[00:00.000 --> 00:10.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, www.logosradionetwork.com
[00:10.000 --> 00:37.000]  Look what we got, we asked the Christians, they don't know what to hide, they don't have answers, we asked the Christians
[00:37.000 --> 00:57.000]  Look what we got, they don't have answers, we asked the Christians, they don't know what to hide, they don't have answers
[00:57.000 --> 01:06.000]  This is the Rule of Law with Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens and tonight is Thursday, February 25th, 2016.
[01:06.000 --> 01:14.000]  Tonight we have our special guest Marshall Denny from Washington State who will be discussing two cases involving a gun range in his county.
[01:14.000 --> 01:18.000]  Marshall, thank you for joining us tonight and welcome to the show.
[01:18.000 --> 01:21.000]  Well thank you, it's very nice to be here with you.
[01:21.000 --> 01:27.000]  We've had Marshall on a few times to discuss these cases and Marshall is here tonight to give us an update.
[01:27.000 --> 01:33.000]  Marshall, would you please give us an overview of what's happened so far for our listeners who aren't familiar with this situation?
[01:33.000 --> 01:41.000]  Sure, well this evening we're going to talk about the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club in Kitsap County, Washington.
[01:41.000 --> 01:49.000]  It's a very large club historically, it's certainly the most active west of Puget Sound in the northwest.
[01:49.000 --> 01:55.000]  Probably the most active before we were shut down, in fact in western Washington.
[01:55.000 --> 02:00.000]  Been having some troubles with the county for a protracted period of time.
[02:00.000 --> 02:12.000]  To give you a more background, this club has been in continuous operation since Armistice Day in 1926.
[02:12.000 --> 02:19.000]  We actually have a long track record of helping train military people on our facility.
[02:19.000 --> 02:34.000]  And in fact there's a military facility directly adjacent to our range called Camp Wesley Harris that was actually built on our land and built by our club years ago.
[02:34.000 --> 02:40.000]  So we have a long track record with the military, in fact we built that in 1929.
[02:40.000 --> 02:48.000]  So yeah, there's a whole bunch of that. We have very tight association with the military over the years, both in the long term and more recently.
[02:48.000 --> 02:58.000]  To jump to the lawsuits, we're not in a single lawsuit, but we're currently in two lawsuits with the county.
[02:58.000 --> 03:01.000]  Let's talk about the first one that started first.
[03:01.000 --> 03:14.000]  They basically declared us a nuisance and they complained that we hadn't had some permits for some of our berms that we built higher than they used to be and a few other details.
[03:14.000 --> 03:22.000]  And their response, their request to the court was to close us permanently as a nuisance to the community.
[03:22.000 --> 03:38.000]  And that was in part a nuisance based on sound rather than a sound nuisance because state law exempts gun ranges from the ordinances relative to being a noise nuisance.
[03:38.000 --> 03:47.000]  And the court decided that there was something else different than a noise nuisance that they call a nuisance based on noise.
[03:47.000 --> 03:52.000]  And that's apparently a difference that I don't fully understand at this point.
[03:52.000 --> 03:59.000]  So that's the first lawsuit and they asked them to permanently close the range and the trial court judge gave them what they wanted.
[03:59.000 --> 04:13.000]  And as soon as our appeals paperwork got to the appeals court before any hearings before the appeals court at all, they read over our paperwork and said this doesn't look right and they immediately reopened the range.
[04:13.000 --> 04:25.000]  They put a stay of the judges' original injunction and reopened us much to the county's aggravation.
[04:25.000 --> 04:33.000]  And then as soon as that happened and some appeals, they lost in part at the appeals court because we have grandfathered rights.
[04:33.000 --> 04:39.000]  And not only do we have grandfathered rights, we have an appeals court saying we have grandfathered rights.
[04:39.000 --> 04:46.000]  They immediately started writing a new ordinance and they said we needed a permit to continue to operate.
[04:46.000 --> 04:50.000]  And our position was, well, we have grandfathered rights from an appeals court.
[04:50.000 --> 04:55.000]  We wish to operate under those instead of getting a permit.
[04:55.000 --> 05:07.000]  And they said, oh, no, you may not operate any short of gun range without a permit with or without a, you know, with or without grandfathered rights, whether no matter what the appeals court says.
[05:07.000 --> 05:17.000]  So they asked a different court in a different county, in fact, to close us because we didn't have a permit and we hadn't applied for a permit.
[05:17.000 --> 05:24.000]  And and he gave them a preliminary injunction and we have yet to go to trial.
[05:24.000 --> 05:27.000]  And we've been closed since last April.
[05:27.000 --> 05:35.000]  I don't see how I don't see how a court in a different county could have jurisdiction over this situation.
[05:35.000 --> 05:41.000]  Well, there's an exception in Washington law that allows you to sue.
[05:41.000 --> 05:47.000]  And of course, we're the range and the government entities suing us are both in Kitsap County.
[05:47.000 --> 05:54.000]  Washington law allows them to move it to move the venue to a directly adjacent county.
[05:54.000 --> 05:58.000]  And they determined that they had a more favorable judge.
[05:58.000 --> 06:10.000]  His other county called Pierce County, so they had it moved over to that venue and and I guess for whatever reason, they decided they wanted this this last lawsuit to be in Kitsap County.
[06:10.000 --> 06:12.000]  So they moved it over there.
[06:12.000 --> 06:24.000]  So we're actually before two different judges in two different counties, two different lawsuits, both of which they originally asked them to close the gun range permanently.
[06:24.000 --> 06:28.000]  So that's the the very brief overview. There's lots of ugly detail.
[06:28.000 --> 06:33.000]  So both of these lawsuits are were filed against the gun range.
[06:33.000 --> 06:35.000]  That's correct.
[06:35.000 --> 06:37.000]  Amazing. All right.
[06:37.000 --> 06:39.000]  Well, I just a comment here.
[06:39.000 --> 06:47.000]  I certainly think you all made the right decision in saying, no, we're not going to apply for a permit because we're already grandfathered in.
[06:47.000 --> 06:55.000]  It could have actually hosed you hosed yourself if you had done that. But anyway, please continue.
[06:55.000 --> 07:10.000]  So anyhow, so in one of the things we asked in discovery was exactly what are we allowed to do at our gun range under the decision from the appeals court that locked in our grandfathered rights.
[07:10.000 --> 07:17.000]  Exactly what are we allowed to do under that without a permit? And their response was objection.
[07:17.000 --> 07:21.000]  That's irrelevant. That has nothing to do with this lawsuit.
[07:21.000 --> 07:28.000]  So they don't like answering any serious questions under discovery.
[07:28.000 --> 07:41.000]  So moving to the most recent activities in the lawsuit, we have activity in Kitsap one because the appeals court overruled the local court on a number of issues.
[07:41.000 --> 07:51.000]  They threw it back to the trial court like they commonly do to to re relook at the issue and come up with a new remedy.
[07:51.000 --> 08:00.000]  And so I've got part of that right in front of me and I'm going to leave off a lot of the legalese will come jump right to the useful part.
[08:00.000 --> 08:16.000]  So here I am at C. It says a permanent mandatory and prohibitive injunction is hereby issued in joining each of the following expanded uses of the property until such time that a conditional use permit is applied for
[08:16.000 --> 08:22.000]  and is issued to pacifically authorize the intended change and expanded uses.
[08:22.000 --> 08:27.000]  Number one, commercial for profit uses.
[08:27.000 --> 08:35.000]  Semicolon. So any commercial use of myself, hot dogs on our land, they can go to jail.
[08:35.000 --> 08:40.000]  Number two, military training uses.
[08:40.000 --> 08:43.000]  No additional details.
[08:43.000 --> 08:48.000]  Use of explosive devices, including exploding targets.
[08:48.000 --> 08:54.000]  An example of that would be tenorite for those that that don't know firearms.
[08:54.000 --> 09:02.000]  There's some very likely explosive stuff that's fun to shoot at that that explodes very not very energetically, but it is fun.
[09:02.000 --> 09:21.000]  A use of high caliber weaponry, greater than 30 caliber and practical shooting uses, including organized competitions and practice sessions period.
[09:21.000 --> 09:36.000]  So to give you a tiny bit of context for this, we, through our lawyers, both in writing and in the final hearing before this was issued, asked for a number of clarifications that the judge refused.
[09:36.000 --> 09:46.000]  Originally, the lawsuit, this most recent part of the lawsuit had asked for a prohibition against commercial military training.
[09:46.000 --> 09:55.000]  The judge broke that into two separate issues. The judges prohibited all commercial use of the property and all military training uses.
[09:55.000 --> 10:07.000]  An example would be among the things we've done is train and allow people to come over as individual members of the military to use our range before they go overseas at no cost.
[10:07.000 --> 10:12.000]  They don't like that. They want that stopped. The judges precluded that.
[10:12.000 --> 10:20.000]  And the other big piece that gives us a lot of heart is use of high caliber weaponry, greater than 30 caliber.
[10:20.000 --> 10:29.000]  The original lawsuit from the county asked for a prohibition against high caliber rifles, greater than 30 caliber.
[10:29.000 --> 10:46.000]  This specific, the way it's written, if you interpret this to mean firearms greater than 30 caliber, that prohibits all common handguns above 22s. You cannot shoot 9 millimeter. You cannot shoot 38 special. You cannot shoot 45.
[10:46.000 --> 11:01.000]  Hang on. We're about to do a break. This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio. I call in number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[11:01.000 --> 11:10.000]  A string of burglaries in Torrance, California had the police scratching their heads until they raided a motel and nabbed the perpetrator, a fragile 82 year old woman.
[11:10.000 --> 11:16.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with the tale of the blue haired burglar after this.
[11:41.000 --> 11:45.000]  Start over with start page.
[11:45.000 --> 11:54.000]  Doris Ann Gamble at a 21 page rap sheet. She'd been arrested in connection with a homicide, gone to jail nine times and used at least 25 aliases.
[11:54.000 --> 12:03.000]  At 82, you'd think Gamble might retire, but no. Police recently busted her for burglarizing eight doctor's offices in California.
[12:03.000 --> 12:12.000]  The frail elderly woman would hide in the doctor's offices after being seen. When the staff went home, she'd raid the cash boxes, netting over 17 grand.
[12:12.000 --> 12:21.000]  At her sentencing, she told detectives she wouldn't do all this nonsense if the government gave us more money. Then she asked the court for donations to buy snacks in jail.
[12:21.000 --> 12:27.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[12:27.000 --> 12:34.000]  Did you know there are three million edible food plants on earth, and none have the nutritional value of the hemp plant?
[12:34.000 --> 12:43.000]  HempUSA.org offers you hemp protein powder. It does not contain chemicals or THC, is non-GMO, and is 100% gluten free.
[12:43.000 --> 12:50.000]  Hemp protein powder burns fat, builds muscle, contains 53% protein, and feeds the body the nutrients it needs.
[12:50.000 --> 12:59.000]  Call 888-910-4367 and see what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you, only at HempUSA.org.
[12:59.000 --> 13:06.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Center. In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society.
[13:06.000 --> 13:11.000]  If we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[13:11.000 --> 13:18.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[13:18.000 --> 13:24.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[13:24.000 --> 13:34.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[13:34.000 --> 13:39.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[13:39.000 --> 13:46.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar,
[13:46.000 --> 13:50.000]  hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material.
[13:50.000 --> 13:54.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[13:54.000 --> 14:01.000]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[14:01.000 --> 14:11.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[14:11.000 --> 14:36.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[14:36.000 --> 14:39.000]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[14:39.000 --> 14:43.000]  It is Thursday, February 25th, 2016.
[14:43.000 --> 14:48.000]  We're here with our guest, Marshall Denny, talking about what's going on with his gun range.
[14:48.000 --> 14:57.000]  And, Marshall, before you continue, I want to ask a question about some of these prohibitions in this court order.
[14:57.000 --> 15:11.000]  Do all of these have to do with commercial activity, or is it like some of it is commercial activity, but the rest of the prohibitions don't have anything to do with commercial activity?
[15:11.000 --> 15:21.000]  Because you're mentioning stuff like can't practice or can't use, you know, however they worded it, over 30 caliber.
[15:21.000 --> 15:32.000]  I mean, does that just mean within the scope of a commercial activity, or does that mean just across the board, period, whether it's a commercial activity or not?
[15:32.000 --> 15:35.000]  Sure, it's across the board altogether.
[15:35.000 --> 15:39.000]  The five elements I listed earlier are independent of each other.
[15:39.000 --> 15:40.000]  Okay, okay.
