Mostly, they filed the same old crap. That they had a right to look at the new reason the city came up with when they lost the hearing. (and they might...problem was that they didn't hold a hearing on the new reason, simply decided by fiat that the new reason was good enough. Which is interesting, as the city has admitted in court filings that a commercial use was in place next door, after the cutoff date in city code, which renders any residential use illegal. )

My reading of the appeals court wasn't that the city couldn't look at another reason, but that they were required to let us address it. Which they didn't. And good thing, cause they knew that house was illegal and we would have beat that reason too.  My understanding is also that the appeals court took umbrage with the city's willful denial of our rights to due process, the city's lying about the zoning investigation and license processing, as well as the mysterious "losing" of the hearing transcripts. (lucky for the city, as their behavior was pretty evident in those recordings).

Interestingly, the city attorney spent his morning on our website.

He browsed about fifty pages, including multiple looks at thing like: membership criteria, event galleries, membership process, the "about us" page, our mission statement, our club rules, our facility description, the event calendar, dungeon etiquette, club etiquette, etc.

Seems like a lot of time spent on the site for what the city calls a completely content neutral zoning issue.

My guess is that they're copying text to paste into their next filing. As they've done in both lower courts in the past. For whatever reason, no jurist thus far has made note of the fact
that the city is clearly NOT content neutral and is posting things specifically to sway the courts based on what we do.

Anyways....soon as we get a decision from the supreme court to either hear or not hear the city's case we'll let ya know.

~Michael