victory land - appellant's opposition to appellee's motion to dismiss appeal

8/14/2019 Victory Land - Appellant's Opposition to Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/victory-land-appellants-opposition-to-appellees-motion-to-dismiss 1/37

No. ________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

J OHN M. TYSON, J R ., SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR T ASK FORCE ON IG AMBLING ,

Appellant,

V .

M ACON COUNTY GREYHOUND P ARK I NC . D/ B/ A V ICTORYLAND ,

Appellee .

APPELLANT JOHN M. TYSON, JR.’S OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREO

On interlocutory appeal from the Circuit Court of MaconCounty

(The Honorable Thomas F. Young Jr.)(No. CV-2010-09)

_____________________________

John M. Tyson, Jr. Martha Tierney

Edgar Greene

OFFICE OF GOVERNOR BOB 600 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36130

(334) 242-7120(251) 574-8400 (fax)(334) 242-2335 (fax)

E-Filed02/02/2010 @ 02:56:45 PMHonorable Robert Esdale

Clerk Of The Court



TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPPOSI TI ON TO APPELLEE’ S MOTI ON TO DI SMI SS APPEAL ANDMEMORANDUM I N SUPPORT THEREOF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REASONS THE MOTI ON TO DI SMI SS SHOULD BE DENI ED . . . . . . . . .

I . The Under si gned At t or neys Have Aut hor i t y t oPr osecut e Thi s Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A. Tyson and Ti er ney have t he aut hor i t y t opr osecut e t hi s appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Tyson has t he r i ght t o appeal t he or derent er ed agai ns t hi m t o t hi s Cour t . . . . . . . . . . 1

C. Gr eene has expl i ci t st at ut or y aut hor i t yt o appear bef or e t hi s Cour t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I I . A TRO i s Appeal abl e As An “I nj unct i on” UnderAl abama Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUSI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Al l en v. Bar bour Count y981 So. 2d 1072 ( Al a. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Bar ber v. Cor ner st one Communi t y Out r eachNos. 1080805, 1080806, __ So. 3d __ , 2009 WL 3805712( Al a. Nov. 13, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Bar ber v. Houst on Econ. Dev. Ass’ nNo. 1090444 ( J anuar y 15, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 14, 18

Ci t y of Bessemer v. McCl ai n957 So. 2d 1061 ( Al a. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Evans v. St at e2008 WL 2737050 ( Al a. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ex par t e Al a. Dept . of Tr ansp.990 So. 2d 366 ( Al a. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Ex par t e Br anch980 So. 2d 981 ( Al a. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Ex par t e McCor mi ck932 So. 2d 124 ( Al a. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ex par t e Weaver570 So. 2d 675 ( Al a. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Har t l ey v. St at e991 So. 2d 191 ( Al a. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Hi gdon v. McDuf f 172 So. 636 ( Al a. 1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

I n r e St ephenson



Sur l es v. Ashvi l l eNos. 1080826, 1081015, __ So. 3d. __ ( J anuar y 29,2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wat son v. Wat son910 So. 2d 765 ( Al a. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Weedon v. Cr owel l540 So. 2d 1376 ( Al a. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17

Statutes

ALA. CODE § 12- 17- 184( 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,

ALA. CODE § 12- 17- 216 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 1

ALA. CODE § 13A- 12- 20( 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ALA. CODE § 36- 15- 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ALA. CODE § 36- 15- 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 12, 1

ALA. CODE § 36- 15- 1( 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ALA. CODE § 36- 15- 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ALA. CODE § 5644 ( 1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rules

Al a. R. App. P. 4( a) ( 1) ( A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 1

ALA. R. CI V. P. 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other Authorities

BLACK ’ S LAW DI CTI ONARY ( 6t h ed. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fi r st on WSFA 12 News: Vi ct or yl and' s Gami ng Cent erCl osed



OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Faced wi t h t he daunt i ng t ask of def endi ng a Tempor ar y

Rest r ai ni ng Or der ent er ed i n di r ect vi ol at i on of t hi s

Cour t ’ s J anuar y 15, 2010, or der i n Bar ber v. Houst on Econ.