[15:40.000 --> 15:43.000]  So they're prohibiting commercial uses of any kind.
[15:43.000 --> 15:50.000]  So we can't give training sessions for people that we charge money for.
[15:50.000 --> 15:52.000]  We can't sell hot dogs on the facility.
[15:52.000 --> 15:56.000]  You know, no commercial uses of the property itself at all.
[15:56.000 --> 15:59.000]  The training, all the other pieces are independent.
[15:59.000 --> 16:03.000]  So because of that, it's a serious issue.
[16:03.000 --> 16:13.000]  And the other thing, all of these particular pieces, these five different items, are for the sole reason to remedy the noise nuisance.
[16:13.000 --> 16:23.000]  Well, that brings up some serious questions if, for people just a little bit about firearms, because it doesn't say rifles, it says weaponry.
[16:23.000 --> 16:27.000]  Use of high caliber weaponry greater than 30 caliber.
[16:27.000 --> 16:31.000]  Of course, 9 millimeter is more than 30 caliber.
[16:31.000 --> 16:40.000]  Of course, a 9 millimeter is not nearly as loud as a, for example, 7 millimeter magnum with a muzzle brake.
[16:40.000 --> 16:45.000]  That's an extraordinarily loud firearm.
[16:45.000 --> 16:48.000]  So this does not do it well.
[16:48.000 --> 17:05.000]  And to lead into some legal questions I would have for you two, which is the original complaint did not ask for the judge to ban high caliber weaponry greater than 30 caliber.
[17:05.000 --> 17:10.000]  It said the use of high caliber rifles greater than 30 caliber.
[17:10.000 --> 17:33.000]  So I guess the first question I would have for you guys is how, when is it and when is it not appropriate for a judge to expand the scope of the original complaint without a specific request in writing with proper findings of facts on the record?
[17:33.000 --> 17:38.000]  That is a good question and it's going to be very specific to local law.
[17:38.000 --> 17:47.000]  But as a general rule, the judge can only do what you ask him to do.
[17:47.000 --> 17:54.000]  The judge is not there to decide for himself what he thinks is right or just.
[17:54.000 --> 18:01.000]  The judge is there to determine the facts in accordance to the rules of evidence and apply the laws that comes to him with the facts in the case.
[18:01.000 --> 18:11.000]  If he has an agenda, if he has a personal opinion of what is just and what is right, you need to drag him down off that bench.
[18:11.000 --> 18:20.000]  If our laws are not creating a just and right outcome, the law needs to be changed.
[18:20.000 --> 18:29.000]  It's not the place of the judge to supplant the legal maxims with his own personal opinion of what's right.
[18:29.000 --> 18:35.000]  And here I would definitely object to the judge and move to recuse him.
[18:35.000 --> 18:45.000]  I have a question, Marshall. Was this the trial court judge or the appellate court judge that said this?
[18:45.000 --> 18:53.000]  This is the trial court judge making another determination after he was handed back the case from the appeals court.
[18:53.000 --> 18:56.000]  This is the original, in the original case.
[18:56.000 --> 18:59.000]  This sounds like this should go to a mandamus.
[18:59.000 --> 19:09.000]  Well, I don't know about that, Randy, because typically mandamus is considered an extreme, extraordinary remedy.
[19:09.000 --> 19:20.000]  I think extraordinary is the word and appellate courts pretty much are never going to grant a mandamus unless you can show them that you have exhausted all other remedies first.
[19:20.000 --> 19:27.000]  I would say an appeal to file an appeal on this immediately.
[19:27.000 --> 19:35.000]  Or you could file, you could also file a motion for reconsideration.
[19:35.000 --> 19:42.000]  That probably should be the first thing that you should actually do before appeal is that you should file a motion for reconsideration,
[19:42.000 --> 19:52.000]  asking the judge to reword the order to say rifle instead of, you know, whatever he said.
[19:52.000 --> 20:05.000]  I'm sorry, I missed it, explosive device or weaponry, okay, instead of the word weaponry to reframe it and to, excuse me, to put the word rifle instead.
[20:05.000 --> 20:21.000]  But you may want to come up with some case law in the state of Washington that shows that the judge is bound to the original scope of the pleadings because sometimes judges can expand the scope.
[20:21.000 --> 20:28.000]  Now, this is not a, what I would consider a strictly a private civil suit.
[20:28.000 --> 20:35.000]  It's not like a car accident where you've got one private party suing another private party.
[20:35.000 --> 20:51.000]  This is, there's a government entity involved here and they're trying to, they're going through the litigation channel in a civil suit to try to enforce their code, their ordinance code.
[20:51.000 --> 21:00.000]  So this would not be a strictly private lawsuit, civil lawsuit between two private entities.
[21:00.000 --> 21:04.000]  And so there may be different rules that apply here.
[21:04.000 --> 21:14.000]  The judge may have more, you know, he may have more authority, more discretion to expand the scope here in a situation like that.
[21:14.000 --> 21:22.000]  You would, like Randy said, that's going to be, the answer to that question is going to be very dependent on your state.
[21:22.000 --> 21:25.000]  But this sounds like the judge.
[21:25.000 --> 21:29.000]  Well, along that lines.
[21:29.000 --> 21:31.000]  Go ahead.
[21:31.000 --> 21:45.000]  Okay. See, so the first time this exact wording appeared, it wasn't the judge, it was the county at the very last minute, the judge asked for proposed wording for the injunction.
[21:45.000 --> 21:53.000]  And that's when the county proposed changing from high caliber rifles to high caliber weapon brief.
[21:53.000 --> 21:59.000]  Was this in a trial, like in a hearing, or was this all on paper, like through filings?
[21:59.000 --> 22:04.000]  It was both. We had filings that went back and forth, and then we had a final hearing.
[22:04.000 --> 22:14.000]  So did the judge ask the county in a hearing to submit this proposed order?
[22:14.000 --> 22:16.000]  No, the judge asked in writing.
[22:16.000 --> 22:27.000]  The judge asked in writing, did you, were you served with the proposed order before, at the same time that it was sent to the judge?
[22:27.000 --> 22:34.000]  Yes. Well, I don't know if it was at the same time, but yeah, shortly thereafter, we had copies and we've been objecting to it in writing.
[22:34.000 --> 22:36.000]  We objected to it in court.
[22:36.000 --> 22:42.000]  We asked for clarification if the judge meant by weapon brief, he meant rifles, pistols.
[22:42.000 --> 22:44.000]  Does he mean both?
[22:44.000 --> 22:56.000]  It's a her, but do they specifically mean pist to include pistols by the use of the term weapon brief and the judge repeatedly over and over and over, both in writing and in the final hearing?
[22:56.000 --> 23:04.000]  Refused to give clarification on a laundry list of issues we brought up, including the word weapon brief.
[23:04.000 --> 23:17.000]  Then motion for reconsideration probably would be fruitless, and it's not always necessary to file motion for reconsideration or motion for findings of fact and conclusion at law for further explanation before you file an appeal.
[23:17.000 --> 23:22.000]  I would appeal that immediately. Have you all appealed that already?
[23:22.000 --> 23:31.000]  We're in the process of that. A perfunctory request for reconsideration was put in place by the lawyers.
[23:31.000 --> 23:43.000]  He wanted to preserve a couple of additional things for appeal, and we're waiting for the judge to respond to the motion for reconsideration.
[23:43.000 --> 23:53.000]  Then we're going to immediately appeal, and we're going to, just like we did before, we're going to ask for a stay of the injunction pending appeal.
[23:53.000 --> 23:58.000]  There's a couple of issues that as a non-lawyer that kind of stand out.
[23:58.000 --> 24:16.000]  It's the repeated and the other major issue was a definition for practical shooting. The judge's refusal to be precise or even give us examples of what she meant by her own order seems particularly egregious.
[24:16.000 --> 24:34.000]  We even had the lawyer, and he did do it in open court, gave specific examples of things that we might want to do, things we've done in the past, certain firearms we want to use that is unclear based on this wording, whether we can use them or not.
[24:34.000 --> 24:46.000]  She would not change the wording. She would not give clarification of the terms, and she did not, would not say whether our examples were allowed or disallowed.
[24:46.000 --> 25:01.000]  Okay. All right. Well, listen, we're about to head into another break. I want to find out more about this on the other side. This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, and Deborah Stevens will be right back.
[25:01.000 --> 25:11.000]  Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com, and I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Sweet D, here in Austin, Texas.
[25:11.000 --> 25:17.000]  I'm Brave New Books and Jay Payne to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes.
[25:17.000 --> 25:21.000]  Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[25:21.000 --> 25:36.000]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian Emu oil, lotion candles, olive oil soaps, and colloidal silver and gold. Call 512-264-4043, or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[25:36.000 --> 26:00.000]  That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com. Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com.
[26:00.000 --> 26:14.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[26:14.000 --> 26:27.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[26:27.000 --> 26:42.000]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[26:42.000 --> 27:00.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[27:12.000 --> 27:25.000]  If you need not have any problems, where are you going to look for one? If you could not wait any bout too long, would you purposefully die?
[27:25.000 --> 27:42.000]  What's a gentleman, a soldier, a warrior, a hunk of scuffle in the key to the peace? All they're taking is a misunderstanding. Somebody calls the police. What's in the spot sign?
[27:42.000 --> 27:58.000]  What's in the spot sign?
[27:58.000 --> 28:27.000]  Okay, folks, we're back. This is the Rule of Law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens. We're here with our guest, Marshall Denny, talking about this situation with the gun range.
[28:27.000 --> 28:56.000]  I was saying on the break that it looks to me like it's case law research time, that y'all need to get on the stick and do some serious case law research concerning the matter of does a trial court judge in this type of case have the discretion, have the authority to expand the scope of the pleadings?
[28:56.000 --> 29:11.000]  Or not? The answer to that question may be yes. The answer to that question may be no. If the answer to that question is no, then that's certainly something that you need to get into that appeal before you file it.
[29:11.000 --> 29:30.000]  Because especially if the answer is no, and you get that case law research into the appeal, the appellate court is not going to be very happy with this judge because, as Randy was saying, it's pretty obvious that this judge is trying to fly in the face of the appellate court ruling.
[29:30.000 --> 29:38.000]  And so I think that getting the answer to that question is pretty paramount right now.
[29:38.000 --> 29:42.000]  Well, I think you're right.
[29:42.000 --> 29:50.000]  Have any of your members filed judicial conduct complaints against the judge?
[29:50.000 --> 30:16.000]  Not yet. There's been quite a bit of discussion about the issue and arguments whether that would help our situation or make it worse. There have been a number of people who are willing at this point, if we decide it would be helpful to us, to do judicial conduct complaints or even file lawsuits against the judge, especially in the second case with the preliminary injunction.
[30:16.000 --> 30:25.000]  It's often politically advantageous for a lawyer to have an unruly client.
[30:25.000 --> 30:49.000]  I'm sorry, Judge, those dirty rotten clients, I tried to get them not to do that and let the judge deal with it. We had a case in Colorado where the judge in a federal case told them in court, they locked the door, sent the bailiff out and locked the door, told them, you can have this courtroom all afternoon, it's yours, I'm leaving.
[30:49.000 --> 31:04.000]  He told the lawyers on the other side, after six judicial conduct complaints in 21 or 25, he told the lawyers, you will make Ms. Burton an offer she cannot refuse.
[31:04.000 --> 31:08.000]  I do not want to see her face in my courtroom again.
[31:08.000 --> 31:20.000]  Do I make myself clear, if this judge wants to step right in the middle of your rights, it's perfectly reasonable to step right in the middle of her profession.
[31:20.000 --> 31:28.000]  You start stinging her with judicial conduct complaints and there are marks on her chart that never go away.
[31:28.000 --> 31:38.000]  They give her a closer attention. It's all about the politics in the end, it's not about the law and that generates a little politics.
[31:38.000 --> 32:07.000]  Sure. Well, returning to the appealable issues, as best we can find so far, the limitations in Washington are placed upon the superior courts are almost zero. They allow almost anything. Of course, the judges can be overturned on appeal, but unlike some other states, there appears to be almost no limitations they put upon the trial court.
[32:07.000 --> 32:24.000]  There is a great number of issues because it's already been to the appeals court once and they lost a number of very specific issues that the appeals court instructed the trial court to do that there appears to be no evidence of being done.
[32:24.000 --> 32:31.000]  First is a respect for the grandfathered rights that were supported by the appeals court.
