AUTOMATIC CALCULATIONS |
Potential Return Of Investors (Percent)
|
| |
500
|
Estimated Total Reward Offered To Investors
|
| |
$200,000.00
|
Estimated Remaining Compensation For Litigant
|
| |
$800,000.00
|
Role
|
| |
Litigant
|
|
International arbitration case analysis is provided to Invest4Justice by the lawyers of the International Arbitration Attorney Network. All other legal advice is provided by Aceris Law LLC.
Estimated 500% Returns: HELP US FIGHT THE ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF CITY HALL!