Dev. Ass’ n, No. 1090444 ( J anuar y 15, 2010) , Appel l eeVi ct or yl and has r esor t ed t o a mot i on t o di smi ss t hi s appeal

as a l ast - di t ch ef f or t t o keep i t s i l l egal sl ot machi nes up

and r unni ng. The same wi l l i ngness t o i gnor e r eal i t y t hat

has l ed Vi ct or yl and t o i nsi st t hat i t s sl ot machi nes

somehow pl ay “bi ngo” has now l ed i t t o er r oneousl y cont end

t hat t hi s appeal shoul d be di smi ssed because ( 1) t he

under si gned at t or neys supposedl y “l ack t he aut hor i t y t o

appear bef or e t hi s Cour t and pr osecut e t he Emer gency Mot i on

t o Vacat e or St ay I nj unct i on and Not i ce of Appeal ” and ( 2)

“a t empor ar y r est r ai ni ng or der . . . i s not an appeal abl e

i nj unct i on or f i nal or der . ” Mot . at 1. These cont ent i onsar e wi t hout mer i t and need not det ai n t hi s Cour t f or l ong.

BACKGROUND



t hat t hei r sl ot machi nes pl ay l egal “bi ngo. ” On J anuar y

25, 2010, t he Gover nor appoi nt ed Mobi l e Count y Di st r i ct

At t or ney J ohn M. Tyson, J r . Commander of t he Task For ce

pur suant t o A LA. CODE § 12- 17- 184( 10) and Execut i ve Or

Number 44, as amended ( at t ached her et o as Tab A) . See J an.

25, 2010 Appt . Let t er ( at t ached her et o as Tab B) . I n hi s

l et t er appoi nt i ng Tyson, t he Gover nor r equest ed t hat Tyson

“ser ve as Speci al Pr osecut or and counsel f or t he Task For ce

i n al l cases i nvol vi ng t he Task For ce. ” I d. Speci f i cal l y,

t he Gover nor appoi nt ed Tyson t o r epr esent t he Task For ce i n

“t he t r i al and appel l at e cour t s and bef or e al l magi st r at es

and j udges i n al l cases or pr oceedi ngs i nvol vi ng t he

Gover nor ' s Task For ce . . . or i t s l aw enf or cement act i vi t i es

r egar dl ess of wher e i n t he St at e of Al abama t he cases or

pr oceedi ngs may occur or be i ni t i at ed, ” i ncl udi ng i n t he

“appel l at e cour t s [ t hat ] may hear appeal s or pet i t i ons f or

wr i t s i n such cases. ” I d.

On J anuar y 28, 2010, t he Gover nor appoi nt ed Ass i st ant

Di st r i ct At t or ney Mar t ha Ti er ney as “Speci al Pr osecut or f or



l et t er appoi nt i ng Ti er ney, t he Gover nor r equest ed t hat

Ti er ney per f or m t he same f unct i ons as Tyson, i ncl udi ng

r epr esent i ng t he Task For ce i n “t he t r i al and appel l at e

cour t s and bef or e al l magi st r at es and j udges i n al l cases

or pr oceedi ngs i nvol vi ng t he Gover nor ' s Task For ce. ” I d.

Li kewi se, on Sept ember 22, 2009, t he Gover nor appoi nt ed

Edgar W. Gr eene t o ser ve on t he Task For ce. See Sept . 22,

2009 Appt . Let t er ( at t ached her et o as Tab D) . “Based upon

[ hi s] posi t i on as a super numer ar y di st r i ct at t or ney, ” t he

Gover nor r equest ed t hat Gr eene “pr ovi de assi st ance t o [ t he

Gover nor ] as a speci al pr osecut or i n t he i nvest i gat i on and

pr osecut i on of i l l egal gambl i ng act i vi t y t hr oughout t he

St at e of Al abama pur suant t o Sect i on 12- 17- 216 of t he Cod

of Al abama. ” I d.

