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

[BB62]

I'll have to do it tonight, since it's on one of my home computers. I'll post back here when I do. Long story short, the filing doesn't have much meat to it. There are a few admissions of uninteresting facts, and a lot of denials (which is what you expect for a TRO filling) and a basic summary of rights, as well as a denial that the Zoo meets any of the excepted buildings. There is no rationale or anything.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

There may not be much meat with regard to the response to the Zoo's petition, but there is also a *counter-claim*!

 

[kcgunfan]

Yep, that's where the meat is. I'm just saying it's not hugely built up. For example, your lawyer says that the Zoo didn't fall under any of the exemptions in 571.107, but didn't go into depth on any of them. And that's probably the crux of the issue. For example, are the zoo's claims to be a school, day care center, and an amusement park supported by the relevant statutes? They say yes, you say no. Neither side says why.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[BB62]

Yep, that's where the meat is. I'm just saying it's not hugely built up. For example, your lawyer says that the Zoo didn't fall under any of the exemptions in 571.107, but didn't go into depth on any of them. And that's probably the crux of the issue. For example, are the zoo's claims to be a school, day care center, and an amusement park supported by the relevant statutes? They say yes, you say no. Neither side says why.

As I understand it, that's not the function of a counter-claim. As I understand it, the place to respond to those claims (made in more detail in the Zoo's motion) will come in the response to that motion.

 

[kcgunfan]

I know, I'm just saying that the interesting stuff won't be in this filling. That comes later.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[kcgunfan]

New upload location

At Jeffry's request, I've made all of the filings in this case available here for anyone to copy or print:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_KpluV_-2zaS0hDeWtQTnVCdk0&usp=sharing

As more documents come out, I'm happy to add them here as well.

 

[BB62]

At Jeffry's request, I've made all of the filings in this case available here for anyone to copy or print:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_KpluV_-2zaS0hDeWtQTnVCdk0&usp=sharing

As more documents come out, I'm happy to add them here as well.

Thanks much, KC!

For people who may not have read all the discussion about the documents, the "smith-answer" is a response to the Zoo's "verified petition". Also included in the "smith-answer" is a counter-claim: my asking for a permanent injunction against the Zoo's posted signage.

My attorney will also respond at a later time to the Zoo's "motion for tro with tro attached".


PLEASE, if you haven't already done so, read the Zoo's motion. In it you'll see that this legal action on the Zoo's part is not about keeping an Ohioan with a gun from coming to the St. Louis Zoo. NO - it's about a governmental entity claiming power it doesn't have, and calling itself whatever it feels necessary to call itself in order to keep ALL law abiding gun owners from bringing a gun to the Zoo, inside or outside of the entrances.

With that in mind, please share this matter with your friends, ask them to spread the word, and to donate to the effort to put the Zoo in its place.

 

[BB62]

** Collective Input Sought **

For those who'd like to support the fight against the Zoo, but want to do it in some other way than (or in addition to) a financial contribution... your help is hereby solicited!

The Zoo has made a number of assertions in their "Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order". Ms. Hogan must respond to those assertions, which include claims that the Zoo is an educational facility, a childcare facility, an amusement park, and a "business open to the public".

Can she do so by herself? Of course! Are two, three, four, etc. minds better than one? If you've done any serious activism, you already know the answer. As a matter of fact, valuable information has already been submitted to me for consideration by Ms. Hogan.

Here's where YOU can help: look over the Zoo's motion, accessible here in a link provided by OCDO member kcgunfan: http://tinyurl.com/pl6gj99

Then, dig up everything you can to make mincemeat of the Zoo's claims. Please send that information, specifically and with appropriate identifying information (link xyz, page x of the pdf, etc.) to me via PM. If it looks like there is going to be a lot of information sent and received, I'll provide you with an e-mail address instead.

Obviously, DO NOT post your findings publicly.

Finally, THANK YOU for whatever you do to help with this fight.

 

[Grapeshot]

Our strength is in our numbers and diversity. We have knowledge and abilities to share.

The call has been made. Will you answer it? Sincerely hope so as this fight is for you too.

 

[kcgunfan]

If you are agreeable, perhaps the management would create a private board where we can discuss this. Then you can invite people that contribute or whatever. If that's not agreeable, then maybe a Google Doc's collaboration would work just as well. I think there's about a million holes that can be shot in the Zoo's argument (no pun intended) and I've sent you my opening salvo (pun intended) already. I've got more, but limited time this afternoon.

For those who'd like to support the fight against the Zoo, but want to do it in some other way than (or in addition to) a financial contribution... your help is hereby solicited!

The Zoo has made a number of assertions in their "Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order". Ms. Hogan must respond to those assertions, which include claims that the Zoo is an educational facility, a childcare facility, an amusement park, and a "business open to the public".

Can she do so by herself? Of course! Are two, three, four, etc. minds better than one? If you've done any serious activism, you already know the answer. As a matter of fact, valuable information has already been submitted to me for consideration by Ms. Hogan.