[32:31.000 --> 32:57.000]  Two, they specified a difference. They say under our grandfathered rights, we're allowed to exercise those grandfathered rights and intensify our use, but what we're not allowed to do is we're not to allow to expand our use of the facility without permission and land use permits and that sort of thing.
[32:57.000 --> 33:12.000]  Based on that, I find that to be by simple reading of the appeals court decision, an instruction to the trial judge to split the hair between what is intensification and what is expansion.
[33:12.000 --> 33:20.000]  There doesn't appear to be any evidence of that in her most recent ruling at all.
[33:20.000 --> 33:31.000]  So it sounds like in fact she's doing the opposite. She's increasing the scope of your ability to function dramatically.
[33:31.000 --> 33:46.000]  Well, after the first trial, she closed us permanently. So if I had to characterize her overall actions, it is the most damage she thought she could do without actually closing us.
[33:46.000 --> 34:02.000]  Like I said before the break, if I had to put a number value on what we're going to be permitted to do now under this ruling, what percentage of what we used to do are we going to be allowed to continue to do, it would be about 5%.
[34:02.000 --> 34:22.000]  Does this new ruling violate the appellate ruling? I mean, what exactly did the appellate court order when it kicked the case back to the trial court? What exactly did they say?
[34:22.000 --> 34:35.000]  Well, there's a whole bunch of elements, a lot of which aren't particularly relevant, like they say we need to get permits for berms that we didn't have, and that's a relatively minor piece.
[34:35.000 --> 34:53.000]  So there's lots of details, but the critical part that's relevant to this is it was the noise, it's the nuisance based on noise. And the appeals court said that notwithstanding the nuisance, we have grandfathered rights.
[34:53.000 --> 35:05.000]  There was some period of time in the past when we were not a nuisance, they've determined that at some point after 2005, we became a nuisance.
[35:05.000 --> 35:08.000]  The appellate court determined this.
[35:08.000 --> 35:14.000]  Well, the appellate court didn't overturn that portion of the trial court decision.
[35:14.000 --> 35:21.000]  So the appellate court basically upheld that at some point after 2005, y'all became a nuisance.
[35:21.000 --> 35:34.000]  That's correct. But the trial court said that the closing of the range was an inappropriate remedy for that, and that we had grandfathered rights that had to be respected.
[35:34.000 --> 35:42.000]  And in fact, not only can we use those grandfathered rights, but under state law, there's something called intensification of your grandfathered rights.
[35:42.000 --> 35:59.000]  So we were allowed to exercise our grandfathered rights, we were allowed to intensify, but that we expanded, our use became an expansion and a nuisance, and we were not allowed to do that without a permit.
[35:59.000 --> 36:17.000]  So they threw it back to the trial court to determine exactly what was our grandfathered, at what level of shooting, what level of noise was grandfathered, what exactly, what level of intensification beyond that is allowed.
[36:17.000 --> 36:23.000]  But what exact specifications would be an expansion that we're not going to be allowed to do.
[36:23.000 --> 36:28.000]  And she didn't appear to even attempt to split that hair at all.
[36:28.000 --> 36:36.000]  Well, I don't know, because all this business about you can't fire off weaponry over 30 cal and stuff like that.
[36:36.000 --> 36:46.000]  I mean, is that not part of this determination of what's a nuisance and what's not?
[36:46.000 --> 37:03.000]  Well, the problem is, is that weaponry above 30 caliber is a very crude tool. And in fact, it allows some very quiet firearms, excuse me, it prohibits some very quiet firearms and allows some excruciatingly loud firearms.
[37:03.000 --> 37:17.000]  Well, here's what I would suggest about this decision by the appellate court, you know, what they have instructed the trial court to do.
[37:17.000 --> 37:33.000]  I mean, if it were me, I would take some sort of proactive approach through some type of filing and say, look, this is what was going on here prior to 2005.
[37:33.000 --> 37:48.000]  This is a determination that at some point after 2005, the situation became a nuisance. And so let's just go back to what was going on prior to 2005. This is what was happening.
[37:48.000 --> 38:04.000]  Everything that was going on prior to 2005 should fall under the category of being grandfathered because there already is a determination that the nuisance factor only came into play after 2005.
[38:04.000 --> 38:24.000]  And so that really can't be argued against. And that way you guys get to list off, we were doing this, we were doing this, we were doing this and this and this and this and this. We have a right to do all of these things under the grandfathering because this is what was going on prior to 2005.
[38:24.000 --> 38:41.000]  And there's already been a court order saying the nuisance factor didn't come in until after 2005 because that appellate court ruling says you can do all this stuff notwithstanding the nuisance issue, which means that the nuisance issue trumps.
[38:41.000 --> 38:56.000]  Okay, but the nuisance didn't come into play till after 2005. And that way you're not just leaving it up to the trial judge to decide, you know, capriciously or otherwise what you get to do and what you don't get to do.
[38:56.000 --> 39:11.000]  You tell them what you did before 2005 and you can have like affidavits and witnesses and stuff like that or any documents or records of tournaments, etc.
[39:11.000 --> 39:28.000]  Or military practicing or whatever it was. And then you assert, per the appellate court order, you have a right to do those things under the grandfathering because all that was already going on before 2005.
[39:28.000 --> 39:43.000]  Well, in fact, in the original trial, many hours of testimony and many documents, of course, internal club documents listing, listing certain competitions and everybody who was in the tournament.
[39:43.000 --> 40:12.000]  We're about to go to break. We'll pick this up on the other side. This is a rule of law.
[40:12.000 --> 40:39.000]  Okay.
[40:39.000 --> 41:00.000]  You're listening to the logos to radio network and logos radio network.
[41:00.000 --> 41:20.000]  The following these flashes brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown. Providing your daily bulletins for the commodities market. Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[41:20.000 --> 41:30.000]  Market for Wednesday, the 24th of February, 2016 are currently treading with gold at $1,238 and 20 cents an ounce silver $15 and 28 cents an ounce.
[41:30.000 --> 41:43.000]  Texas crude $31 and 87 cents a barrel and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about 423 US currency.
[41:43.000 --> 42:00.000]  Today in history, the year 303, the great persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire signed into edict by Emperor Diocletian and effect stripping the legal rights of Christians and demanding that they comply with the traditional Roman religious practices of the day.
[42:00.000 --> 42:16.000]  In recent news, the state stop criminal court dismissed criminal charges against Rick Perry for his 2003 threat to veto state funds to the Travis County prosecutors. The charge itself. It was ruled 62 violated the Texas Constitution separation of power provision by limiting the governor's veto authority.
[42:16.000 --> 42:30.000]  Presiding judge Sharon Keller stated that the governor's power to exercise a veto may not be circumscribed by the legislature, the courts or the district attorneys. When the only act that is being prosecuted is the veto, then the prosecution itself violates the separation of powers.
[42:30.000 --> 42:41.000]  The court has also dropped a secondary felony charge of coercion of a public official as a violation of free speech right.
[42:41.000 --> 42:52.000]  The International Monetary Fund stated today that the global economy is highly vulnerable to adverse shocks and is calling on the United States and other major governments to prepare contingency plans that could be used to stimulate and boost growth.
[42:52.000 --> 43:04.000]  IMF is strongly suggesting that the world's 20 hardest economies should keep pursuing strategies for growth, though they did suggest they should develop additional measures that could be implemented immediately if economic growth continues to slump.
[43:04.000 --> 43:17.000]  With the IMF suggesting governmental spending as a means of stimulus, it's hard to take the Treasury Secretary Jacob Lewis's statement serious when he stated that it's not the job of the finance ministers and central banks and governors to accelerate a crisis.
[43:17.000 --> 43:25.000]  It's their job to avoid one. Yeah, sure.
[43:25.000 --> 43:34.000]  MasterCard has announced plans to introduce SelfiePay to more than a dozen countries, a program that is part of MasterCard's plan to implement biometrics as form of security authentication.
[43:34.000 --> 43:40.000]  The idea is simple. Users will take selfies through their app and the images will be stored into a company server.
[43:40.000 --> 43:54.000]  Every time anyone will want to make an online purchase with their credit or debit card, they will be prompted to look into the phone's camera so that the image can be digitally matched and compared against the selfie on file, effectively changing the selfie for the traditional password.
[43:54.000 --> 44:04.000]  This is your lowdown for February 24th, 2016.
[44:24.000 --> 44:29.000] .
[44:29.000 --> 44:34.000] .
[44:34.000 --> 44:39.000] .
[44:39.000 --> 44:44.000] .
[44:44.000 --> 45:06.160]  Okay, folks, we are back. This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[45:06.160 --> 45:11.440]  We are here with our guest marshal, Denny, talking about what is going on with these
[45:11.440 --> 45:18.400]  multiple cases, two cases involving his gun range and the county as quite a complicated
[45:18.400 --> 45:24.160]  situation. We are sorting it out here. So a couple of things, marshal, getting back
[45:24.160 --> 45:31.480]  to what I was talking about before the break concerning you telling the court what was
[45:31.480 --> 45:36.480]  going on prior to 2005 and you mentioned that during the trial phase there was multiple
[45:36.480 --> 45:44.720]  testimony and documents filed, etc., etc. And apparently the trial judge failed to address
[45:44.720 --> 45:52.000]  all of this even after the case gets kicked back to the trial judge with instructions
[45:52.000 --> 45:57.360]  from the appellate judge. And so I would say at this point it may be a good idea for your
[45:57.360 --> 46:04.360]  appeal to rely on the record, rely on the court record. You have the entire record showing
[46:04.360 --> 46:12.360]  what all went down before 2005 and you make the point that this trial judge has not complied
[46:12.360 --> 46:20.280]  with the instructions of the appellate court and that you want a specific ruling by the
[46:20.280 --> 46:28.520]  appellate court saying that you guys have the right to do all of the things that are
[46:28.520 --> 46:34.280]  listed off in the record under all this testimony and all these documents, everything that
[46:34.280 --> 46:41.200]  transpired prior to 2005 that is listed in the record, you want the appellate court to
[46:41.200 --> 46:48.000]  make a specific ruling that you have the right to do all of those specific things.
[46:48.000 --> 46:53.680]  Because if you don't ask the appellate court to make a final decision on this matter, what's
[46:53.680 --> 46:57.120]  going to end up happening is they're just going to keep kicking it back to the trial
[46:57.120 --> 47:05.000]  court to do further investigation or rulings or determinations and this trial judge is
[47:05.000 --> 47:09.440]  going to continue to fly in the face of the appellate court and you're going to have to
[47:09.440 --> 47:14.440]  keep appealing. It could keep going back and forth, bouncing back and forth between the
[47:14.440 --> 47:19.760]  trial court and the appellate court literally for years.
[47:19.760 --> 47:28.040]  And so if you ask the appellate court that you want them to make the decision that this
[47:28.040 --> 47:32.800]  is what you're allowed to do and you note in the appeal that this trial court judge
[47:32.800 --> 47:40.080]  has failed to comply with the appellate court and so you want them to make the final decision
[47:40.080 --> 47:44.300]  on that matter because everything there is already in the record and all of that should
[47:44.300 --> 47:48.580]  be protected under the grandfathering since it happened prior to 2005.
[47:48.580 --> 47:53.040]  Now the other point I was going to make, I don't know if you can successfully raise this
[47:53.040 --> 47:59.320]  on appeal because if you didn't make this particular objection during the trial phase
[47:59.320 --> 48:05.440]  or during the kickback phase before the judge made the second ruling after the kickback,
[48:05.440 --> 48:10.160]  you may not be able to appeal the point if you haven't already made the objection but
[48:10.160 --> 48:18.520]  it's possible that you can and that is concerning the scope of the pleadings issue.
[48:18.520 --> 48:27.720]  Already in civil cases there is a deadline for parties to change pleadings or file for
[48:27.720 --> 48:29.200]  new pleadings.
[48:29.200 --> 48:32.280]  I know for sure it's that way in federal court.
[48:32.280 --> 48:38.120]  I've been through this and there's deadlines for discovery, there's deadlines for depositions,
[48:38.120 --> 48:45.480]  there's deadlines to list off expert witnesses, there's deadlines to list off all witnesses.
[48:45.480 --> 48:50.280]  You can't just bring witnesses on the other side at trial.
[48:50.280 --> 48:54.180]  You have to tell the other side everything that you're going to do at trial.
[48:54.180 --> 48:59.720]  You have to give them all the documents you intend on submitting for evidence at the trial,
[48:59.720 --> 49:02.840]  all the witnesses you're going to call, everything.
[49:02.840 --> 49:11.160]  So there is a deadline usually months even before the trial for changing, modifying the
[49:11.160 --> 49:17.640]  pleadings, asking for new pleadings, changing pleadings, etc.