On J anuar y 29, 2010, under cover l aw enf or cement agent s,

under t he Task For ce’ s di r ect i on, ent er ed t he publ i c ar eas

of Vi ct or yl and and obser ved i l l egal gambl i ng act i vi t y

occur r i ng i n pl ai n vi ew. The agent s f ound t ha

Vi ct or yl and’ s machi nes ar e vi deo t er mi nal s t hat l ook and



machi nes under A LA. CODE § 13A- 12- 20( 10) . The agent s

di scover ed t hat Vi ct or yl and’ s machi nes do not f ul l y sat i sf y

any of t he si x mandat or y but nonexcl usi ve el ement s of

t r adi t i onal bi ngo as r equi r ed by Bar ber v. Cor ner st one

Communi t y Out r each, Nos. 1080805, 1080806, __ So. 3d __ ,

2009 WL 3805712, *17- *18 ( Al a. Nov. 13, 2009) , and Sur l es

v. Ashvi l l e, Nos. 1080826, 1081015, __ So. 3d. __ ( J anuar y

29, 2010) . Not onl y do t he machi nes f ai l t o use a “car d, ”

j ust l i ke t he machi nes i n Sur l es f ai l ed t o, but t hey can be

pl ayed bl i ndf ol ded.

I n accor dance wi t h t hei r dut i es t o uphol d Al abama l aw,

l aw enf or cement agent s at t empt ed t o hal t t he i l l egal

gambl i ng act i vi t y at Vi ct or yl and and conf i scat e t he i l l egal

cont r aband i n use t her ei n. The agent s’ at t empt s wer e

t hwar t ed, however , when Vi ct or yl and’ s at t or ney made

st at ement s whi ch t he Task For ce Commander under st ood t o

mean t hat he had secur ed a TRO agai nst t he pol i ce act i on.

Tyson, t her ef or e, i nt er r upt ed t he i nvest i gat i on and sei zur e

and t r avel ed t o Ever gr een wher e at appr oxi mat el y 5 a m i n



i nvest i gat i on and sei zur e of cont r aband. The Task For ce

i mmedi at el y appeal ed t he ent r y of t hat or der t o t hi s Cour t

on an emer gency basi s. Despi t e l anguage i n t he or der

di r ect i ng Vi ct or yl and t o pr eser ve evi dence, dur i ng t he

over ni ght hour s l ast ni ght , Vi ct or yl and cl osed and began

mass “upgr ades” of t he sof t war e t hat r uns i t s machi nes. See

Fi r st on WSFA 12 News: Vi ct or yl and' s Gami ng Cent er Cl osed,

ht t p: / / www. wsf a. com/ Gl obal / st or y. asp?S=11916692 (

2010, 10: 15 p. m. ) .

To cont i nue i t s di l at or y t act i cs , Vi ct or yl and has now

moved t o di smi ss t hi s appeal on mer i t l ess gr ounds. Fi r st ,

i t asser t s t hat t he under si gned at t or neys do not “have t he

aut hor i t y t o i ndependent l y i ni t i at e and mai nt ai n an act i on

or pr oceedi ng bef or e t he appel l at e cour t s of t hi s st at e. ”

Mot . at 4. That aut hor i t y, Vi ct or yl and i ncor r ect l y cl ai ms,

“r est s sol el y i n t he of f i ce of t he At t or ney Gener al , who

has not appear ed on behal f of t he Appel l ant . ” I d.

Vi ct or yl and al so er r oneousl y cont ends t hat t hi s appeal

shoul d be di smi ssed because “[ a] t empor ar y r est r ai ni ng



REASONS THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD BE DENIED

I. The Undersigned Attorneys Have Authority to ProsecuteThis Appeal.

Ther e i s no mer i t t o Vi ct or yl and’ s cl ai m t hat t h

under si gned at t or neys l ack aut hor i t y t o chal l enge t he t r i al

cour t ’ s i nval i d TRO i n t hi s Cour t . Bef or e consi der i ng t he

mer i t s of t hat ar gument , however , i t i s wor t h not i ng t hat

Vi ct or yl and has no st andi ng t o r ai se t hat ar gument her e. I f

t he At t or ney Gener al had excl usi ve aut hor i t y t o r epr esent

t he Task For ce i n t hi s act i on, t he At t or ney Gener al al one

woul d have st andi ng t o make t hat cl ai m. See St i f f v. Al a.

