DOCUMENT 131
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/3/2024 10:42 PM
45-CV-2023-900051.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
LOWNDES COUNTY, ALABAMA
STEPHANIE JONES, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY, ALABAMA
STATE OF ALABAMA, )
Plaintiff, )
)
V. ) Civil Action No.
) CV-2023-900051.00
EPIC TECH, INC., )
SOUTHERN STAR ENTERTAIMENT, )
WHITEHALL ENTERTAIMENT, )
WHITE HALL TOWN COUNCIL, ET AL, )
Defendant(s).
COMPLAINT
DEFENDANTS WHITE HALL ENTERTAINMENT, WHITE HALL
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, WHITE HALL ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, LLC AND
CORNERSTONE OUTREACH, INC.’s AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS.
COMES NOW, the Defendants, White Hall Entertainment, White Hall
Entertainment, LLC, White Hall Entertainment Center, LLC, and Cornerstone Outreach, Inc.,
and respectfully file their amended answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim as follows:
JURISDICTION & VENUE
1. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties because each are residents or do
business in Lowndes County, Alabama.
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present action.
3. The events, transactions, and occurrences forming the factual nexus and subject
matter of Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants, White Hall Entertainment et al.,
took place within the Second Judicial Circuit of Alabama in Lowndes County,
Alabama.
PARTIES
4. The parties are set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint and incorporated herein by reference.
ANSWER
5. The Defendants, White Hall Entertainment, White Hall Entertainment, LLC, White
Hall Entertainment Center, LLC, and Cornerstone Outreach, Inc., deny each and
every allegation contained in the Complaint and demand strict proof thereof.
6. Defendants have developed and operated an electronic bingo game that meets all the
six-criterion set forth in the Cornerstone Decision.
1
DOCUMENT 131
7. Plaintiff has not established that Defendants bingo apparatuses constitute gambling
devices as defined by Alabama law.
8. The six criterions, however, are arbitrary and capricious because any bingo game that
does not meet these absolute criterions has been deemed a nuisance per se. This
therefore violates U.S. constitutional rights including but not limited to: (1) the right
to vote, (2) due process of law, (3) equal protection of the law, and (4) the American
disability act. The criteria also violate the Substance Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Defendants, the Defendants, White Hall Entertainment, White Hall Entertainment,
LLC, White Hall Entertainment Center, LLC, and Cornerstone Outreach, Inc., adopt and
incorporate the facts presented by all Defendants.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE I
Defendants assert that during its six (6) years of operation, there has not been any
violence or significant destruction of property. The Facility serves as a cultural and recreational
outlet for a county limited in social and cultural outlets. White Hall and White Hall Town
Council further asserts that, city and county officials, including the Sheriff and Police Chief in
the County, support White Hall Entertainment Center and recognizes its economic and social
benefit to the county.
Defendants White Hall Entertainment et al., assert that the State of Alabama has passed
laws supporting the public nuisance of segregation for over 200 years. The State, with the
approval of the Governor, passed a law that imposed stiff penalties for individuals, organizations
and local governments who removed statutes and names of bridges, streets and buildings
established to honor people who committed treason against the United States, and who led and or
supported the most dehumanizing slavery in human history against people of African-descent.
The overwhelmingly majority of the citizens in Lowndes County, the location of White
Hall, African Americans. Not a single black person was allowed to vote in Lowndes County prior
to the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Black Citizens who dared to register to vote were
victimized through violence with the support or acquiescence of the State of Alabama. At no time
were the actions of local governments or white-owned establishments sued for maintaining a
public nuisance.
THEREFORE, the State’s public nuisance lawsuit against the Defendants is inconsistent
with the purpose of the public nuisance law. The State’s failure to pursue segregated facilities as
a public nuisance and its protection of monuments of segregation on public property is evidence
of its unconstitutional purpose and motive to deprive the African American of Lowndes County
of benefits and rights historically denied by the State of Alabama.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE II
2
DOCUMENT 131
White Hall and White Hall Town Council assert as an affirmative defense that the State
of Alabama has intentionally misinterpreted and applied the public nuisance law to deprive the
African American Citizens of Lowndes County and the municipal government of White Hall the
equal protection of the law, resulting in the denial of property and resources without due process
of law provided other ethnic groups. Lowndes County is one of the poorest counties in the State,
primary because of systemic racism dating back to slavery.
In 1930, a successful Black man was lynched because he had a thriving black owned
grocery store. In 1965, James Reeb, a White civil rights minister was killed by a White
businessman because he advocated the rights of Black citizens to vote in a democracy.