[49:17.640 --> 49:23.480]  And that's typically under the rules of court, under rules of civil procedure of the court.
[49:23.480 --> 49:33.000]  And if the other side, if the county asked for this expansion of the scope of the pleadings
[49:33.000 --> 49:40.320]  in violation of the rules of court, then maybe that is something that you guys can go after
[49:40.320 --> 49:44.280]  even though the judge agreed to expand it.
[49:44.280 --> 49:50.240]  Because even if the judge has authority to have wide discretion, even if there's no limitations
[49:50.240 --> 49:55.640]  on the discretion of the judge, the other side may have some limitations as far as it's
[49:55.640 --> 49:57.160]  too late for them to ask for that.
[49:57.160 --> 50:00.160]  So you may want to look at that.
[50:00.160 --> 50:04.800]  Like I said, if you didn't make that objection or if it, even if it's relevant, if you didn't
[50:04.800 --> 50:09.160]  make the objection already, you may not be able to get any traction on that, but it's
[50:09.160 --> 50:10.160]  possible.
[50:10.160 --> 50:12.600]  So those are two things that I would say.
[50:12.600 --> 50:19.240]  Mainly, you need to ask the appellate court to rule on specifically what you want and
[50:19.240 --> 50:23.440]  just end all of this so that it doesn't keep getting bounced back and forth.
[50:23.440 --> 50:26.280]  So that's a big point that I have on that.
[50:26.280 --> 50:29.280]  Randy, what do you have on this?
[50:29.280 --> 50:30.280]  Randy?
[50:30.280 --> 50:35.560]  Did I hit the wrong button?
[50:35.560 --> 50:37.240]  Okay, there you are.
[50:37.240 --> 50:38.240]  Okay.
[50:38.240 --> 50:49.920]  I essentially agree with what you said that this court appears to be, have been carefully
[50:49.920 --> 50:57.360]  selected so as to ensure that the county would get whatever they wanted.
[50:57.360 --> 51:04.000]  And it appears as though the court has deliberately flown in the face of the court of appeals.
[51:04.000 --> 51:11.240]  So good chance you'll win this in the appellate court, but I did have a question beyond this
[51:11.240 --> 51:18.800]  that I wanted to ask and it went to this thing of nuisance.
[51:18.800 --> 51:21.160]  It raises an issue.
[51:21.160 --> 51:27.480]  What did you change in 2005 that caused you to become a nuisance?
[51:27.480 --> 51:31.680]  Yeah, that's a good question.
[51:31.680 --> 51:35.320]  Well, let's break it into two pieces.
[51:35.320 --> 51:40.680]  I'll talk about what actually changed and what they claim changed, which is two different
[51:40.680 --> 51:42.960]  things.
[51:42.960 --> 51:50.520]  Because of some other things going on in the community, we do have a great deal more people
[51:50.520 --> 51:56.960]  with rifles on the weekends shooting from our rifle positions.
[51:56.960 --> 52:02.400]  There's an effort by the county to get people to stop shooting in the surrounding woodlands,
[52:02.400 --> 52:07.800]  which in many instances is in fact legal in Washington and in this county.
[52:07.800 --> 52:14.560]  So there's a lot of effort to get them to stop doing that and to go to a gun range.
[52:14.560 --> 52:20.900]  And because we're really the only full service gun range in Kitsap County, all the others
[52:20.900 --> 52:24.160]  have various kinds of limitations.
[52:24.160 --> 52:30.740]  We had quite a few more high power rifles being fired.
[52:30.740 --> 52:32.320]  But that's not what the county says.
[52:32.320 --> 52:34.720]  What the county says is, oh, it's these competitions.
[52:34.720 --> 52:38.940]  Well, we've been having competitions for decades.
[52:38.940 --> 52:46.520]  We've been having bullseye competitions at our location for more than 50 years.
[52:46.520 --> 52:52.040]  We've been having action shooting sports in some instances before they even had their
[52:52.040 --> 52:58.280]  current names and we had all this documented on the record in the court.
[52:58.280 --> 53:05.080]  The court appears to ignore and be unconvinced by any of our evidence and that's often without
[53:05.080 --> 53:09.320]  any counter evidence being presented by the county.
[53:09.320 --> 53:14.040]  They throw a witness up there that says, well, I live nearby and I didn't hear things on
[53:14.040 --> 53:18.600]  the weekends that sounded like competition shooting, you know, very vague things that
[53:18.600 --> 53:25.400]  were nonspecific where we've got documents to prove to the contrary, the judge in the
[53:25.400 --> 53:33.520]  trial just appears to any proposition proposed by the county with the flimsiest of evidence,
[53:33.520 --> 53:39.720]  no matter the weight of the evidence, simply fines for the county.
[53:39.720 --> 53:43.120]  So that's a really serious issue.
[53:43.120 --> 53:50.680]  As it applies to the nuisance, there was a sound study done when we were still operational
[53:50.680 --> 53:57.880]  at our nearest neighbor's house and it turned out that they didn't get the answers they
[53:57.880 --> 53:58.880]  wanted.
[53:58.880 --> 54:04.280]  I'm sure that some people would find gunfire more objectionable than other sounds, but
[54:04.280 --> 54:10.280]  the best we understand at this point and we have not gotten access to the written conclusions
[54:10.280 --> 54:15.720]  by the guy who did the sound study, but our understanding is that there were road noises
[54:15.720 --> 54:23.360]  going in front of his house that were in fact louder than our gunfire during a pistol competition.
[54:23.360 --> 54:33.000]  Of course, they blocked that getting into evidence in the court over our very big objections.
[54:33.000 --> 54:38.340]  My position is if there are sound as an example of something that there are objective standards
[54:38.340 --> 54:44.040]  to measure, this does not have to be subjective, and there is objective measurements that have
[54:44.040 --> 54:52.480]  been made by the county with their expert, if we're going to have an injunction to solve
[54:52.480 --> 54:59.320]  a noise nuisance, then it should be objective if it's possible to make it objective and
[54:59.320 --> 55:03.160]  we're claiming that it is, but the county doesn't want it to be objective.
[55:03.160 --> 55:09.760]  They want it to be fuzzy so they can do things that can't be supported by the technical information.
[55:09.760 --> 55:16.480]  Marshall, this report, was it a written report that the sound people did?
[55:16.480 --> 55:17.480]  It was several.
[55:17.480 --> 55:19.200]  Of course, they had a lot of data points.
[55:19.200 --> 55:23.200]  It was computerized and there were several written reports.
[55:23.200 --> 55:31.240]  There was a summary report and then a long written report and we have not, despite the
[55:31.240 --> 55:39.840]  discovery requests that have been put in place and some public information requests, we have
[55:39.840 --> 55:42.480]  not gotten access to those text documents.
[55:42.480 --> 55:46.640]  Wait a minute, oh, because this was a third party.
[55:46.640 --> 55:52.000]  Well, it was a third party doing the study paid for by the county.
[55:52.000 --> 55:56.160]  Paid for by the county and so the county has to make-
[55:56.160 --> 55:58.160]  It belongs to every member of the county.
[55:58.160 --> 56:03.760]  Well, then you should be able to get that through open records, I would think.
[56:03.760 --> 56:05.720]  They have blocked that.
[56:05.720 --> 56:12.080]  A piece you don't know is Kitsap County in the last couple of years has lost several
[56:12.080 --> 56:18.520]  lawsuits relating to public information requests and they keep right on doing it.
[56:18.520 --> 56:23.440]  They simply deny certain kinds of public information requests that make them look bad.
[56:23.440 --> 56:24.920]  But that's criminal.
[56:24.920 --> 56:30.960]  Just every open records law is a criminal statute, it's not a civil statute.
[56:30.960 --> 56:35.160]  This is true, but you better figure out a way to get around it during the course of
[56:35.160 --> 56:39.160]  a civil case or ultimately you're going to lose your case.
[56:39.160 --> 56:45.280]  And he may, I mean, I agree, Randy, it's criminal and we want to, I agree that it's criminal,
[56:45.280 --> 56:50.800]  but I mean, in the end, we want him to win the civil suit so their gun range can stay
[56:50.800 --> 56:51.800]  open.
[56:51.800 --> 56:58.040]  Well, you have a private citizen request the documentation and then when they refuse, then
[56:58.040 --> 57:02.240]  the private citizen goes after them, doesn't have anything to do with the lawsuit.
[57:02.240 --> 57:05.800]  Well, even Marshall could file for the open records.
[57:05.800 --> 57:07.800]  They can't discriminate-
[57:07.800 --> 57:08.800]  Is Marshall's name?
[57:08.800 --> 57:09.800]  Yes, they can.
[57:09.800 --> 57:17.280]  If your name is on the suit, you cannot because open records is not intended to supplant discovery.
[57:17.280 --> 57:24.160]  So it would have to be someone outside the suit, not necessarily someone who's not interested,
[57:24.160 --> 57:26.680]  just someone whose name's not on it.
[57:26.680 --> 57:27.680]  Is that state, Randy?
[57:27.680 --> 57:33.280]  Because then, I mean, in federal cases that I've been in, civil cases, I filed all kinds
[57:33.280 --> 57:34.280]  of FOIAs.
[57:34.280 --> 57:38.280]  We're not blocked from FOIA.
[57:38.280 --> 57:40.800]  The other side has to raise the objection.
[57:40.800 --> 57:41.800]  I see.
[57:41.800 --> 57:42.800]  Okay.
[57:42.800 --> 57:43.800]  All right.
[57:43.800 --> 57:44.800]  All right.
[57:44.800 --> 57:45.800]  Well, listen, we're going to break.
[57:45.800 --> 57:46.800]  We need to talk about this some more.
[57:46.800 --> 57:49.280]  It's like an onion.
[57:49.280 --> 57:52.560]  The layers are peeling off.
[57:52.560 --> 57:53.560]  Gets deeper and deeper.
[57:53.560 --> 57:54.560]  We'll be right back, folks.
[57:54.560 --> 57:59.680]  This is a rule of law.
[57:59.680 --> 58:04.480]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[58:04.480 --> 58:08.520]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[58:08.520 --> 58:12.800]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you
[58:12.800 --> 58:14.120]  can win too.
[58:14.120 --> 58:18.720]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[58:18.720 --> 58:24.400]  civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer
[58:24.400 --> 58:29.040]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the
[58:29.040 --> 58:33.240]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[58:33.240 --> 58:38.360]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[58:38.360 --> 58:40.480]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[58:40.480 --> 58:46.040]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[58:46.040 --> 58:49.000]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[58:49.000 --> 58:58.040]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt
[58:58.040 --> 59:00.080]  collectors now.
[59:00.080 --> 59:04.360]  Did you know that the Logos Radio Network is a truly listener-supported radio network
[59:04.360 --> 59:08.880]  on top of the on-air talents, producers, and other hardworking individuals working behind
[59:08.880 --> 59:09.880]  the scenes?
[59:09.880 --> 59:13.360]  The Logos Radio Network is kept on the air by the generous support of listeners like
[59:13.360 --> 59:14.360]  you.
[59:14.360 --> 59:18.640]  And we appreciate our loyal listeners making contributions every year on our annual fundraisers,
[59:18.640 --> 59:21.880]  which help keep the lights on and Logos Radio Network on the air.
[59:21.880 --> 59:25.200]  The 2016 fundraiser has been extended to March 17th.
[59:25.200 --> 59:29.240]  Head on over to logosradio.com to make your contribution.
[59:29.240 --> 59:33.880]  Every $25 donation enters you for a chance to win prizes from Central Texas Gunworks.
[59:33.880 --> 59:38.600]  First prize being a Spiked Skull Lower Receiver, second prize being a Taurus Curve.
[59:38.600 --> 59:43.400]  And if you donate your $25 contribution early enough, you will also receive a complimentary
[59:43.400 --> 59:45.400]  jar of My Magic Mud.
[59:45.400 --> 59:49.800]  Donations by all major credit cards are accepted, as well as contributions by Bitcoin.
[59:49.800 --> 59:55.400]  The Logos Radio Network fundraiser, now through March 17th, head on over to logosradionetwork.com
[59:55.400 --> 59:59.960]  for more information and to donate to keep the Logos Radio Network on the air.
[59:59.960 --> 01:00:09.240]  This is the Logos Logos Radio Network.