Al cohol i c Bever age Cont r ol Bd. , 878 So. 2d 1138, 1141 n. 6

( Al a. 2003) ( pl ai nt i f f asser t i ng pr udent i al st andi ng must

“demonst r at e t hat her i nt er est s ar e ar guabl y wi t hi n t he

zone of i nt er est s i nt ended t o be pr ot ect ed by t he st at ut e

. . . on whi ch t he cl ai m i s based”) .

Set t i ng st andi ng quest i ons asi de, Vi ct or yl and’ s l ack-

of - aut hor i t y ar gument f ai l s f or t wo r easons. Fi r st , t he

At t or ney Gener al i s not t he onl y per son wi t h aut hor i t y t o



has expl i ci t st at ut or y aut hor i t y t o appear bef or e t hi s

Cour t because he has been appoi nt ed as a super numer ar y

di s t r i ct at t or ney.

A. Tyson and Tierney have the authority to prosecutethis appeal.

Tyson and Ti er ney have t he aut hor i t y t o pr osecut e t hi s

appeal . The Gover nor appoi nt ed Tyson t o l ead t he Task For ce

and Ti er ney t o ser ve on t he Task For ce pur suant t o A

§ 12- 17- 184( 10) . That st at ut e aut hor i zes Tyson and Ti er ney

“[ t ] o go t o any pl ace i n t he St at e of Al abama and pr osecut e

any case or cases, or wor k wi t h any gr and j ur y, when cal l ed

upon t o do so by . . . t he Gover nor . . . , and t o at t end

sessi ons of cour t s and t r ansact al l of t he dut i es of t he

di st r i ct at t or ney i n t he cour t s whenever cal l ed upon by . . .

t he Gover nor t o do so. ” A LA. CODE § 12- 17- 184( 10) .

I n accor dance wi t h t hat aut hor i t y, t he Gover nor has

aut hor i zed Tyson and Ti er ney t o r epr esent t he Task For ce i n“t he t r i al and appel l at e cour t s and bef or e al l magi st r at es

and j udges i n al l cases or pr oceedi ngs i nvol vi ng t he



wr i t s i n such cases. ” See Tab B; Tab C. Tyson and Ti er ney,

t hus, pl ai nl y have aut hor i t y t o appear bef or e t hi s Cour t

and pr osecut e t hi s appeal .

Ther e i s no mer i t t o Vi ct or yl and’ s cont ent i on t hat

Tyson’ s posi t i on as di st r i ct at t or ney of Mobi l e Count y and

hi s s t at e- wi de appoi nt ment as Task For ce Commander under

ALA. CODE 12- 17- 184( 10) , and Ti er ney’ s posi t i on as a

Assi s t ant Di s t r i ct At t or ney, l i mi t t hei r aut hor i t y t o

r epr esent i ng t he Task For ce i n Al abama ci r cui t cour t s. See

Mot . at 6- 7. Vi ct or yl and si mpl y has i t wr ong wi t h i t s

cont ent i on t hat “[ o] nl y t he At t or ney Gener al i s aut hor i zed

t o r epr esent t he i nt er est s of t he st at e bef or e t he

appel l at e cour t s. ” Mot . at 6- 7 ( ci t i ng A LA. CODE § 3

Vi ct or yl and’ s cont ent i on i s easi l y negat ed by consi der i ng

t hi s Cour t ’ s pr act i ce. Recent l y, di st r i c t at t or neys have

r epr esent ed t he St at e i n t hi s Cour t on numer ous occasi ons.

See, e. g. , Ex par t e McCor mi ck, 932 So. 2d 124, 125 ( Al a.

