IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JOHN S. LA TOUR Plaintiff
v.
File Number:
02-5001
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Defendant
Pre- Trial Disclosure Sheet
1. John S. La Tour, the Plaintiff, is making these disclosures.
2. I am
representing myself in this Pro Se action and my name, address, and phone
number is as follow:
John S. La Tour
112 Center
Street, Suite 560
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479)44-7878
3. I am claiming that my rights of free speech and equal protection were
violated by the City of Fayetteville through the unconstitutional application
of the Fayetteville sign ordinance. I am also claiming that the Fayetteville
sign ordinance is unconstitutional on its face in that it produces and illegal
prior restraint and illegal content regulation.
I am seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in that I am
asking this Court to declare that the sign ordinance is unconstitutional as it
is drafted and it was also unconstitutionally applied in my case. I am further
asking the Court to enjoin the City from any further enforcement of this
ordinance in its current form.
4. Both parties agree that the prospects for settlement are virtually nonexistent.
5. Jurisdiction in this case is based upon 25 U.S.C. § 1331, §1343 (3) and (4).
6. Pending Motions List:
a. Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
7. The facts are:
I was charged with a crime for operating my sign which message change substantially similar to time and temperature signs. Also, the City claimed that my sign was flashing and charged me with violating the City sign ordinance. At the same time, the City allows Murphy Brothers Expositions or Tulsa, OK to flash thousands of lights every Labor Day weekend without even a citation.
Moreover, the sign ordinance is drafted in an unconstitutional fashion.
8. There are no proposed stipulations.
9. Issue of fact expected to be contested:
a. Does my sign function similar to other signs and attraction devices in the City of Fayetteville?
b. Is my sign's functioning any more distracting or esthetically less pleasing than other attraction devices and does the functioning of my sign present a traffic hazard of any greater degree than other signs and attraction devices.
10. Issues of Law:
a. Content Regulation:
US Supreme Court Cases
Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission - Content Regulation (447 U.S. 557 (1980), USSC)
*Metromedia v. City of San Diego - Content Regulation (453 U.S. 490 (1981), USSC)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) - Content Regulation
(491 U.S. 781 (1989), USSC)
*City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network - Content Regulation (507 U.S. 410 (1993), USSC)
8th Circuit Cases
*Whitton v. City of Gladstone - Content Regulation (54 F.3d 1400 (1995), 8th Cir.)
Circuit Court Cases
Nightclubs, Inc. v. City of Paducah - Content Regulation (202 F .3d 884 (2000), 6th Cir.)
. *Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement - Content Regulation
(505 U.S. 123 (1992), 11th Cir.) District Court Cases
*North Olmsted Chamber of Commerce v. North Olmsted - Content Regulation
(86 F. Supp.2d 755 (2000), N.D. Ohio)
*King Enterprises v. Thomas Township - Content Regulation (Case Number 01-10242-BC (2002), E.D. Mich)
*Sugarman v. Village of Chester, et al. - Content Regulation
(01 Civ. 8667 (WCC) (2002), S.D.N.Y.)
* Savago v. Village of New Paltz - Content Regulation (1 :02-CV-87 (2002), N.D.N. Y.)
b. Illegal Prior Restraint:
US Supreme Court Cases
FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) US Supreme Court - Prior Restraint Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316 (2002)
8th Circuit Rulings
Douglas v. Brownell - Prior Restraint (88 F.3d 1511 (1996), 8th Cir.)
Steele v. City of Beidmii - Prior Restraint (257 F .3d 902 (2001), 8th Cir.)
Jakes, Ltd. Inc. v. City of Coates - Prior Restraint (284 F .3d 884 (2002), 8th Cir.)
District Court Rulings
North Olmsted Chamber of Commerce v. North Olmsted - Prior Restraint
(86 F. Supp.2d
755 (2000), N.D. Ohio)
c. Equal Protection:
US Supreme Court Cases
Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Vacco v. Quill 521 U.S. 793 (1997)
US v. Morrison 529 U.S. 598 (2000)
Tigner v. Texas 310 U.S. 141 (1940)
City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center 473 U.S. 432 (1985)
Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield Tp. 247 U.S. 350 (1918)
11. Exhibit List:
I expect to use the following exhibits:
1. Pictures of flashing signs in Fayetteville city limits.
2. Newspaper article describing a war protest march inside Fayetteville city limits.
3. Picture of "wordy" signs in Fayetteville which cannot be read by a typical motorist without prolonged focusing on the sign.
12. Charts, graphs and Models:
1. I expect to present the following charts:
a. A time line of the events in this case.
b. Excerpts from the Fayetteville Sign Ordinance
c. Excerpts from federal cases which we have used in ~ur pleadings.
13. I expect to call the following witnesses:
Mr. Keith Emis
16304 North River Ridge Road
Fayetteville, AR 72701
479.530.5815
Officer Shannon
Gabbard
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
479.587.3555
Mr. John S. La Tour
112 Center, Suite 560
Fayetteville, AR 72701
479.443.7878
Ms. Judy
Kendrick
1275 North Gregg
Fayetteville, AR
72703
479.582.1920
Mr. Jeff
Kendrick
2278 Reed
Springdale, AR 72764
479.927.3553
Mr. Jim Rose
P.O. Box 1504
Fayetteville, AR 72702
479.443.5700
Mr. Steve Smith
U of A, Kimpel Hall
Communications Dept. 417
Fayetteville, AR
72701
479.575.3046
14. There are no request to amend the pleadings.
15. Discovery is complete.
16. The one suggestion I have for expediting this action is a ruling from the Court on my Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
17. The trial should take no longer that one day. 18. I do NOT agree to a six person jury.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN S. LA TOUR
May 2, 2003
JOHN S. LA TOUR
Certified Public Accountant
112 Center Street, Suite 560
Fayetteville, AR 72701