[01:00:09.240 --> 01:00:34.200]  Ain't gonna blind me, don't fool me, well, ain't gonna fool me with that same old
[01:00:34.200 --> 01:00:42.360]  trick again, I was blindsided but now I can fool you, believe me, you put the fear in
[01:00:42.360 --> 01:00:46.360]  my pocket, took the money from my hand, hey, don't fool me, don't fool me.
[01:00:46.360 --> 01:00:47.920]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[01:00:47.920 --> 01:00:55.920]  We are discussing the situation of the gun range in Washington with our guest, Marshall.
[01:00:55.920 --> 01:01:03.240]  And okay, we were talking about open records requests of being able to get these reports
[01:01:03.240 --> 01:01:10.960]  from these people who did this analysis that apparently the county did not like the results,
[01:01:10.960 --> 01:01:16.640]  however the county paid for them and so they were able to block it from being entered into
[01:01:16.640 --> 01:01:21.920]  evidence and you weren't able to get it in discovery and I was suggesting somehow with
[01:01:21.920 --> 01:01:28.600]  open records and you were describing the corruption concerning open records in this particular
[01:01:28.600 --> 01:01:35.000]  county and all the lawsuits that they've lost over this issue.
[01:01:35.000 --> 01:01:38.920]  Even though you were blocked from getting this information in discovery, there's still
[01:01:38.920 --> 01:01:48.000]  a possibility that you could get the information entered into the record if you can show that
[01:01:48.000 --> 01:01:55.120]  you were wrongfully ruled against concerning this issue of not getting it in discovery.
[01:01:55.120 --> 01:02:02.960]  I don't know how much of a chance that would be, but probably it would have to get kicked
[01:02:02.960 --> 01:02:09.560]  back to the trial court with some kind of order to allow this discovery after all.
[01:02:09.560 --> 01:02:14.520]  And I just don't know how fruitful it's going to be to have these things, these issues keep
[01:02:14.520 --> 01:02:18.400]  getting kicked back and forth, back and forth, back and forth between the appellate court
[01:02:18.400 --> 01:02:25.520]  and the trial court because it's going to go on for years without any permanent relief.
[01:02:25.520 --> 01:02:32.900]  One thing that I was going to suggest, I mean it's a little late for this, for what happened
[01:02:32.900 --> 01:02:39.440]  in the original case, but should you ever be able to get the gun range going again and
[01:02:39.440 --> 01:02:45.200]  being able to fire these weapons and the higher calibers and all of that, you may want to
[01:02:45.200 --> 01:02:48.440]  do your own sound study.
[01:02:48.440 --> 01:02:55.320]  You hire your own sound crew, you hire your own expert witnesses to do their own study
[01:02:55.320 --> 01:03:00.320]  to come out and take readings and stuff like that and you just have to pay for it.
[01:03:00.320 --> 01:03:07.840]  And it's your study and it's your expert witness and they can't really block you from entering
[01:03:07.840 --> 01:03:14.600]  your own expert witness testimony into evidence.
[01:03:14.600 --> 01:03:21.000]  I mean obviously the county can refuse or and they did refuse to enter their study into
[01:03:21.000 --> 01:03:27.280]  the case, into evidence, but I don't see how they could block you from entering your own
[01:03:27.280 --> 01:03:30.280]  expert witness testimony into the case.
[01:03:30.280 --> 01:03:36.240]  And so you may want to go ahead and do that if you're able to get the gun range going
[01:03:36.240 --> 01:03:39.240]  again for what it's worth.
[01:03:39.240 --> 01:03:46.320]  Let me address one thing, all of this sounds like the court is really ganging up on you.
[01:03:46.320 --> 01:03:53.520]  Keep in mind, Dr. Graves, your only purpose in the trial court is to set the record for
[01:03:53.520 --> 01:03:54.520]  it.
[01:03:54.520 --> 01:03:55.520]  Absolutely, absolutely.
[01:03:55.520 --> 01:04:00.960]  Yeah, let's not forget that and get all frustrated and think they're beating us because that's
[01:04:00.960 --> 01:04:02.680]  where you really expect to win the case.
[01:04:02.680 --> 01:04:03.680]  Yeah, absolutely.
[01:04:03.680 --> 01:04:06.840]  You're never going to win at the trial level, especially in situations like this.
[01:04:06.840 --> 01:04:13.200]  The real battle at the trial court level is to get stuff into evidence that you want,
[01:04:13.200 --> 01:04:18.040]  to get things into the record that you want on the record and to block the other side
[01:04:18.040 --> 01:04:20.320]  from getting whatever they want on the record.
[01:04:20.320 --> 01:04:23.200]  That is the battle at the trial court level.
[01:04:23.200 --> 01:04:26.080]  And it sounds like you've done exactly that.
[01:04:26.080 --> 01:04:29.120]  Yeah, you've done a really good job.
[01:04:29.120 --> 01:04:32.560]  Well some things are certainly on the record that we want on the record.
[01:04:32.560 --> 01:04:38.520]  The trial court tends to ignore it, but the part that's, if there's a more concerning
[01:04:38.520 --> 01:04:43.640]  part of this, there's a lot of things that are concerning, is the refusal to allow into
[01:04:43.640 --> 01:04:51.240]  evidence certain things and the effective denial of discovery.
[01:04:51.240 --> 01:04:54.560]  While they allow discovery up to a point and then they stop us.
[01:04:54.560 --> 01:05:00.440]  In fact, in the first case when we came after the appeals court, we asked some more very
[01:05:00.440 --> 01:05:07.280]  pointed discovery questions based on the findings of the appeals court, because in my opinion,
[01:05:07.280 --> 01:05:11.480]  the ruling of the appeals court changed the law of the case.
[01:05:11.480 --> 01:05:16.280]  So we need to enter some more evidence that was very pointed to deal with the issues as
[01:05:16.280 --> 01:05:19.440]  they were specified by the appeals court.
[01:05:19.440 --> 01:05:23.080]  And part of that was additional discovery questions.
[01:05:23.080 --> 01:05:30.640]  And the court in the first case banned all additional discovery, we're not allowed to
[01:05:30.640 --> 01:05:34.840]  ask additional questions for discovery, and they aren't allowed to answer them.
[01:05:34.840 --> 01:05:39.040]  Did you file an interlocutory appeal on that matter?
[01:05:39.040 --> 01:05:40.360]  We did.
[01:05:40.360 --> 01:05:44.960]  And basically the appeals court, we had that and a number of other issues.
[01:05:44.960 --> 01:05:49.320]  And the appeals court on all our issues basically said, no, we don't want to deal with this
[01:05:49.320 --> 01:05:52.880]  until you get a final ruling and then come back.
[01:05:52.880 --> 01:05:56.040]  They didn't want to deal with it on an interlocutory level.
[01:05:56.040 --> 01:05:58.680]  And in Washington state, they're allowed to do that.
[01:05:58.680 --> 01:06:03.880]  They can simply ignore any interlocutory appeal until you have a final ruling.
[01:06:03.880 --> 01:06:10.120]  So then at that point, if you want more discovery after the case is done and you're on your
[01:06:10.120 --> 01:06:17.200]  appeal post final ruling of the trial court, then if you want more discovery, basically
[01:06:17.200 --> 01:06:22.320]  you have to get the appellate court to kick the case back to the trial court with instructions
[01:06:22.320 --> 01:06:23.960]  to allow discovery.
[01:06:23.960 --> 01:06:25.360]  So here we go again.
[01:06:25.360 --> 01:06:29.720]  Well, there may be something else happening here.
[01:06:29.720 --> 01:06:32.840]  The Tom Delay case here in Texas.
[01:06:32.840 --> 01:06:39.640]  I filed a habeas in the Tom Delay case and his lawyer refused to file it.
[01:06:39.640 --> 01:06:43.840]  I went to the court and put it in the hand of Tom Delay himself and put it in the hand
[01:06:43.840 --> 01:06:44.840]  of the court.
[01:06:44.840 --> 01:06:51.160]  They put in a jury, went out to lunch, came back, the judge talking to the jury.
[01:06:51.160 --> 01:06:56.840]  The judge stood up and stopped the case to address the habeas, he threw me out of the
[01:06:56.840 --> 01:06:57.840]  courtroom.
[01:06:57.840 --> 01:07:00.960]  They went ahead and had this obviously kangaroo court.
[01:07:00.960 --> 01:07:06.840]  They sentenced Tom Delay to five years in jail, he appealed.
[01:07:06.840 --> 01:07:13.840]  The appeals court got it and they did not remand, they dismissed the whole thing.
[01:07:13.840 --> 01:07:15.440]  Based on what?
[01:07:15.440 --> 01:07:18.080]  Lack of evidence.
[01:07:18.080 --> 01:07:24.080]  The appeals court in your case, the more egregious the trial court is, the more likely it is
[01:07:24.080 --> 01:07:30.880]  that the appeals court will simply dismiss and they certainly have that power.
[01:07:30.880 --> 01:07:38.520]  So it may not be as much of a problem that they have gotten a judge that is so outrageously
[01:07:38.520 --> 01:07:46.880]  biased because good chance, you've already had the appeals court rule resoundingly in
[01:07:46.880 --> 01:07:49.400]  your favor.
[01:07:49.400 --> 01:07:53.320]  So there's a very good chance that they may do so again.
[01:07:53.320 --> 01:07:56.520]  So this may not be as bad as it sounds.
[01:07:56.520 --> 01:08:01.080]  If somebody is going to screw up, I want them to screw up very badly.
[01:08:01.080 --> 01:08:10.240]  Yeah, and again, I think we're getting back to wanting the appeals court to issue a specific
[01:08:10.240 --> 01:08:18.000]  decision on these matters so that it will be over instead of reopening stuff to get
[01:08:18.000 --> 01:08:24.320]  it kicked back to the trial court because then it just keeps going on the merry-go-round.
[01:08:24.320 --> 01:08:31.680]  So to me, it sounds like maybe one of the best bets that you have is to rely on the
[01:08:31.680 --> 01:08:43.960]  record concerning all the testimony and documentation of everything that was going on before 2005
[01:08:43.960 --> 01:08:48.960]  and say, we're allowed to do this per the appellate court ruling.
[01:08:48.960 --> 01:08:53.600]  You tell the appellate court, per your prior ruling, we are allowed to do this because
[01:08:53.600 --> 01:08:59.300]  it has already been determined by this appellate court that there was no nuisance going on
[01:08:59.300 --> 01:09:07.880]  before 2005 and just hammer that point and say, we want a specific ruling saying by this
[01:09:07.880 --> 01:09:12.640]  appellate court that we are allowed to do all of these things because none of these
[01:09:12.640 --> 01:09:21.800]  things were determined to be a nuisance and you want the current trial court ruling overturned.
[01:09:21.800 --> 01:09:26.800]  I'm thinking that nuisance, that's the issue.
[01:09:26.800 --> 01:09:35.840]  If you were doing the same thing before 2005 that we were doing after 2005 and you became
[01:09:35.840 --> 01:09:39.120]  a nuisance, you didn't create the nuisance.
[01:09:39.120 --> 01:09:44.400]  I had a question about your closest neighbor.
[01:09:44.400 --> 01:09:48.960]  Is his house 80 years old?
[01:09:48.960 --> 01:09:52.000]  No, it is not.
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:59.680]  So he built that house there while the gun range was in operation.
[01:09:59.680 --> 01:10:03.880]  That gives you an easement.
[01:10:03.880 --> 01:10:05.880]  Have your lawyer looked at that?
[01:10:05.880 --> 01:10:09.920]  No, I don't think they brought up that issue.
[01:10:09.920 --> 01:10:15.400]  Case in New York, a guy gets up every morning, walks across this empty lot to his newspaper
[01:10:15.400 --> 01:10:16.400]  stand.
[01:10:16.400 --> 01:10:18.840]  He did that for 20 years.
[01:10:18.840 --> 01:10:23.520]  Then a developer came in and put in a high rise.
[01:10:23.520 --> 01:10:30.840]  He sued claiming that he had an easement because he had used that for 20 years and he won.
[01:10:30.840 --> 01:10:32.840]  But he won a settlement.
[01:10:32.840 --> 01:10:41.000]  The high rise building operator, building gave him a newspaper stand in the building.
[01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:45.160]  But in effect, he won the case that yes, he did have an easement.
[01:10:45.160 --> 01:10:48.960]  So you may have a sound easement.
[01:10:48.960 --> 01:10:55.080]  If you've been doing this same thing for 80 years, you've already been ruled to be grandfathered.
[01:10:55.080 --> 01:11:03.160]  The sound easement should be grandfathered as well.
[01:11:03.160 --> 01:11:06.640]  Should parents be fingerprinted to drop off their kids to daycare?