2005) ( mandamus pet i t i on i n whi ch “M. Davi d Bar ber ,

di s t r i ct at t y ” f i l ed i ni t i al pet i t i on f or “ St at e o



Cont r ar y t o Vi ct or yl and’ s suggest i on, see Mot . at 7- 8,

t hi s Cour t ’ s cur r ent pr act i ce compor t s wi t h I n r e

St ephenson, 21 So. 210 ( Al a. 1897) , whi ch hel d t hat t he

At t or ney Gener al , r at her t han t he now- def unct of f i ce of

count y sol i ci t or , was r equi r ed t o pet i t i on f or mandamus i n

a cr i mi nal case. St ephenson’ s hol di ng appl i es onl y t o t hat

def unct of f i ce, a l ong- super seded st at ut or y scheme, and t o

cr i mi nal cases ( i n whi ch t he St at e i s al ways a par t y) . I n

f act , at t he t i me of St ephenson, t he Code expr essl y al l owed

an at t or ney t o i ni t i at e ci vi l pr oceedi ngs upon “t he wr i t t en

di r ect i on of t he gover nor of t he st at e t o t he at t or ney of

r ecor d. ” A LA. CODE § 5644 ( 1923) . Thi s Cour t ’ s cur r

pr act i ce conf i r ms t hat , even i n cri mi nal cases, di st r i c t

at t or neys may appear bef or e t hi s Cour t .

Mor eover , Vi ct or yl and i s of f - poi nt when i t ci t es ol

cases t hat hol d t hat cr i mi nal def endant s who wi sh t o seek

cer t i or ar i r evi ew of t hei r convi ct i ons must ser ve t he

At t or ney Gener al ’ s Of f i ce wi t h a copy of t hei r br i ef . See

Mot i on at 8- 9 Her e of cour se t he St at e di d not i ni t i at e



pet i t i on i n t hi s Cour t wer e not f i l ed agai nst t he St at e,

but by Tyson f r om an adver se r ul i ng speci f i cal l y agai nst

hi m.

B. Tyson has the right to appeal the order entered against him to this Court.

Even i f t her e wer e some doubt r egar di ng Tyson’ s or

Ti er ney’ s st at ut or y aut hor i t y t o appear bef or e t hi s Cour t ,

cer t ai nl y t her e’ s no quest i on t hat Tyson, t he l one

def endant i n t hi s case, can appear and def end hi msel f

agai nst t he i nval i d TRO ent er ed agai nst hi m. Vi ct or yl and’ s

cont r ar y cont ent i on i s based on an over r eachi ng

i nt er pr et at i on of A LA. CODE § 36- 15- 1 and of t hi s Cou

casel aw di scussi ng t he At t or ney Gener al ’ s power t o

super i nt end l i t i gat i on i nvol vi ng t he St at e. See Mot . at 5-

12.

Thi s Cour t has never hel d t hat a ci vi l appeal must be

di smi ssed si mpl y because, as her e, t he At t or ney Gener al i s

awar e of t he l i t i gat i on but has chosen not t o appear .

Al t hough t he At t or ney Gener al has the power to ap



St at e t o r ai se t he i ssue, or t o r equi r e a r ul i ng agai nst a

st at e of f i cer or agency i f t he At t or ney Gener al does not

appear . See, e. g. , ALA. CODE § 36- 15- 1( 2) ( “He or she s

at t end . . . t o al l ci vi l act i ons i n whi ch t he s t at e i s a

par t y i n t he Supr eme Cour t or Cour t of Ci vi l Appeal s. ”) .

“At t end t o” i s not t he same as “ appear i n. ” The poi nt of

t hese st at ut es i s not t o f or ce st at e of f i cer s t o concede

def eat i n a sui t , l i ke t he one at i ssue her e, br ought by a

pr i vat e pl ai nt i f f shoul d t he At t or ney Gener al not appear .

Rat her , t hese st at ut es ar e si mpl y t o ensur e t hat t he

St at e’ s i nt er est s wi l l be r epr esent ed. A r ul e t hat pr i vat e

pl ai nt i f f s wi n al l l awsui t s agai nst s t at e of f i cer s unl ess

t he At t or ney Gener al speci f i cal l y r epr esent s t hem woul d

def eat t hat pur pose.

