Reply Brief Wexhibt Nowcccdocket

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE ITALO M. PARISE,

Case No. 09-007370-CZ Hon. Michael F. Sapala

Plaintiff, vs. DETROIT ENTERTAINMENT, L.L.C., d/b/a MOTORCITY CASINO Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________________/ Frank A. Cusumano, Jr. (P42781) Patricia Nemeth (P37004) Attorney for the Plaintiff Deborah Brouwer (P34872) 4000 Crooks Road #100A Louis Eble (P59368) Royal Oak, MI. 48073 Attorney for the Defendant (248) 288-8760 200 Talon Centre Dr., Ste 200 Fax: 248-786-6921 Detroit, MI. 48207 Email: [email protected] (313) 567-5921 _____________________________________________________________________________/

Plaintiff’s Reply Brief to Defendant’s Response Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Disposition I.

Introduction The Michigan Gaming Control Revenue Act (MGCRA) simply does not do what the

defendant Motorcity Casino (“MC”) claims it does, or wants it to do, therefore MC asks this Court to negate, and rewrite a clear and unambiguous statute and substitute an “iron curtain“ rule of law to protect its financial interests which it could not do through the Proposal E Ballot Initiative and, to date, the legislative process. The Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) agrees that the MGCRA does not apply to this case, and that legal duties and rights exist outside the MGCRA. Furthermore, MC’s arguments relative to these issues fly in the face of its own regular and constant dealing in the

1   

II. Argument A.

Defendant has failed to show that MCL 600.2939(1) is “inconsistent” with the MGCRA

It is MC burden that MCL 600.2939(1) is inconsistent with: An Act to provide for the licensing, regulation, and control of: a. casino gaming operations, b. manufacturers and distributors of gaming devices and gaming related equipment and supplies, and c. persons who participate in gaming (as “gaming” is defined at MCL 432.202(x)); To provide the distribution of revenue for public education, public safety and economic development; Authorizing limited casino operations within the state of Michigan; To vest authority for the licensing, regulation, and control of casino gaming in the Michigan gaming control board; To restrict certain political contributions; To establish a code of ethics for certain persons involved in gaming; To create certain funds; To impose and authorize certain taxes and fees; To impose penalties; To authorize conservators under certain circumstances; and To make an appropriation. (Source – Preamble MGCRA) MC’s attempts to do so fail because the MGCRA simply does not conflict with or is inconsistent with many statutory and common laws, including MCL 600.2939(1). MC cannot distinguish how this third party cause of action is different than others which are universally accepted and unquestioned, except that it could, if asserted, cost it money and diminish it immense wealth and power. This result is the long overdue fall-out from the Ballot Initiative Process (Proposal E) used by the gambling industrialists to open Michigan to its “entertainment product.” MCL 600.2939(1) 4   

Exhibit A 1 of 2

Exhibit A 2 of 2

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E