Due to systemic racism, endorsed and supported by the State of Alabama, Lowndes
County continues to be economically and socially challenged and underserved. The instant action
is an extension of its insidious efforts to deprive Lowndes County’s Black majority population of
rights and benefits that have been historically denied or minimized for over 200 years. White
Hall Entertainment provides much needed services and benefits to Lowndes County citizens
through its charitable contributions and social/cultural outlets. If the State succeeds under the
subterfuge of “public nuisance”, the citizens of Lowndes County will suffer even more.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE III
Incorporating the paragraphs above, Defendants White Hall Entertainment, et al., and
White Hall Town Council assert that people of African descent have suffered many of the same
abuses and violations as Native Americans. Yet, less than 30 miles from White Hall, Native
Americans have a gaming establishment which is not being challenged as a public nuisance.
There is no law forbidding citizens of Lowndes County from going to that facility. To do so
would be clearly unconstitutional. By that same reasoning, citizens of Lowndes County should
not be penalized for engaging in the same or similar activity, nor should they be required to go
30 miles for such a social and cultural outlet.
Moreover, attendance at the White Hall Entertainment facility produces revenue and
economic benefits for the citizens of Lowndes County. The Federal Government has implicitly
declared that gaming is not a public nuisance and did not forbid non-Native Americans from
attending a gaming facility owned by Native Americans. To treat African Americans, similarly
situated to Native Americans, differently, amounts to a denial of the equal protection of the law,
which is prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the U. S. Constitution.
AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
COUNT I:
THE FINDING THAT ELECTRIC BINGO IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE PER SE IN
LOWNDES COUNTY DEPRIVES DEFENDANTS OF THEIR RIGHT TO TRIAL BY
JURY
1. The penalties imposed by Plaintiff against Defendants denies Defendants the right
to a jury trial guaranteed by the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Plaintiffs closed White Hall Entertainment Center and seized its assets without a
3
DOCUMENT 131
jury trial to determine whether the changes made by White Hall constituted a
public nuisance.
2. Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants’ current operation is a public nuisance
without a jury trial, therefore, defeats the purpose of a jury trial: preventing
government overreach and unfair prosecution.
COUNT II:
42 U.S. CODE § 1983 - CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS
3. The Plaintiff’s actions violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process,
substantive due process, and equal protection clauses. The Attorney General’s
actions disproportionately impact African American citizens and municipalities.
Houston County is predominantly white. Lowndes County is predominantly
African American. White Alabamians of Houston County are allowed to engage
in the same conduct that Plaintiff has obstructed for African Americans in
Lowndes County. If electronic bingo were a nuisance per se, (inherently noxious
or harmful), the Federal Government would not allow it to operate in Alabama or
any other state, no more than it would allow a crack house to operate. Plaintiff’s
purposeful discrimination against Lowndes County residents under the guise of
public nuisance, violates the due process, substantive due process, and equal
protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. CONSTITUTION VIOLATION
4. By Constitutional Amendment #674, the citizens of Lowndes County approved
electronic bingo games in Lowndes County. This amendment received approval
from 58% of the voters in Alabama. Additionally, the circuit court ruled that
White Hall Entertainment had a legal electronic bingo operation.
5. The Attorney General ignored the will of the voters and successfully shut down
bingo in White Hall, Alabama, even after the Defendants made changes to comply
with the Alabama Supreme Court’s requirements for “legal bingo.”
6. The Attorney General’s motive was to deprive the black municipality and county
of the taxes and other contributions deriving from the bingo center.
7. The Alabama Supreme Court did not have the authority to declare amendment
#674 unconstitutional without a full hearing, but the constitutionality of that
amendment has never been directly challenged or changed by the Alabama State
Legislature.
8. Cornerstone Outreach, Inc., the licensed authority, determined that the defendants’
bingo operation complied with the Constitutional Amendment and the
requirements of the Alabama Supreme Court.
9. The Alabama Supreme Court circumvented the authority of the Circuit Court and
made findings of facts without observing the witnesses and the presentation of the
evidence when it found that Defendants bingo operation was a public nuisance per
se.
4
DOCUMENT 131
10. Bingo and other games of chance take place all over the State of Alabama,
including at Wind Creek Casino. African American citizens share a common
history of government-sponsored violence and exploitation with indigenous
people.
11. Historically, activities that are public nuisances constitute a serious threat to the
public welfare. Surely, alcohol, guns, and tobacco are greater threats to the public
welfare, yet these items are not unlawful. That the State of Alabama is currently
considering a legal lottery demonstrates that gaming is not inherently evil as set
forth in the 1901 Constitution.
12. Here, the Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence that the Defendant’s bingo
operation is “dangerous at all times and under all circumstances a danger to the
public health.” Therefore, the Alabama Supreme court’s finding that the bingo
operation is a public nuisance per se is unconstitutional.
13. The essence of the State’s objection to Defendants’ bingo game is that it is a game
of chance as opposed to skill. Over 34 states have authorized sports betting.