Li kewi se, Vi ct or yl and’ s r el i ance on Ex par t e Weaver ,

570 So. 2d 675 ( Al a. 1990) , i s mi spl aced. To be sur e, t hi s

Cour t hel d i n Weaver t hat i n cer t ai n ci r cumst ances t he

“at t or ney- gener al has power . . . t o make any di sposi t i on of

t he st at e’ s l i t i gat i on t hat he deems f or i t s best



because t he Gover nor i s not a par t y and t he At t or ney

Gener al has not at t empt ed t o super i nt end.Fi nal l y, Vi ct or yl and pl aces undue r el i ance on § 36- 15-

1, whi ch says t hat “no at t or ney shal l r epr esent t he St at e

of Al abama, or any agency, depar t ment , or i nst r ument al i t y

of t he st at e i n any l i t i gat i on i n any cour t or t r i bunal

unl ess t he at t or ney has been appoi nt ed as a deput y at t or ney

gener al or assi st ant at t or ney gener al . ” Mot . at 5. That

st at ut e says not hi ng about cases i nvol vi ng st at e of f i cer s,

so on i t s f ace i t does not appl y i n t hi s case. Mor eover ,

under Vi ct or yl and’ s cr amped r eadi ng, di st r i ct at t or neys

coul d not r epr esent t he St at e –- even at cr i mi nal t r i al s.

Because Vi ct or yl and’ s “const r uct i on woul d pr oduce an absur d

and unj ust r esul t t hat i s c l ear l y i nconsi st ent wi t h t he

pur pose and pol i cy of t he st at ut e, ” i t “i s t o be avoi ded. ”

Ci t y of Bessemer v. McCl ai n, 957 So. 2d 1061, 1074- 75 ( Al a.

2006) . J ust as di st r i ct at t or neys may r epr esent t he St at e

at cr i mi nal t r i al s, t hey may r epr esent t he St at e on appeal .

I n t he ver y l east when of f i cehol der s l i ke Tyson ar e sued



C. Greene has explicit statutory authority to appear before this Court

I n addi t i on, t he Al abama Code speci f i cal l y gi ves Gr eene

aut hor i t y t o r epr esent Tyson and t he Task For ce. Thi s i s so

because t he Gover nor , wi t hout l i mi t at i on, appoi nt ed Gr eene

as a super numer ar y di st r i ct at t or ney t o i nvest i gat e and

pr osecut e “i l l egal gambl i ng act i vi t y t hr oughout t he St at e

of Al abama, ” Tab D, and t he Al abama Code aut hor i zes

super numer ar y di st r i ct at t or neys t o “per f or m dut i es as

t hose pr escr i bed f or assi st ant at t or neys gener al . ” A

§ 12- 17- 216; see al so i d. ( a super numer ar y di st r i ct

at t or ney “shal l have al l t he power s and aut hor i t y of an

assi st ant at t or ney gener al ”) . Vi ct or yl and concedes t hat

assi st ant at t or neys gener al can appeal adver se j udgment s t o

t hi s Cour t . See Mot . at 11; A LA. CODE § 36- 15- 1

at t or ney shal l r epr esent t he St at e of Al abama, or any

agency, depar t ment , or i nst r ument al i t y of t he st at e …

unl ess t he at t or ney has been appoi nt ed as a deput y at t or ney

gener al or an assi st ant at t or ney gener al . ”) . I ndeed, deput y



980 So. 2d 981, 982 ( Al a. 2007) ; Al l en v. Bar bour Count y,

981 So. 2d 1072, 1073 ( Al a. 2007) .Vi ct or yl and at t empt s t o dodge t hi s f at al f l aw i n i t s

l ack- of - aut hor i t y ar gument by si mpl y i gnor i ng t he pl ai n

l anguage of A LA. CODE § 12- 17- 216. Ther e i s no ot her way

i nt er pr et i t s mer i t l ess cont ent i on t hat “a super numer ar y

di st r i ct at t or ney such as Mr . Gr eene . . . i s not aut hor i zed

t o r epr esent t he i nt er est s of t he st at e bef or e t he

appel l at e cour t s of t he st at e. ” Mot . at 6. The Al abama

Code, however , speaks f or i t sel f . Under A LA. CODE

216, Gr eene has “al l t he power s and aut hor i t y of an

assi st ant at t or ney gener al , ” whi ch i ncl ude t he power t o

br i ng appeal s t o t hi s Cour t . Vi ct or yl and’ s cont ent i on t o

t he cont r ar y i s basel ess.

