Attorney: Speculation, not evidence, dictated rollback

REVERE – “We’ll lose money,” is the rallying cry of most local bar owners and fellow Lynn proprietors opposed to 1 a.m. closing times, but that is not the argument Squire lounge attorney James Cipoletta is making in court.The Revere lawyer has lost the first round in his bid to convince a federal judge that city License Commission members relied on “speculation, not solid facts” to roll back the closing time for local liquor serving establishments from 2 a.m. to 1 a.m. beginning July 1.”The city acted arbitrarily and capriciously and not on the basis of fact,” Cipoletta said.U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner on July 9 rejected Cipoletta’s request to suspend the 1 a.m. closing time for the Squire and gave him two weeks to submit additional arguments to the court.Despite his challenge and ones by three other local bars, the rollback and one in Lynn, remains in force. Police Capt. Michael Murphy said police have not received reports of closing time violations to date among the 35 Revere establishments affected by the earlier closing time.”We feel satisfied that it is being adhered to,” Murphy said.Local police and Peabody officers testified before the License Commission in January that Revere was becoming a destination point for drinkers leaving bars at 1 a.m. in Chelsea and Lynn and said local drunk driving arrests and accidents were linked to the 2 a.m. closing time.Bar owners argued economic hardship in opposing the early closing time but bar owner Dan Dillon’s statement that the “transformation of a customer from 1 a.m. to 2 a.m. is like Jekyll and Hyde” helped convinceCommission Chairman Michael Pepe to vote for the rollback.When asked for his view Tuesday on Cipoletta’s due process argument, Pepe said, “I don’t want to comment on pending litigation.”Cipoletta thinks his argument that the Squire’s due process rights under the U.S. Constitution were violated by the rollback will go to trial.”The basis on which the board made its conclusion is nothing more than conjecture that Revere would become a destination point. There was testimony without evidence. Case law says that’s not enough to satisfy due process rights,” he said.