Games of chance and electronic Bingo are advertised in Lowndes County without
objection or interference from the Plaintiff. By comparison, the Plaintiff would
not allow the advertisement of a “crack house” with impunity. That would be
unthinkable. That games of chance, including electronic bingo, are allowed to be
promoted, suggest that the Plaintiff does not truly believe that the defendants’
operation is a public nuisance, casting doubt on its motive for seeking to close
Defendants’ operation.
14. Many Alabama counties, unlike the Plaintiff, have not been authorized by
constitutional amendment to allow a game of chance. Yet, Plaintiff allows these
counties to conduct game-of-chance operations without interference or attempts to
enjoin. The plaintiff, for instance, has allowed bingo to operate in Houston
County, a majority white county, although its games are substantially similar to
Defendant’s bingo games.
15. The Plaintiff has targeted majority Black counties to enjoin bingo as a public
nuisance. These counties, including Lowndes, have historically been victims of
the public nuisances of discrimination, segregation, and voter suppression. The
State of Alabama and the Plaintiff have never taken action to enjoin activities and
actions that caused irreparable harm to victims of race-centered public nuisances.
Indeed, in many cases, they have promoted these activities. Plaintiff’s selective
enforcement of gaming has disproportionately impacted African Americans
engaged in the same or similar conduct as majority white counties.
16. The Plaintiff, historically, has openly participated, supported, and condoned the
discriminatory practices and policies of the State of Alabama to the detriment of
Black citizens, especially Black children.
17. The Alabama Constitution of 1901 which decreed lottery evil, condoned and
legalized segregation of Alabama’s public schools to the detriment of American
citizens.
18. The Plaintiff’s actions violate the due process, substantive due process, and equal
protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
19. Plaintiff’s actions are based on the unconstitutional theory that all electronic
bingo operations are a public nuisance per se.
5
DOCUMENT 131
20. That electronic bingo is allowed in some places in the state nullifies Plaintiff’s
position that electronic bingo is inherently dangerous and harmful to the public
welfare.
21. Furthermore, Alabama’s prohibition of gambling itself, which the defendants’
establishment does not promote but is accused of promoting, violates the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process Clauses
and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. That is, the prohibition of
gambling is but an unconstitutional attempt to enforce biblical morality. While a
state’s police powers enabled states to regulate public morality at common law, a
series of Supreme Court cases over the last eighty years has called the state’s
ability to do so into question. These cases include, but or not limited to, Loving
v. Virginia (declaring anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional), Lawrence v.
Texas (overturning law prohibiting same-sex sexual conduct), and Eisenstadt v.
Baird (striking down law banning the use of contraception by unmarried couples).
Simply put, simple biblical immorality without a threat to the health or wellbeing
of the citizenry is not a legitimate government interest.
22. Furthermore, legislation and promulgations based solely on biblical morality
equate with the state favoring Christianity and similar religions over secularism
and religions that do not deem gambling immoral.
23. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s actions violate the Defendant’s Substantive Due
Process right to choice of profession, to acquire and own property, to run and own
a private business and Plaintiff’s due process right to be free from government
interference with property rights without due process of law.
COUNT III
SELECTIVE PROSECUTION AND DISCRIMATORY IMPACT
24. Defendants’ incorporate herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
25. The Plaintiff has persistently pursued the closing of bingo in Lowndes County
while ignoring hundreds of bingo operations in other counties in Alabama,
including majority white counties.
26. Plaintiff’s selective enforcement of electronic bingo as a public nuisance is a
violation of State and Federal law.
27. Plaintiff has maliciously and discriminatorily targeted Defendants without
applying the same standards and criterion to other bingo facilities in other
counties.
COUNT IV
THE PLAINTIFF’S ACTIVITIES ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE AMERICAN WITH
DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) 20.
28. Defendants incorporate herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
29. People who have auditory and visual disabilities are unable to participate in paper
bingo.
30. The ADA requires access for people with hearing and sight disabilities.
6
DOCUMENT 131
31. The defendants’ operation was designed to comply with the ADA and to
accommodate employees and patrons with disabilities.
32. Plaintiff sets standards for bingo in Lowndes County which do not meet the
requirement of the Americans with Disability Act.
COUNT V
VIOLATION OF AMENDMENT 15 AND 19 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE
FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 065 (VRA)
33. The Alabama Supreme Court’s disregard of Constitutional Amendment #674,
passed by of the citizens of Alabama, violates the Fifteenth and Nineteenth
Amendments of U.S. Constitution, which grant American citizens the right to
vote. The right to vote and have votes effectuated and enforced was severely
impaired when the Plaintiff closed White Hall Entertainment Center’s bingo
operation.