II. A TRO is Appealable As An “Injunction” Under AlabamaLaw.

Li kewi se, t her e i s no mer i t t o Vi ct or yl and’ s cont ent i on

t hat “[ a] t empor ar y rest r ai ni ng or der i s not a f i nal

j udgment or an i nj unct i on t hat wi l l suppor t an appeal under



di smi ssal of t he ci vi l sui t i n whi ch i t was br ought ,

emphasi zi ng t hat cour t s l ack j ur i sdi ct i on t o “i nt er f er ewi t h a cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng by ci vi l act i on. ” The gambl i ng

i nt er est s i n t hat case asser t ed t he ver y same ar gument s

t hat Vi ct or yl and asser t s her e i n t hei r ef f or t s t o di smi ss

t hat appeal and del ay t he Task For ce’ s enf or cement of

Al abama l aw. Thi s Cour t easi l y r ej ect ed t hat mot i on t o

di smi ss and qui ckl y vacat ed t he i nval i d TRO. I t shoul d do

t he same her e.

To be sur e, t hi s Cour t ’ s hol di ng Bar ber v. Houst on

Econ. Dev. Ass’ n t hat a TRO i s r evi ewabl e on appeal i s

consi st ent wi t h wel l - set t l ed Al abama l aw. I t i s undi sput ed

t hat Rul e 4( a) ( 1) ( A) of t he Al abama Rul es of Appel l at e

Pr ocedur e gi ves t hi s Cour t j ur i sdi ct i on t o r evi ew “any

i nt er l ocut or y or der gr ant i ng . . . an i nj unct i on. ” Thus, t he

onl y quest i on t hi s Cour t needs t o answer t o r ej ect

Vi ct or yl and’ s ar gument i s whet her a TRO i s an i nj unct i on.

The answer i s cer t ai nl y yes.

I ndeed i t i s beyond di sput e t hat a TRO i s a



t hat a TRO i s a t ype of “I nt er l ocut or y I nj unct i on[ ] . ”

BLACK ’ S LAW DI CTI ONARY 784 ( 6t h ed. 1990) . I t al so def i“i nj unct i on” mor e gener al l y as a “cour t or der pr ohi bi t i ng

someone f r om doi ng some speci f i ed act or commandi ng someone

t o undo some wr ong or i nj ur y. ” I d. A TRO easi l y f i t s t hat

bi l l .

Al t hough Vi ct or yl and pl aces gr eat wei ght on t he f act

t hat TROs ar e gener al l y not i mmedi at el y appeal abl e i n

f eder al cour t , t hat r el i ance i s mi spl aced. Thi s act i on i s

not pendi ng i n f eder al cour t , and t he f eder al r ul es do not

appl y. What ever “r at i onal e” t he f eder al cour t s may have i n

appl yi ng t he f eder al r ul e r egar di ng TROs i s i r r el evant t o

t hi s Cour t ’ s j ur i sdi ct i on under Rul e 4( a) ( 1) ( A) , Al a. R

App. P. Thi s Cour t ’ s pr i or deci si ons make cl ear t hat TROs

ar e r evi ewabl e by t hi s Cour t , and t hi s Cour t shoul d r ej ect

Vi ct or yl and’ s i nvi t at i on t o i gnor e t hose deci si ons and

i nt er pr et Rul e 4( a) ( 1) ( A) “accor di ng t o f eder al pr ecedent . ”

Mot . at 19.

Cont r ar y t o Vi ct or yl and’ s cont ent i on Weedon v



i ssue i n t hat case was a TRO or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on.

Then, cr i t i cal l y f or pr esent pur poses, t hi s Cour t st at ed,“A second reason f or not di smi ssi ng t he appeal i s Ru

4( a) ( 1) ( A) , Al a. R. App. P. ” I d. at 1377 ( emphasi s added) .

