171 replies to this topic

[Farley]

does anyone know if  the city was successful in their motion or not?

They were not....it was carried over until a later date.

[MsTeaz]

They were not....it was carried over until a later date.

In Short, the judge did believe that there was a strong case with regard to denying our 1st Amendment civil rights. Additionally, the opposition's council contests we didn't do our best to make it apparently clear that we were in opposition to the ordinance. Hence, we will be back in court, and we need only to get back to the various times we met with the city's attorneys to question the vague wording of the ordinance. We’re also been told we’re very lucky in that the judge is one of the best and very thorough. We don’t think there is one person in this city who would argue with the fact that we did disagree and made it clear, yet our short coming now was that we did openly comply with the city’s wishes which is where they found a glitch in the system. Additionally, the city is playing poker in the sense they've delivered a VERY large bill to pay for the nine volume Administrative Record to the court which is being prepared by the outsourced attorney's people; only another bump in the road. We do wish to thank all of you who continue as patrons and share with your friends in support our efforts. Fortunately, I've found time (taking a short vacation from the store) to put the finishing touches on our story to share with the media (having been published several times in my prior career - publication writing is one of my passions). We (and our family as well) intend to drive this to its finish. Should it take us to Court of Appeals we intend to be heard and make a difference for those who follow in our footsteps.

[randb]

We (and our family as well) intend to drive this to its finish

This really is an excellent marketing campaign, well done.

[camay2327]

Exactly....

[bordercolliefan]

We (and our family as well) intend to drive this to its finish.  Should it take us to Court of Appeals we intend to be heard and make a difference for those who follow in our footsteps.

So... what again is the point of your lawsuit? --You want to be able to sell stuff that is more x-rated than the ordinance allows? You hope to use a First Amendment argument to trample over the will of the community?

Great. What a charming neighbor.

[Al Waysrite]

So... what again is the point of your lawsuit?  --You want to be able to sell stuff that is more x-rated than the ordinance allows?  You hope to use a First Amendment argument to trample over the will of the community? 

Great.  What a charming neighbor.

they're not neighbors at all. they live in fair oaks and chose not to open their butt plug shop in their own community.

[MsTeaz]

So... what again is the point of your lawsuit?  --You want to be able to sell stuff that is more x-rated than the ordinance allows?  You hope to use a First Amendment argument to trample over the will of the community? 

Great.  What a charming neighbor.

Though it does appear to be a waist of time and breath to even try to educate a small minority on the experiences imposed upon us from long before we opened our doors, it would be interesting to ask of each these "individuals" (in much same light) if they truly do enjoy their rights as American citizens. We may very well be talking two different languages because we do (and will continue to) stand up for the rights we were given here in the US under the Constitution. Many are quick to turn judgment as they have little or no history with what was forcefully imposed upon us (and a whole lot of time to impose their beliefs on others); however, we're certain there is a couple here who were involved as the instigators too hiding behind anonymous aliases (which we are not). We now have a VERY successful business due to the fact that a great many people do not just come to see the store, but they also make purchases. Interesting enough, we were honored with the 2005 Best of Award which stands on its own merit. Now of course there are those who are green with envy over our success - as is very event from some responses. Fact still remains that we were wronged, and we are souly interested in the principle of the matter. We will and do stand up for what we believe in. Moreover, there is no amount of money that can replace our honor and/or happiness.

The court's ruling is now slated for Jan, 2006, and we too will be issuing our release very soon with some real surprises from local merchants and Folsomites alike. Our best to you all.

[randb]

We now have a VERY successful business due to the fact that a great many people do not just come to see the store, but they also make purchases

Yup, create a bunch of controversy so people stop by to see what the fuss is all about and some will make purchases. Brilliant approach.

[forumreader]

So... what again is the point of your lawsuit?  --You want to be able to sell stuff that is more x-rated than the ordinance allows?  You hope to use a First Amendment argument to trample over the will of the community? 

Great.  What a charming neighbor.

bordercollie: You're an attorney. Perhaps you can help clarify this for me.

Just as you questioned, I am wondering what the point of the lawsuit is. Secondly, what are the damages? Isn't Ms. Teaz claiming that the business is thriving?....I didn't think you could sue on basis that someone was "mean" to you.

[Terry]

bordercollie:  You're an attorney.  Perhaps you can help clarify this for me. 

Just as you questioned, I am wondering what the point of the lawsuit is.  Secondly, what are the damages?  Isn't Ms. Teaz claiming that the business is thriving?....I didn't think you could sue on basis that someone was "mean" to you.

Here's the information directly from Sacramento County Superior Court's website. Ms. Teaz is seeking a Writ of Mandate against the City of Folsom - now mandating what, I don't know. And I'm curious as to why Ms. Teaz et al doesn't provide that information here for us.

Case Information:
Case Title: SSAN & MISTY DUFOUR, ET AL VS. THE CITY OF FOLSOM
Case Number: 05CS00426
Date Filed: 4/1/2005
Case Type: Writ of Mandate

Parties on the Case:
CITY OF FOLSOM (Respondent )
DUFOUR, MISTY, IND/DBA (Petitioner )
DUFOUR, SAM, IND/DBA (Petitioner )
GARRISON, GREGORY M. (Attorney for Petitioner )
KELSCH, KRISTAN (Attorney for Petitioner )
MS. TEAZ (Petitioner )

[TLC]

they're not neighbors at all.  they live in fair oaks and chose not to open their butt plug shop in their own community.

So how do you know that they sell Butt Plugs? Which color did you purchase? Come clean!

Stay Strong and continue on your quest regardless of the peasants who continue to linger and wallow in their own unhappiness! Many here do tend to be followers. Isn't this fact so obvious?

[Al Waysrite]

The city of Folsom has prevailed. The trial judge ruled the ordinance in question was constitutional and did not infringe on any 1st amendment rights, and ruled further that ms. teaz failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.
By the way, this ruling benefits all of us as citizens as the losing party (ms teaz) must pay the prevailing party (city of folsom) back all its costs.

[camay2327]

GREAT.....

[ducky]

Saying you are allowed to collect costs and actually being able to collect them are two different animals. Anybody know what the odds are?

[forumreader]

According to the SacBee article, the City of Folsom spent $80,000 in legal fees on this case. I do hope they can collect from Ms. Teaz. Perhaps Ms. Dufour will reconsider the City's offer to take over the lease.

http://www.sacbee.co...-15043715c.html