34. §2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices that result in the denial or
abridgement of the right to vote based on race or color. Lowndes County is
overwhelmingly populated by African Americans who have been victimized by
years of segregation, violence, and injustices that have rendered it one of the
poorest counties in America.
35. The democratic will of the majority of Alabama voters was overridden by
Plaintiffs when it closed down White Hall Entertainment’s bingo operations.
Amendment #674 states in relevant parts, “The Town Council shall have the
authority to promulgate rules and regulations for the licensing and operation of
bingo games.”
36. The State Supreme Court’s rigid requirement for bingo is even more egregious in
light of the shift in public opinion about lotteries and electronic bingo. Recently,
the Alabama legislature’s attempt to legalize lotteries and electronic bingo fell
short by one vote.
37. Members of the White Hall Town’s council were elected by the voters of
Lowndes County who were predominantly African American. The election results
were essentially overturned the Supreme Court’s rejection of Amendment #674,
thereby nullifying the will of the people. The Supreme Court acted beyond its
constitutional authority when it did so.
38. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has a penchant of attempting to nullify the power of the
Black vote. Plaintiff was accomplice to the relatively recent scheme to rob
African American Alabamians of their right to one-man, one-vote. Alabama’s
race-conservative law makers constructed a congressional map which created just
one congressional district in which Black voters constituted the majority or near-
majority. The United States Supreme Court in Allen v. Milligan held that the map
violated the Voting Rights Act and commanded Alabama’s race-conservative
legislatures to redraw the map to include a second majority Black congressional
district. However, the race-conservative legislature refused to abide by the law as
promulgated by the highest court in the land. A lower federal court had to appoint
a special master to rehabilitate the map and add another black district. The race-
conservative legislature again resisted, petitioning the Supreme Court to enjoin
7
DOCUMENT 131
the special master. However, even the race-conservative Supreme Court found
Alabama’s race-conservatives a bit extreme and their efforts to dilute the black
vote unacceptably racially discriminatory. Clearly, the plaintiff is antagonistic to
the voting rights of African American Alabamians—at least according to the
Supreme Court. And this case is no different.
RELIEF REQUESTED
39. Defendants demand a return of all seized property.
40. Defendants demand Twenty Million ($20,000, 000.000) dollars in damages.
41. Defendants White Hall and White Hall City Council are entitled and claims and
demands an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and expert witness fees under the
Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1988, and attorneys’ fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the ADA specifically 42 U.S.C. § 12205,
after a trial on the merits of this ADA claim.
42. Defendants/Counterclaimant White Hall and White Hall Town Council demands
trial by jury upon all issues of fact raised by the Amended Complaint and
Amended Answer and Counterclaim filed in this cause. Rules 38 (a) and 39(a),
Ala. R. Civ. P. and Code of Ala. §6-6-228. See Fuino v Morrow 427 So. 2d 710
(Ala. Civ. App. 1983) (Right to trial by jury strongly ingrained into our legal
heritage and protected by Art. 1, Sec. 11 to allow jury trial in Declaratory
Judgment Action upon disputed factual issues). Defendant is entitled to trial by
jury under federal law, also, upon the merits of and any claims that it has violated
any criminal statute.
43. THEREFORE, the Counter Defendant should be enjoined from misusing the
public nuisance law to stop Defendants from operating a facility that serves the
citizens of Lowndes County in violation of the due process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the U. S. Constitution.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Faya Rose Toure
Faya Rose Toure (SAN021)
Attorney for Defendants
OF COUNSEL
CHESTNUT, SANDERS & SANDERS, LLC
One Union Street
Post Office Box 1290
Selma, AL, 36702
[email protected]
JURY DEMAND
Defendants/Counterclaimant White Hall and White Hall Town Council demands trial by
jury upon all issues of fact raised by the complaint and Answer and Counterclaim filed in this
cause. Rules 38(a) and 39(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., Code of Ala. § 6-6-228, and the Seventh
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. See Fuino v. Morrow, 427 So. 2d 710 (Ala.
8
DOCUMENT 131
Civ. App. 1983) (Right to trial by jury strongly ingrained into our legal heritage and protected by
Art. I Sec. 11 to allow jury trial in Declaratory Judgment Action upon disputed factual issues).
Defendant is entitled to trial by jury under federal law, also, upon the merits of its ADA
counterclaim at Count VI of the Counterclaim and any claim that it has violated any criminal
statute as a matter of federal constitution law pursuant to the due process clause, Section 1,
to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have filed the above and foregoing Amended Answer and
Counterclaim of White Hall Entertainment and white Hall Town Council with the Clerk of the
Court and served a copy of the same on all counsel of record by electronically filing the same
this the 3rd day of September 2024.
/s/Faya Rose Toure (SAN021)
Of Counsel