Here's where YOU can help: look over the Zoo's motion, accessible here in a link provided by OCDO member kcgunfan: http://tinyurl.com/pl6gj99

Then, dig up everything you can to make mincemeat of the Zoo's claims. Please send that information, specifically and with appropriate identifying information (link xyz, page x of the pdf, etc.) to me via PM. If it looks like there is going to be a lot of information sent and received, I'll provide you with an e-mail address instead.

Obviously, DO NOT post your findings publicly.

Finally, THANK YOU for whatever you do to help with this fight.

 

[BB62]

If you are agreeable, perhaps the management would create a private board where we can discuss this. Then you can invite people that contribute or whatever. If that's not agreeable, then maybe a Google Doc's collaboration would work just as well. I think there's about a million holes that can be shot in the Zoo's argument (no pun intended) and I've sent you my opening salvo (pun intended) already. I've got more, but limited time this afternoon.

"The management" here at OCDO can speak for itself, but in my experience they're busy folks, and as worthwhile as your suggestion is I don't imagine such a thing could happen quickly or possibly at all (due to the forum's capabilities). Also, the court date is coming up fast - the week of November 2.

BUT, you raise an excellent point (indirectly) - duplication of effort. So far this hasn't been an issue. My suggestion is that if someone feels one part of the Zoo's four assertions particularly interests them, let me know via PM. I will either let people know who is working on what (with their permission) or simply try and coordinate who is working on what.

To those who would like to help: PLEASE read the Zoo's motion so that you have the whole picture first, then determine which area of the Zoo's claims (under 571.107) you want to dissect:

1) educational institution

2) an amusement park

3) daycare/childcare facility

4) business open to the public


Then, drop me a PM. (and thanks again)

 

[Oramac]

I already PM'd you about the amusement park part of this, but it was a while back. Shall I resend what I found?

 

[BB62]

I already PM'd you about the amusement park part of this, but it was a while back. Shall I resend what I found?

No need, I've got it. Thanks for the heads-up, though.

 

[BB62]

Ms. Hogan has informed me that the preliminary injunction hearing will be next Friday (11/13) at 11:30 AM in Judge Moriarity's courtroom.


I'll post more information when I know it.

 

[logunowner]

Ms. Hogan has informed me that the preliminary injunction hearing will be next Friday (11/13) at 11:30 AM in Judge Moriarity's courtroom.


I'll post more information when I know it.

Thanks for the update. How has your effort to raise financial support to fight this important battle going?

 

[BB62]

Thanks for the update. How has your effort to raise financial support to fight this important battle going?

$630 has been donated via GoFundMe, minus ~10% in fees, and $200 has been donated via US Mail directly to Ms. Hogan.

 

[logunowner]

$630 has been donated via GoFundMe, minus ~10% in fees, and $200 has been donated via US Mail directly to Ms. Hogan.

What a disappoint. Please people, if you are in a position to help financially in this battle to help Missouri have a truly Constitutional carry state...please do so.

 

[BB62]

What a disappoint. Please people, if you are in a position to help financially in this battle to help Missouri have a truly Constitutional carry state...please do so.

Thanks for the suggestion, and better yet thank YOU for your generous support.

While attorney fees remain an issue, the next hurdle is going to be expenses. The Zoo, through its attorney, has decided to cause needless needless expenditures rather than both parties agreeing to a stipulation that I would remain off Zoo property for the duration of the lower court legal action.

 

[BB62]

** First Court Action **

A preliminary injunction hearing, at which I will be present, will be held this coming Friday, 11/13/15, at 11:30 AM in the 22nd Judicial Court of Missouri (the old United States Court House and Custom House) at the corner of Market St. & Tucker Blvd, in Judge Moriarity's courtroom.

My understanding is that our response to the Zoo's motion is due to be filed prior to Friday.

I will post more information as I know it, but if you can attend, please do.


Courthouse street address: 1144 Market St., St Louis, MO 63101

 

[BB62]

A brief court hearing was held 11/13/15, and rescheduled to 11/24/15 @ 9:30 AM. (the judge indicated that she scheduled our matter only for 11/24)

It was FANTASTIC that two fellows, Mike Rekart and Daniel Harp, attended - although I feel bad that very little happened in court. Despite that, great conversation was had before and after the proceedings.

There's not a whole lot to more to say, or that *I* can say, but here's a news article:

http://www.stltoday.com/…/article_f3238d5b-b7c0-5a58-8dbb-a…


As always:

Donations can be sent to Ms. Hogan made out to "Jane C. Hogan, IOLTA Trust". Please put "Jeffry Smith" or "St. Louis Zoo" in the memo. Her address is 5216 Chippewa Street, St. Louis, MO 63109.

Alternatively, you can contribute via GoFundMe at this address: https://www.gofundme.com/rp5tgsps


THANK YOU.

(Mike's photo)

 

[color of law]

How about posting your reply brief.