[01:11:06.640 --> 01:11:10.240]  Mississippi says yes, but only low income parents are being targeted.
[01:11:10.240 --> 01:11:16.240]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with more on this privacy rights issue next.
[01:11:16.240 --> 01:11:17.960]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:11:17.960 --> 01:11:21.560]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:11:21.560 --> 01:11:26.560]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:11:26.560 --> 01:11:31.800]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[01:11:31.800 --> 01:11:34.320]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:11:34.320 --> 01:11:39.920]  This message is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[01:11:39.920 --> 01:11:41.680]  Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:11:41.680 --> 01:11:45.360]  Start over with Startpage.
[01:11:45.360 --> 01:11:50.040]  In Mississippi, low income parents are getting an ultimatum at daycare centers.
[01:11:50.040 --> 01:11:53.200]  Give up your biometric data or do without daycare.
[01:11:53.200 --> 01:11:58.480]  Under Mississippi's program, parents who receive state subsidies for child care must have all
[01:11:58.480 --> 01:12:02.440]  10 of their fingerprints scanned, with no exceptions.
[01:12:02.440 --> 01:12:06.360]  Wealthier parents who can afford to pay for daycare don't have to do this.
[01:12:06.360 --> 01:12:10.320]  State officials are trying to justify this policy by saying that poor parents could be
[01:12:10.320 --> 01:12:15.480]  committing fraud, but they're applying the policy to the innocent as well, of course.
[01:12:15.480 --> 01:12:18.240]  So when did the working poor become suspects?
[01:12:18.240 --> 01:12:22.400]  No parent in America should be treated like a criminal just to get child care.
[01:12:22.400 --> 01:12:30.920]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:12:30.920 --> 01:12:36.280]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:12:36.280 --> 01:12:38.360]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:12:38.360 --> 01:12:43.160]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:12:43.160 --> 01:12:46.080]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:12:46.080 --> 01:12:48.800]  And thousands of my fellow force responders are dying.
[01:12:48.800 --> 01:12:50.200]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:12:50.200 --> 01:12:51.200]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:12:51.200 --> 01:12:52.640]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:12:52.640 --> 01:12:53.640]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:12:53.640 --> 01:12:55.160]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:12:55.160 --> 01:12:57.880]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:12:57.880 --> 01:12:59.760]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:12:59.760 --> 01:13:03.480]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[01:13:03.480 --> 01:13:06.440]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms?
[01:13:06.440 --> 01:13:10.120]  Come on, we all know the government caused it with their chemtrails, but good luck getting
[01:13:10.120 --> 01:13:11.120]  them to pay for it.
[01:13:11.120 --> 01:13:14.720]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof.
[01:13:14.720 --> 01:13:18.520]  That's why you have insurance, and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for
[01:13:18.520 --> 01:13:21.280]  you with little to no out-of-pocket expense.
[01:13:21.280 --> 01:13:22.280]  And we accept Bitcoin.
[01:13:22.280 --> 01:13:26.880]  As a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints, you
[01:13:26.880 --> 01:13:31.320]  can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the
[01:13:31.320 --> 01:13:32.320]  first time.
[01:13:32.320 --> 01:13:38.640]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:13:38.640 --> 01:13:43.000]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos
[01:13:43.000 --> 01:13:45.600]  Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[01:13:45.600 --> 01:13:50.720]  So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking.
[01:13:50.720 --> 01:13:57.120]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:13:57.120 --> 01:13:58.640]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:13:58.640 --> 01:14:05.640]  Me and I actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:14:28.640 --> 01:14:57.880]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we've lost Marshall for the moment.
[01:14:57.880 --> 01:15:02.120]  This time it's not my Skype fading, it's his Skype fading, but we're going to try to get
[01:15:02.120 --> 01:15:03.120]  back on the phone.
[01:15:03.120 --> 01:15:05.800]  In the meantime, we want to go to Jeff in Mississippi.
[01:15:05.800 --> 01:15:09.000]  Jeff in Mississippi has been patiently hanging on.
[01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:10.000]  Hello, Jeff.
[01:15:10.000 --> 01:15:11.000]  Hey, Randy.
[01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:14.000]  Thanks for having me on.
[01:15:14.000 --> 01:15:15.240]  Glad to have you.
[01:15:15.240 --> 01:15:17.280]  What do you have for us today?
[01:15:17.280 --> 01:15:18.280]  Okay.
[01:15:18.280 --> 01:15:23.160]  Well, I've got, I want to blend two questions into one.
[01:15:23.160 --> 01:15:32.360]  I filed my Title 42, 1983 against the university for throwing me out because of the gun charge.
[01:15:32.360 --> 01:15:35.640]  So I filed the civil suit against them.
[01:15:35.640 --> 01:15:43.680]  Now what has happened is I've reapplied, they actually let me back into school and then
[01:15:43.680 --> 01:15:46.520]  they turned around and threw me back out again.
[01:15:46.520 --> 01:15:54.200]  So I've been thrown out two separate times and they responded to my original civil suit
[01:15:54.200 --> 01:15:56.640]  with a 12B6.
[01:15:56.640 --> 01:16:00.560]  So I get to respond with an amended complaint.
[01:16:00.560 --> 01:16:08.320]  And my question is, since they've thrown me out a second time, do I want to file a separate
[01:16:08.320 --> 01:16:16.000]  second civil suit or do I want to blend that in my original amended complaint for my original
[01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:18.160]  suit?
[01:16:18.160 --> 01:16:23.600]  Did they state a reason for throwing you out the second time?
[01:16:23.600 --> 01:16:24.840]  No.
[01:16:24.840 --> 01:16:32.760]  And they really goofed up because I sent demand letters demanding to show cause.
[01:16:32.760 --> 01:16:35.200]  I sent emails demanding to show cause.
[01:16:35.200 --> 01:16:36.840]  They would not do it.
[01:16:36.840 --> 01:16:39.080]  They just, they didn't actually throw me out of school.
[01:16:39.080 --> 01:16:40.800]  They denied my admission.
[01:16:40.800 --> 01:16:41.800]  Okay.
[01:16:41.800 --> 01:16:51.720]  Well, you have no knowledge that this, the denial of admissions had anything to do with
[01:16:51.720 --> 01:16:52.720]  the prior case.
[01:16:52.720 --> 01:16:58.160]  Now you think, you think it did, you're pretty sure it did.
[01:16:58.160 --> 01:17:03.240]  But in terms of law, you have no evidence to that effect.
[01:17:03.240 --> 01:17:08.240]  The reason I go there is separate suit.
[01:17:08.240 --> 01:17:09.240]  Separate suit.
[01:17:09.240 --> 01:17:10.240]  Okay.
[01:17:10.240 --> 01:17:11.240]  Got it.
[01:17:11.240 --> 01:17:12.240]  Let them join it.
[01:17:12.240 --> 01:17:16.760]  Let them try to join it and let them show reason for joining it.
[01:17:16.760 --> 01:17:20.480]  Because you're going to say, you don't know anything about that.
[01:17:20.480 --> 01:17:23.760]  You don't know that these two are connected.
[01:17:23.760 --> 01:17:32.000]  And if they, if they admit that they are connected, then that gives you grounds for retaliation.
[01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:34.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:35.000]  Okay.
[01:17:35.000 --> 01:17:37.520]  So separate suit.
[01:17:37.520 --> 01:17:42.200]  Yeah, let them throw themselves under the bus if they want to.
[01:17:42.200 --> 01:17:43.200]  I got it.
[01:17:43.200 --> 01:17:45.640]  So let's go for a separate suit.
[01:17:45.640 --> 01:17:55.160]  On my other case for me going to prison, the court reporter had, had refused to turn over
[01:17:55.160 --> 01:17:57.560]  my transcripts.
[01:17:57.560 --> 01:18:02.740]  And according to rule 11 of the Mississippi rules of appellate procedure, if she goes
[01:18:02.740 --> 01:18:11.080]  past 90 days, she has to show cause before it's granted.
[01:18:11.080 --> 01:18:12.080]  And I have a-
[01:18:12.080 --> 01:18:13.080]  Wait, wait a minute.
[01:18:13.080 --> 01:18:14.080]  Wait a minute.
[01:18:14.080 --> 01:18:15.080]  Show cause before it's granted.
[01:18:15.080 --> 01:18:16.080]  Before what is granted?
[01:18:16.080 --> 01:18:17.080]  Her extension for time is granted.
[01:18:17.080 --> 01:18:18.080]  I'm sorry.
[01:18:18.080 --> 01:18:19.080]  Okay.
[01:18:19.080 --> 01:18:29.080]  So she files for an extension of time, but the rules say that after 90 days, you have
[01:18:29.080 --> 01:18:35.960]  to list in detail the exact reason why you're late.
[01:18:35.960 --> 01:18:41.880]  And so I have a document granting her an extension of time.
[01:18:41.880 --> 01:18:47.080]  And this is like eight months after she's so late, it's ridiculous.
[01:18:47.080 --> 01:18:51.280]  And it's actually by the chief justice who is doing my appeal.
[01:18:51.280 --> 01:18:55.960]  He is granting her extension of time without her showing cause.
[01:18:55.960 --> 01:19:02.800]  She has not sent any letters or anything showing where she was and what has, do I have that
[01:19:02.800 --> 01:19:04.840]  chief justice?
[01:19:04.840 --> 01:19:05.840]  Can I get him?
[01:19:05.840 --> 01:19:17.160]  You, well, I'd have to read the, the rules, but it sounds like he's beyond, on scope and
[01:19:17.160 --> 01:19:22.040]  that would certainly be the claim I would want to make that-
[01:19:22.040 --> 01:19:24.040]  Do I want to do that?
[01:19:24.040 --> 01:19:25.040]  Yeah.
[01:19:25.040 --> 01:19:27.880]  Well, the judge acted beyond the scope of his authority.
[01:19:27.880 --> 01:19:38.840]  He had no power to grant this extension without the request meeting the statutory requirement.
[01:19:38.840 --> 01:19:48.560]  So it would appear that the, that the request was insufficient to give the court subject
[01:19:48.560 --> 01:19:52.120]  matter jurisdiction over that particular issue.
[01:19:52.120 --> 01:20:00.200]  While they may have had general subject matter jurisdiction over the general issue, the petition
[01:20:00.200 --> 01:20:06.560]  was insufficient to give them competency to rule on the issue.
[01:20:06.560 --> 01:20:07.560]  Got it.
[01:20:07.560 --> 01:20:12.600]  Do I, do I want to start off with a judicial complaint against him just to start getting
[01:20:12.600 --> 01:20:14.600]  stuff on the record?
[01:20:14.600 --> 01:20:15.600]  Absolutely.
[01:20:15.600 --> 01:20:16.600]  Okay.
[01:20:16.600 --> 01:20:21.120]  I know they're not going to do anything, but at least it puts a marker.
[01:20:21.120 --> 01:20:24.120]  It puts a mark on his chart.
[01:20:24.120 --> 01:20:28.880]  And it puts a buoy for me for dates.
[01:20:28.880 --> 01:20:31.720]  Okay.
[01:20:31.720 --> 01:20:32.720]  That is wonderful.
[01:20:32.720 --> 01:20:39.240]  In, in Mississippi, now I'm living in Arkansas right now, but if I get a letter from the
[01:20:39.240 --> 01:20:44.760]  Mississippi court saying that they want to have a, like a status hearing or a conference,
[01:20:44.760 --> 01:20:47.240]  I really don't want to drive all the way over there.
[01:20:47.240 --> 01:20:49.120]  Can I do all that through the mail?
[01:20:49.120 --> 01:20:52.680]  Wait a minute, I missed a little part of that.
[01:20:52.680 --> 01:20:53.680]  Say that again.
[01:20:53.680 --> 01:20:54.680]  I'm sorry.
[01:20:54.680 --> 01:21:01.520]  I am in Arkansas right now, even though the case is in Mississippi, and a lot of times
[01:21:01.520 --> 01:21:08.120]  they'll want to schedule some kind of conference or status hearing, but always has to do that
[01:21:08.120 --> 01:21:09.120]  by phone.
[01:21:09.120 --> 01:21:11.120]  Oh, by phone.
[01:21:11.120 --> 01:21:12.120]  Yeah.
[01:21:12.120 --> 01:21:15.720]  They do hearings by phone all the time.
[01:21:15.720 --> 01:21:16.720]  Okay.
[01:21:16.720 --> 01:21:23.400]  So I don't have to drive 12 hours just to, just to set up a meeting or something silly.