Thi s Cour t not ed t hat whet her t he or der at i ssue t her e was

a TRO or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on, “[ t ] he or der appeal ed

f r om i s an i nj unct i on of some ki nd. ” I d. at 1378. “So, ”

t hi s Cour t concl uded, “t echni cal l y, i t can be ar gued t hat

i t i s appeal abl e under A. R. A. P. 4( a) ( 1) ( A) . ” I d.

Even pr i or t o t hi s Cour t ’ s r ecent hol di ng i n Bar ber v.

Houst on Econ. Dev. Ass’ n, t hi s Cour t ’ s post - Weedon case l aw

made cl ear t hat TROs ar e, i n f act , consi der ed “i nj unct i ons”

under Rul e 4( a) ( 1) ( A) . The Cour t has hel d t hat “[ t ] he t r i al

cour t ' s deni al of t he second emer gency mot i on f or a

t empor ar y r est r ai ni ng or der i s an i nt er l ocut or y or der

r ef usi ng an i nj unct i on, whi ch was appeal abl e pur suant t o

Rul e 4( a) ( 1) ( A) , Al a. R. App. P. ” Wat son v. Wat son, 91

So. 2d 765, 769 ( Al a. 2005) . That hol di ng def i ni t i vel y

est abl i shes t hat a TRO i s an “i nj unct i on” under Rul e



on appeal and, most i mpor t ant l y, t he r esponsi bi l i t y t o

vacat e any such or der s t hat enj oi n t he sei zur e of i l l egalgambl i ng devi ces i n t he compl et e absence of any

j ur i sdi ct i on t o do so. See, e. g. , Bar ber v. Houst on Econ.

Dev. Ass’ n, No. 1090444 ( J anuar y 15, 2010) ; Hi gdon v.

McDuf f , 172 So. 636, 637 ( Al a. 1937) .

CONCLUSION

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t hi s Cour t shoul d deny

Vi ct or yl and’ s Mot i on t o Di smi ss.

Respect f ul l y submi t t ed,

s/ Edgar Gr eene

Super numer ar y Di st r i ctAt t or ney and Speci alPr osecut or on behal f of Appel l ant J ohn M. Tyson,

J ohn M. Tyson, J r .Mar t ha Ti er neyEdgar Gr eene

OFFI CE OF GOVERNOR BOB R600 Dext er AvenueMont gomer y, Al abama 36130( 334) 242- 7120( 251) 574- 8400 ( f ax)( 334) 242 2335 ( f ax)



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I her eby cer t i f y t hat a copy of t he f or egoi ng documenthas been ser ved on t hi s t he 2nd day of Febr uar y, 2010, t ot he f ol l owi ng by e- mai l :

Fr ed Gr aySt anl ey Gr ayP. O. Box 830239

Tuskegee, Al abama 36083By emai l :f gr ay@gl smgn. comsgr ay@gl smgn. com

J ohn M. Bol t on, I I IChar l anna W. SpencerDoy Leal e McCal l , I I I

425 Sout h Per r y St r eetMont gomer y, Al abama 36204By emai l :

j bol t on@hi l l hi l l car t er . comcspencer @hi l l hi l l car t er . com

Wi l l i am M. Sl aught erPet er J . Tepl eyPat r i ci a C. Di ak1400 Par k Pl ace Tower2001 Par k Pl ace Nor t hBi r mi ngham, Al abama 3520By emai l :WMS@hsy. comPT@hsy. compcd@hsy. com

J . Mar k Whi t eAugust S. DowdWi l l i am M. Bowen, J r .Massey Bui l di ng, Sui t e 2025 Thi r d Ave. N.Bi r mi ngham, Al abama 3520By emai l :mwhi t e@whi t ear nol ddowd. cadowd@whi t ear nol ddowd. cowmbowen@whi t ear nol ddowd.

s/ Edgar Gr eeneOF COUNSEL



TAB A



TAB B



TAB C



TAB D

victory land - appellant's opposition to appellee's motion to dismiss appeal

Documents