St. Louis Zoo: communication log + TRO filing/status + legal/financial help needed

[davidmcbeth]

And what case did BB62 file? Oh, that's right BB62 didn't file any suit, the St. Louis zoo did.

Lets keep the facts straight.

Isn't BB62 a party in the suit? I thought so ... I could be wrong

 

[color of law]

Originally Posted by color of law:
And what case did BB62 file? Oh, that's right BB62 didn't file any suit, the St. Louis zoo did.

Lets keep the facts straight

.

Isn't BB62 a party in the suit? I thought so ... I could be wrong

I'm not the guy to play that game with.

 

[HPmatt]

What is all this debate about????? BB62 would appreciate help in defending against a government agency that is attempting to violate one of our inalienable rights.

The outcome effects all of us. So, either help of get out of the way.

Money talks when it comes to the Law - go get'em BB62. Protect MO Law and 2A rights. I guess the NRA and other 'gun rights' groups are AWOL.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BB62]

Just got back to Cincinnati at 2AM this morning. I'm working my way through e-mails, contribution notifications, etc. right now.

I will post an update about the depositions when I'm allowed. :cuss:

Once again I will reiterate my sincere appreciation to Jane C. Hogan, OUR attorney.


In the meanwhile, for those who may have missed my latest **case status update and request for funds** (because of off-topic and non-contributory posts), please read this:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?133743-Case-status-update-request-for-funds

 

[BB62]

Money talks when it comes to the Law - go get'em BB62. Protect MO Law and 2A rights. I guess the NRA and other 'gun rights' groups are AWOL.

Thank you very kindly, Matt.

Unfortunately, except for the responsiveness of Larry Pratt of the GOA, you are correct. But that's okay - Ms. Hogan is more than enough of an attorney!

 

[BB62]

Small update

The Zoo has filed a motion for summary judgement, and Ms. Hogan is working on a response.

Nothing more to report at the moment.

 

[bmhenry]

Well, I guess this is progress, right?

 

[BB62]

Well, I guess this is progress, right?

I wouldn't say that. Legal machinations are just part of litigation. <sigh>

Progress will be when the judge, recognizing that the Zoo isn't any of the things it claims to be, reverses her prior ruling.

 

[deepdiver]

Good golly. BB62 thought he was hiring an attorney, not starting a long term relationship. The wheels on the bus may go round and round but these wheels of justice just sort of rock back and forth and don't go anywhere. *sigh*

 

[BB62]

Good golly. BB62 thought he was hiring an attorney, not starting a long term relationship. The wheels on the bus may go round and round but these wheels of justice just sort of rock back and forth and don't go anywhere. *sigh*

:lol:

Well, as for a 'long term relationship', the good news is that I hoped that I'd be able to find a capable attorney with whom I had good chemistry - and my hopes were fulfilled with Ms. Hogan.

And yes, the creaky and unpredictable wheels of justice are far from my favorite thing. Fortunately, I have other things that keep me busy, and friends in distant states!

 

[BB62]

No guns at the St. Louis Zoo, judge rules <grrr>

Thanks to one of my Facebook friends for the link.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_7996981c-e7f2-5092-a900-0fc82f6f13f9.html

"His lawyer, Jane Hogan, said Monday that she and Smith disagree with the decision and will appeal it to a higher court. She said Moriarty has made an "overly broad" interpretation of the state's gun laws.

To say that it's a school or an amusement park, then any McDonald's that has a playground would be an amusement park because they have rides and sell food," Hogan said. "The legislature has given us no guidance here. When they say 'amusement park,' we don't know what they mean because they use 'place of amusement' in other statutes. So we have to assume they mean something different."

I may have more to say, depending on the guidance Ms. Hogan gives me.

Link from STLPD to decision: http://www.stltoday.com/news/multim...pdf_4d926e9e-3ef2-5232-b009-127b453266cc.html

A link to the decision can be found within the article, and I'll see about asking someone to post a separate link here on OCDO.

 

[color of law]

One of those Alice in Wonderland decisions. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

 

[DeSchaine]

The courts are a waste of time. With the SCOTUS decision about Peruta today, its just going to be business as usual for anti's.

 

[deepdiver]

Very disappointing. The judge from the beginning twisted the law to fit her opinion to the point that the original order was contradictory to itself and included provable falsehoods.

 

[BB62]

APPEALS COURT DECISION

As posted to my Facebook page:

I would like to express my unending appreciation to Missouri attorney Jane C. Hogan, formerly of St. Louis, who agreed to represent me, and essence all legal gun owners, in this case. I simply can't fully express my full appreciation to her for her skills and determination.

Similarly, I would like to express my boundless appreciation to those individuals from Missouri and elsewhere who have donated in order that we could challenge the Zoo in court. THANK YOU.

** THE MATTER IS NOT YET CONCLUDED, though **

Background: I have been and remain subject to a restraining order sought by the Zoo in June of 2015 because of my plans to hold a handguns-only open carry "Firearms Right Challenge" at the Zoo because of what I felt/feel were their illegal 'no guns' signage. (it's a long story, which I will link to in the first comment following this post)

Rather than respond to my repeated attempts to cite the law behind their signage, the Zoo sought and received a restraining order prohibiting me and anyone else with knowledge of the order from having a firearm on Zoo property. This forced me to either accept the order, or challenge it.

I expect the zoo will appeal the ruling, which reversed and remanded the lower court ruling "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Because it's ongoing, I'm still restricted as to what I can say about things, but I'll try to answer things which I can, or refer interested people to other resources for answers.

Again, a sincere and deep THANK YOU again to Jane and to those who donated to advance this cause.

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file/ED/Opinion_ED105784.pdf

************
.
.
I will post the appeals court filings if someone can host them. If you're able to do so, please message me and I'll send the files to you for that purpose.

Thank you.

 

[solus]

BB62, thanks for providing an update to those who shun FB type social media.

HEARTY congrats on the court decision, well done!

 

[OC4me]

BB62, thanks for providing an update to those who shun FB type social media.

HEARTY congrats on the court decision, well done!

That concurring opinion is scary though. According to the judge's warped logic, he cannot legally open carry anyway despite agreeing that the injunction was issued improperly.

 

[BB62]

>> CASE UPDATE <<

On Monday, February 11, 2019, a "status conference" will be held in Judge Moriarity's courtroom.

Since the Appeals Court dissolved the restraining order and remanded the case back to the her court (the lower court), the purpose of the conference, as I understand it, is for the attorneys to make requests of one type or another, and then for the judge to issue her order, in line with the Appeals Court ruling.

I will post again once the status conference is concluded, and/or the judge has issued her order.

 

[color of law]

Good luck

 

[solus]

Thanks for the update ...

Tis appreciated