[01:21:23.400 --> 01:21:24.400]  Wait a minute.
[01:21:24.400 --> 01:21:25.400]  Wait a minute.
[01:21:25.400 --> 01:21:29.680]  Where did you file this suit?
[01:21:29.680 --> 01:21:32.880]  This is in Jackson, Mississippi.
[01:21:32.880 --> 01:21:34.560]  That's where you filed it?
[01:21:34.560 --> 01:21:36.560]  Well, I mailed it.
[01:21:36.560 --> 01:21:38.480]  I filed it from Fort Smith, Arkansas.
[01:21:38.480 --> 01:21:40.480]  I mailed it from Fort Smith, Arkansas.
[01:21:40.480 --> 01:21:41.480]  No, no.
[01:21:41.480 --> 01:21:43.480]  This is a federal suit.
[01:21:43.480 --> 01:21:45.800]  It's federal.
[01:21:45.800 --> 01:21:48.600]  How long ago did you file it?
[01:21:48.600 --> 01:21:53.600]  I guess it's been about a month and a half.
[01:21:53.600 --> 01:21:58.040]  You filed it and you should file it where you're at, not where they're at.
[01:21:58.040 --> 01:21:59.040]  Oh.
[01:21:59.040 --> 01:22:00.040]  Okay.
[01:22:00.040 --> 01:22:04.280]  Well, I mean, the action took place in Jackson, Mississippi.
[01:22:04.280 --> 01:22:07.280]  Makes no difference.
[01:22:07.280 --> 01:22:08.280]  Makes no difference.
[01:22:08.280 --> 01:22:09.280]  This is federal.
[01:22:09.280 --> 01:22:12.280]  You file it where you're at.
[01:22:12.280 --> 01:22:15.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:22:15.000 --> 01:22:16.000]  I can do that.
[01:22:16.000 --> 01:22:17.000]  I did not know that.
[01:22:17.000 --> 01:22:18.000]  Yeah.
[01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:19.000]  Oh, yeah.
[01:22:19.000 --> 01:22:23.640]  I thought we talked about that because then you could force them to come to you.
[01:22:23.640 --> 01:22:31.400]  I think it was Mark in Arkansas, Mark in Texas who had an issue in Arkansas that we talked
[01:22:31.400 --> 01:22:32.400]  about that with.
[01:22:32.400 --> 01:22:34.160]  But yeah, you can file it where you're at.
[01:22:34.160 --> 01:22:37.440]  You don't have to file it where they're at.
[01:22:37.440 --> 01:22:41.260]  You might want to consider non-suiting.
[01:22:41.260 --> 01:22:43.600]  Have they filed an answer yet?
[01:22:43.600 --> 01:22:44.600]  Yes.
[01:22:44.600 --> 01:22:47.360]  You still might want to non-suit.
[01:22:47.360 --> 01:22:49.560]  What does that mean?
[01:22:49.560 --> 01:22:55.960]  Oh, if they filed a motion, a 12B6, then just non-suit.
[01:22:55.960 --> 01:22:57.800]  What does that mean?
[01:22:57.800 --> 01:23:01.240]  Just send a letter to the court saying, I hereby give notice.
[01:23:01.240 --> 01:23:11.080]  You might say that the defendants' arguments in their 12B6 are well taken, you non-suit.
[01:23:11.080 --> 01:23:12.480]  You give notice of non-suit.
[01:23:12.480 --> 01:23:14.880]  You have the right to non-suit.
[01:23:14.880 --> 01:23:16.880]  Does that mean I drop the case?
[01:23:16.880 --> 01:23:17.880]  Yes.
[01:23:17.880 --> 01:23:18.880]  Then you refile?
[01:23:18.880 --> 01:23:20.880]  I'll leave you in your venue.
[01:23:20.880 --> 01:23:21.880]  Oh, okay.
[01:23:21.880 --> 01:23:22.880]  Got it.
[01:23:22.880 --> 01:23:29.680]  It'll cost you to refile, but you also get it in your venue.
[01:23:29.680 --> 01:23:36.520]  Now they have to hire our counsel where you're at, and they have to drive 12 hours to have
[01:23:36.520 --> 01:23:40.960]  one of their little meetings because they're going to run you to death.
[01:23:40.960 --> 01:23:46.080]  Yeah, Jeff, you may not even have standing to file in that venue because you're not a
[01:23:46.080 --> 01:23:47.840]  resident there.
[01:23:47.840 --> 01:23:55.400]  No, but my appeal is there, and that's where my attorney, my appeals attorney is there,
[01:23:55.400 --> 01:23:56.400]  my appeal.
[01:23:56.400 --> 01:24:00.800]  The court reporter is actually in another county, but the whole thing, the whole missing
[01:24:00.800 --> 01:24:03.600]  transcripts is coming from Jackson, so I just-
[01:24:03.600 --> 01:24:06.360]  You're missing something.
[01:24:06.360 --> 01:24:13.160]  You're thinking that because all of this occurred there that venue must lay there.
[01:24:13.160 --> 01:24:14.160]  Yes.
[01:24:14.160 --> 01:24:16.720]  That's not the way it works in the Fed.
[01:24:16.720 --> 01:24:19.560]  Venue lays where the litigants are.
[01:24:19.560 --> 01:24:25.400]  The litigant files in the court in his jurisdiction because this is federal and encompasses the
[01:24:25.400 --> 01:24:26.400]  whole country.
[01:24:26.400 --> 01:24:27.400]  Okay.
[01:24:27.400 --> 01:24:32.520]  So you don't have to go to some other place, and actually you can't go to some other place.
[01:24:32.520 --> 01:24:36.520]  Deborah, were you in dress venue shopping in the Fed?
[01:24:36.520 --> 01:24:38.560]  Well, I don't think we have time.
[01:24:38.560 --> 01:24:40.800]  We're going to break, and we do have Marshall back on the line.
[01:24:40.800 --> 01:24:45.040]  Jeff, why don't you call back in tomorrow night, and we can talk about this some more
[01:24:45.040 --> 01:24:47.120]  tomorrow, because I want to finish up with Marshall.
[01:24:47.120 --> 01:24:49.120]  Email you, Randy.
[01:24:49.120 --> 01:24:50.120]  Okay.
[01:24:50.120 --> 01:24:51.120]  Thank you.
[01:24:51.120 --> 01:24:52.120]  Thank you.
[01:24:52.120 --> 01:24:53.120]  All right.
[01:24:53.120 --> 01:24:54.120]  We will be right back, folks.
[01:24:54.120 --> 01:24:59.720]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[01:24:59.720 --> 01:25:03.240]  Do you feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:25:03.240 --> 01:25:04.240]  Sorry.
[01:25:04.240 --> 01:25:07.120]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:25:07.120 --> 01:25:08.120]  What?
[01:25:08.120 --> 01:25:11.840]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:25:11.840 --> 01:25:17.440]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity
[01:25:17.440 --> 01:25:18.640]  at an early age.
[01:25:18.640 --> 01:25:22.640]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home
[01:25:22.640 --> 01:25:24.640]  in America, the television.
[01:25:24.640 --> 01:25:29.640]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[01:25:29.640 --> 01:25:33.480]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering
[01:25:33.480 --> 01:25:38.400]  from sports-zombieism recover, and because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and
[01:25:38.400 --> 01:25:43.280]  watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested, so if you or
[01:25:43.280 --> 01:25:50.520]  anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them
[01:25:50.520 --> 01:25:54.120]  in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:25:54.120 --> 01:25:57.520]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary
[01:25:57.520 --> 01:26:00.720]  and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:26:00.720 --> 01:26:03.880]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:26:03.880 --> 01:26:10.640]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course
[01:26:10.640 --> 01:26:13.760]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:26:13.760 --> 01:26:18.400]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:26:18.400 --> 01:26:23.120]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:26:23.120 --> 01:26:28.360]  Lawyers have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:26:28.360 --> 01:26:34.280]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:26:34.280 --> 01:26:38.840]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[01:26:38.840 --> 01:26:43.120]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:26:43.120 --> 01:26:49.280]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:26:49.280 --> 01:26:55.960]  process tactics, and much more, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[01:26:55.960 --> 01:26:58.960]  or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:26:58.960 --> 01:26:59.960]  Hello.
[01:26:59.960 --> 01:27:00.960]  Oh, man.
[01:27:00.960 --> 01:27:01.960]  In jail.
[01:27:01.960 --> 01:27:02.960]  Just wanted to know.
[01:27:02.960 --> 01:27:03.960]  Oh, man.
[01:27:03.960 --> 01:27:04.960]  I'm broke, man.
[01:27:04.960 --> 01:27:05.960]  Oh, man.
[01:27:05.960 --> 01:27:06.960]  Oh, man.
[01:27:06.960 --> 01:27:07.960]  Oh, man.
[01:27:07.960 --> 01:27:08.960]  Oh, man.
[01:27:08.960 --> 01:27:09.960]  Oh, man.
[01:27:09.960 --> 01:27:10.960]  Oh, man.
[01:27:10.960 --> 01:27:11.960]  Oh, man.
[01:27:11.960 --> 01:27:12.960]  Oh, man.
[01:27:12.960 --> 01:27:13.960]  Oh, man.
[01:27:13.960 --> 01:27:14.960]  Oh, man.
[01:27:14.960 --> 01:27:19.960]  Oh, man.
[01:27:19.960 --> 01:27:26.960]  Some things in this world I will never understand.
[01:27:26.960 --> 01:27:30.960]  Some things I realize fully.
[01:27:30.960 --> 01:27:34.960]  Somebody's gonna police that policeman.
[01:27:34.960 --> 01:27:38.960]  Somebody's gonna police the bully.
[01:27:38.960 --> 01:27:46.960]  There's always a room at the top of the hill.
[01:27:46.960 --> 01:27:47.960]  I hear things are great, fine, and it's lonely.
[01:27:47.960 --> 01:27:49.320]  Okay, folks, we are back, and we've got Marshall back.
[01:27:49.320 --> 01:27:52.560]  We've got one more segment, so we're gonna finish up with Marshall here talking about
[01:27:52.560 --> 01:27:58.240]  this case, and Randy was talking about something about an easement, and I think that that whole
[01:27:58.240 --> 01:28:03.760]  concept already falls under grandfathering, which they already have.
[01:28:03.760 --> 01:28:06.520]  That's exactly where I was going.
[01:28:06.520 --> 01:28:18.320]  They're claiming that this gun range became a nuisance in 2005, so if the gun range operated
[01:28:18.320 --> 01:28:28.400]  essentially in the same character it had been operating in prior to 2005, say 2004, how
[01:28:28.400 --> 01:28:31.520]  did it become a nuisance now?
[01:28:31.520 --> 01:28:34.640]  They said it became a nuisance.
[01:28:34.640 --> 01:28:43.840]  Now did the gun range do something to become a nuisance, or did someone else come to the
[01:28:43.840 --> 01:28:48.360]  position where they considered the gun range a nuisance?
[01:28:48.360 --> 01:28:52.840]  If that's the case, then they're grandfathered.
[01:28:52.840 --> 01:28:59.080]  That's why I ask, I don't know, I ask off the, on the break, they said they did a sound
[01:28:59.080 --> 01:29:05.640]  check at the nearest neighbor, and ask if that nearest neighbor's house was 80 years
[01:29:05.640 --> 01:29:09.040]  old, and Marshall said no it's not.
[01:29:09.040 --> 01:29:16.120]  So he put that house in there when this noise situation was already in place.
[01:29:16.120 --> 01:29:24.760]  You can't come in with me operating a business or using my property the way I choose to,
[01:29:24.760 --> 01:29:28.480]  move in next to me, and then say I don't like the way you're using your property.
[01:29:28.480 --> 01:29:34.240]  Well you should have thought of that before you moved in, just to have an easement.
[01:29:34.240 --> 01:29:39.920]  And the gun range will have an easement, the sound issue should be grandfathered along
[01:29:39.920 --> 01:29:45.680]  with everything else, and I can't think of anything else that would create a nuisance.
[01:29:45.680 --> 01:29:50.160]  Well Marshall was saying that what the county is claiming is that what had changed is that
[01:29:50.160 --> 01:29:53.920]  they started having tournaments, but they were already having tournaments, and the reality
[01:29:53.920 --> 01:29:57.840]  is that the only thing that had changed is that more people started showing up with rifles
[01:29:57.840 --> 01:30:03.120]  or higher powered rifles or such, and so that's why I was saying on the appeal, he needs
[01:30:03.120 --> 01:30:08.760]  to rely on the record and all the testimony and documentation to basically show this is
[01:30:08.760 --> 01:30:16.800]  what was happening prior to 2005, per this appellate court's prior ruling, we have the
[01:30:16.800 --> 01:30:22.360]  right to do all of this because none of this was considered a nuisance prior to 2005, all
[01:30:22.360 --> 01:30:23.880]  of this should be grandfathered.
[01:30:23.880 --> 01:30:29.760]  We want an order saying that we are allowed to do all of these things that are already
[01:30:29.760 --> 01:30:36.440]  in the record that were taking place before 2005, and to overturn the trial court ruling.
[01:30:36.440 --> 01:30:45.080]  Now I have a question here, Marshall, about this other case.
[01:30:45.080 --> 01:30:49.660]  You started going into this a little bit at the beginning of the show, what is the difference
[01:30:49.660 --> 01:30:54.640]  between the two cases, what is the second case about?
[01:30:54.640 --> 01:31:01.360]  I can summarize the two cases in about one sense, the first case is about nuisance, the
[01:31:01.360 --> 01:31:08.920]  second case is the county passed a new ordinance and we refused to get a permit, so the new
[01:31:08.920 --> 01:31:17.560]  ordinance requires all gun ranges to get permits, and our position was, okay, we don't want
[01:31:17.560 --> 01:31:23.840]  a permit, we want to operate under our grandfathered rights, let's have a discussion about what
[01:31:23.840 --> 01:31:30.320]  those are, and the county's response is, oh no, you either get a permit or you cannot
[01:31:30.320 --> 01:31:31.320]  operate.
[01:31:31.320 --> 01:31:38.440]  Okay, so the second case doesn't have anything to do with nuisance.
[01:31:38.440 --> 01:31:40.320]  That's correct.
[01:31:40.320 --> 01:31:50.600]  So when did this case get filed relative to the ruling of the appellate court?
[01:31:50.600 --> 01:31:59.200]  They started doing the ordinance basically as soon as they lost at the appellate level,
[01:31:59.200 --> 01:32:08.400]  and it was in place and they filed early in 2005 is when the second case started.
[01:32:08.400 --> 01:32:12.680]  Have you moved for a joiner?
[01:32:12.680 --> 01:32:18.640]  It's been talked about, but the lawyers...
[01:32:18.640 --> 01:32:23.920]  If you could get a joiner, then you would bring this other case under your grandfathered
[01:32:23.920 --> 01:32:30.640]  rights, it's already been ruled on, then you should be able to eliminate the injunction.
[01:32:30.640 --> 01:32:37.320]  Well, I mean, we've already argued because the appeals court decision was already in
[01:32:37.320 --> 01:32:44.080]  place, our position is, and it's been argued in our documents, that that applies.
[01:32:44.080 --> 01:32:49.000]  Even though it's a different case in a different county, the county has to live with it.
[01:32:49.000 --> 01:32:55.760]  And their position is that's irrelevant because of grandfathered rights, because our ordinance
[01:32:55.760 --> 01:33:02.560]  supersedes the grandfathering.
[01:33:02.560 --> 01:33:08.000]  Does it have case law or statutory support for that?
[01:33:08.000 --> 01:33:16.080]  There is some when it comes down to commercial entities, but of course, our position is that
[01:33:16.080 --> 01:33:18.900]  we are not a commercial entity.
[01:33:18.900 --> 01:33:25.160]  We are a corporation, we're a nonprofit corporation, and basically, well, it is true.
[01:33:25.160 --> 01:33:28.680]  This range is run completely with volunteers.
[01:33:28.680 --> 01:33:34.200]  There is no paid staff on our facility.
[01:33:34.200 --> 01:33:36.520]  And y'all don't charge customers?
[01:33:36.520 --> 01:33:42.880]  Technically, we don't charge, there's memberships, and then members of the public coming in are
[01:33:42.880 --> 01:33:46.280]  asked to make a $15 donation.
[01:33:46.280 --> 01:33:51.880]  And if somebody, you know, that's often waived, and if somebody says, I can't afford that,
[01:33:51.880 --> 01:33:55.040]  I need to test fire this gun, we let them shoot anyhow.
[01:33:55.040 --> 01:34:00.440]  So it's technically a donation, but they seem to ignore that.
[01:34:00.440 --> 01:34:03.640]  Well, of course, they're going to ignore it, and the trial court's going to ignore a lot
[01:34:03.640 --> 01:34:04.640]  too.
[01:34:04.640 --> 01:34:09.800]  So again, the important thing is that we get everything on the record that we want.
[01:34:09.800 --> 01:34:16.840]  And as far as the grandfathering thing, I mean, when you're saying you asked what is
[01:34:16.840 --> 01:34:22.120]  allowed under the grandfathering, did y'all ask the county or the court?
[01:34:22.120 --> 01:34:29.240]  Well, again, the appeals court in the first case ruled that we had grandfathered rights.
[01:34:29.240 --> 01:34:32.520]  They did not lay out exactly what those were.
[01:34:32.520 --> 01:34:35.600]  That was left to the trial court to specify.
[01:34:35.600 --> 01:34:39.680]  The trial court has not specified.
[01:34:39.680 --> 01:34:45.120]  The appeals court said we had grandfathered rights, and we could intensify from those
[01:34:45.120 --> 01:34:50.120]  grandfathered rights, but that we could not expand.
[01:34:50.120 --> 01:34:56.280]  It was the expansion that caused the nuisance.
[01:34:56.280 --> 01:35:02.260]  A great deal of the court case after the remand doesn't even include those terms.
[01:35:02.260 --> 01:35:09.120]  They almost never used the terms intensification and expansion and grandfathered.
[01:35:09.120 --> 01:35:11.280]  The trial court simply doesn't want to deal with it.
[01:35:11.280 --> 01:35:18.280]  Have y'all done case law research on those specific terms for either case?
[01:35:18.280 --> 01:35:23.680]  Sure, but all the ones we can find are industrial in nature.
[01:35:23.680 --> 01:35:30.120]  So for example, there have been commercial entities that went from having two shifts
[01:35:30.120 --> 01:35:33.540]  of manufacturing to three shifts a day.
[01:35:33.540 --> 01:35:36.520]  That was called intensification.
[01:35:36.520 --> 01:35:41.080]  And in other instances, when they expanded the facility, made a bigger building, made
[01:35:41.080 --> 01:35:46.020]  more assembly lines, that was called expansion.
[01:35:46.020 --> 01:35:50.240]  But that doesn't have quite a one-to-one fit with what we're doing.
[01:35:50.240 --> 01:35:56.640]  Well, sometimes you just have to borrow case law and try to make it fit via analogy as
[01:35:56.640 --> 01:35:57.920]  best as possible.
[01:35:57.920 --> 01:36:03.080]  And sometimes even you have to go to other states' case law and federal case law if there's
[01:36:03.080 --> 01:36:07.080]  nothing that fits and just borrow case law the best you can.
[01:36:07.080 --> 01:36:16.000]  But as far as the second case regarding the ordinance and the permitting and the grandfathering,
[01:36:16.000 --> 01:36:21.680]  you're saying that there is a case law or statute regarding commercial entities, you
[01:36:21.680 --> 01:36:28.000]  said, that if grandfathering does not apply for commercial entities, regarding permits?
[01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:29.880]  No, no.
[01:36:29.880 --> 01:36:35.160]  With respect to the nuisance issue, there's some case law that relates to various industries.
[01:36:35.160 --> 01:36:36.160]  No, no.
[01:36:36.160 --> 01:36:39.580]  I'm talking about the second case with the permit issue.
[01:36:39.580 --> 01:36:45.920]  You said that what is the case law and or statute say regarding grandfathering and permits?
[01:36:45.920 --> 01:36:51.520]  Well, that's a lot more varied.
[01:36:51.520 --> 01:36:56.440]  The stuff that I've seen is, of course, they can almost always require permits of commercial
[01:36:56.440 --> 01:36:59.960]  entities, commercial for-profit entities.
[01:36:59.960 --> 01:37:02.160]  We're arguing that we're not that.
[01:37:02.160 --> 01:37:07.280]  And the county's position is, more or less, that this is a public safety issue.
[01:37:07.280 --> 01:37:11.160]  We must be in control of gun ranges.
[01:37:11.160 --> 01:37:17.000]  And for them to not be in control of them is a public safety hazard, therefore, it trumps
[01:37:17.000 --> 01:37:19.600]  all other issues.
[01:37:19.600 --> 01:37:24.280]  Do they have case law to back up that argument?
[01:37:24.280 --> 01:37:29.720]  Specifically on gun ranges, no, but for other issues, yes.
[01:37:29.720 --> 01:37:34.200]  That's in a general sense, if you can prove there's actual danger, which they have not
[01:37:34.200 --> 01:37:39.960]  done in this case, by the way, there has not been any evidence entered in either case that
[01:37:39.960 --> 01:37:45.600]  any person, property, or animal has been injured in the history of the gun law.
[01:37:45.600 --> 01:37:47.840]  What does their ordinance say about permitting?
[01:37:47.840 --> 01:37:51.560]  Does it say specifically, does it have to do with commerce?
[01:37:51.560 --> 01:37:55.400]  Or is it in the commercial section of their code?
[01:37:55.400 --> 01:38:00.220]  No, no, they claim it covers both.
[01:38:00.220 --> 01:38:05.320]  And it does not use the word commerce anywhere in their ordinance.
[01:38:05.320 --> 01:38:14.400]  Even so, does a municipal corporation have the power to exercise authority over someone
[01:38:14.400 --> 01:38:17.520]  who has not entered into a commercial business?
[01:38:17.520 --> 01:38:19.200]  Yeah, that was where I was going to go.
[01:38:19.200 --> 01:38:24.640]  They may not have the authority to enact such permitting regulatory schemes.
[01:38:24.640 --> 01:38:28.880]  They may only have authority to regulate commercial activity.
[01:38:28.880 --> 01:38:37.600]  Well, in this state, if you're a home rule, if you're a home rule county, they have a
[01:38:37.600 --> 01:38:43.560]  lot more authority, at least according to state law, than they would otherwise.
[01:38:43.560 --> 01:38:50.760]  We have home rule cities and counties that do a lot more legislating than many other
[01:38:50.760 --> 01:38:51.760]  states do.
[01:38:51.760 --> 01:38:52.760]  All right.
[01:38:52.760 --> 01:38:53.760]  Well, I want to investigate this more.
[01:38:53.760 --> 01:39:00.160]  I have to have you back because if it was just a private landowner, not even a group
[01:39:00.160 --> 01:39:09.480]  or anything, they can't require a permit for a private landowner to practice shooting firearms
[01:39:09.480 --> 01:39:13.400]  on their own property and claim it's a public safety issue.
[01:39:13.400 --> 01:39:14.800]  No, they can't do that.
[01:39:14.800 --> 01:39:19.520]  I'm sure they can't do that, so there's got to be something that relates here.
[01:39:19.520 --> 01:39:24.200]  I think likely they can only regulate commercial activity, but we need to explore that.
[01:39:24.200 --> 01:39:27.080]  Marshall, thank you for joining us tonight.
[01:39:27.080 --> 01:39:28.080]  Thank you.
[01:39:28.080 --> 01:39:29.080]  All right, folks.
[01:39:29.080 --> 01:39:30.080]  This has been the rule of law.
[01:39:30.080 --> 01:39:34.120]  If you haven't checked out our fundraiser yet, please check out our fundraiser.
[01:39:34.120 --> 01:39:37.460]  We do need your help to stay on the air.
[01:39:37.460 --> 01:39:41.680]  We are listener-supported, and we support the listeners 100%.
[01:39:41.680 --> 01:39:47.160]  So folks, we have extended our fundraiser to March 17th, so please donate and help us
[01:39:47.160 --> 01:39:48.160]  out.
[01:39:48.160 --> 01:39:50.040]  Thank you.
[01:39:50.040 --> 01:39:56.120]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament
[01:39:56.120 --> 01:39:57.320]  Recovery Version.
[01:39:57.320 --> 01:40:02.280]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible
[01:40:02.280 --> 01:40:07.920]  says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:40:07.920 --> 01:40:11.240]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:40:11.240 --> 01:40:20.200]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:40:20.200 --> 01:40:25.880]  This translation is highly accurate, and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus
[01:40:25.880 --> 01:40:29.760]  charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:40:29.760 --> 01:40:32.300]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:40:32.300 --> 01:40:40.680]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:40:40.680 --> 01:40:47.760]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:40:47.760 --> 01:41:11.120]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.