PDA

View Full Version : Gentry v. Harris - CGSSA and NRA lawsuit Challenging DOJ Raid of DROS Fees


Kestryll
10-03-2013, 11:54 AM
Copy of the complaint is here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Gentry_Complaint-for-Declaratory-and-Injunctive-Relief-and-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus.pdf

This was posted earlier but the title was a bit vague.


Calgunlaws.com/california-department-of-justice-sued-for-misuse-of-firearm-purchaser-fee/

California Department of Justice Sued for Misuse of Firearm Purchaser Fee

Attorneys from the law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. have filed a lawsuit on behalf of several individual gun owners and the Calguns Shooting Sports Association ("CGSSA"), challenging the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) misuse of monies collected from a fee that DOJ can require firearm purchasers to pay at the time of sale, the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) Fee. The lawsuit, assisted by the National Rifle Association, who has brought a federal lawsuit (Bauer v. Harris) seeking similar relief on Second Amendment grounds, seeks to stop DOJ from continuing to stick law-abiding gun owners with the bill for funding its general law enforcement projects through the DROS fee.

Should the court rule in Plaintiffs’ favor on SB 819 being void as an illegal tax, this request by Plaintiffs could very likely result in a lowering of the DROS fee.

The DROS fee was originally intended to fund DOJ’s background checks of prospective firearm purchasers. In fact, DOJ had always been statutorily required to limit the DROS Fee to an amount no more than necessary to recoup its costs incurred from regulating the transfer of firearms. Despite this statutory limitation, in recent years, the DROS Special Account had amassed a surplus of over $35 million, an extraordinary amount given that DOJ’s annual budget for the DROS program has averaged about $9 million a year during the last ten years.

Rather than lower the DROS fee or give firearm purchasers their money back, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 819 ("SB 819") in 2011, authorizing DOJ to use DROS Fee revenues for regulating the "possession" of firearms. This was an extreme expansion of DOJ’s statutory authority to use DROS Fee monies. And DOJ has been taking advantage of its new-found authority.

Since SB 819’s passage, DOJ has been shifting the main purpose of the DROS fee from funding background checks to funding DOJ’s enforcement of the Armed Prohibited Persons System ("APPS"). This shift culminated in the Legislature passing Senate Bill 140 ("SB 140") this year, which appropriated $24 million from the surplus in the DROS Special Account to exclusively fund DOJ’s enforcement of APPS enforcement activities, which primarily consist of DOJ officers and staff conducting investigations followed by SWAT-style raids on the residences of individuals DOJ believes illegally possess firearms. While there is a debate on whether APPS is beneficial or not (although, APPS does seem to be very problematic, as we have written about before, that is not the point in this lawsuit.

For purpose of this lawsuit, Plaintiffs are not challenging the legality of DOJ’s APPS programs. Nor are Plaintiffs contesting the legality of the DROS fee per se. Rather, Plaintiffs’ dispute is with DOJ’s misuse of the monies that the Plaintiffs and others are required to pay in order to lawfully purchase firearms.


First, Plaintiffs, complaint argues that SB 819 is an unconstitutional tax under the California Constitution, which requires that any new "levy, charge or exaction" be passed by a two-thirds "super-majority" vote of each house of the Legislature. By expanding the activities for which DROS fee revenues can be used and shifting the financial burden of such activities from the general fund to firearm purchasers, SB 819 is a new charge. Since it was not passed by such a super-majority, it is void and unenforceable as an illegal tax, unless DOJ can meet its burden to show that it is a "regulatory fee" and exempt from the super-majority vote. To do so, DOJ must show that SB 819 bears a fair or reasonable relationship to the DROS Fee payer’s burdens on, or benefits received from DOJ’s regulation of firearm possession. That it cannot do. Enforcement of APPS programs, for example, extends far beyond those activities reasonably related to the DROS Fee payer or the reason the DROS program was originally established – data collection and background checks. APPS involves general law enforcement activities that should be funded by the General Fund, not by lawful firearm purchasers. Thus, SB 819 is an illegal tax and should be voided.

Likewise, Plaintiffs contend that because SB 819 is void, the Legislature’s appropriation of the $24 million from the DROS Special Account to DOJ for enforcement of APPS pursuant to SB 140, which relied on SB 819 for authority, is an illegal expenditure of funds. Plaintiffs therefore seek an injunction against DOJ from spending that money, and an order from the court ordering the State Controller to retrieve all monies given to DOJ pursuant to SB 140 and to return such monies to the DROS Special Account.

Finally, Plaintiffs also take issue with the fact that the DROS fee has resulted in such a massive surplus in recent years, and seeks an order from the court compelling the DOJ to review and reevaluate the amount at which it currently charges the DROS Fee. Should the court rule in Plaintiffs’ favor on SB 819 being void as an illegal tax, this request by Plaintiffs could very likely result in a lowering of the DROS fee.

There should be substantive movement on this case fairly soon. Stay tuned to http://www.calgunlaws.com/ to keep informed and updated. 



CGSSA Joins w/ Michel and Associates and NRA in suit Challenging DOJ Raid of DROS Fees

cr250chevy
10-03-2013, 12:26 PM
Keep up the work!

Tincon
10-03-2013, 4:56 PM
Great lawsuit.

postal
10-04-2013, 2:33 PM
HAPPY DANCE!!!!!

ASD1
10-04-2013, 6:29 PM
go get them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a1c
10-04-2013, 6:40 PM
Smart strategy. I like how it focuses on the illegality of hijacking the DROS fund instead of being an all out attack on the APPS - that can be another fight.

pastureofmuppets
10-10-2013, 2:01 AM
A very nice placement of the chisel.

Artema
10-10-2013, 5:44 AM
I missed this one. Very cool.

readysetgo
03-13-2014, 11:40 PM
FYI, this case is called Gentry v. Harris and is filed in Superior Court of California, Sacramento.

Copy of the complaint is here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Gentry_Complaint-for-Declaratory-and-Injunctive-Relief-and-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus.pdf

The link in the OP for calgunlaws is currently down (looks like they're doing upgrades to the site). That page was previously linking to the Bauer complaint, which is similar but separate.

RuskieShooter
03-14-2014, 9:27 AM
Thanks for the link! Is there any update to the case itself (oral arguements, etc)?

-Ruskie

sbrady@Michel&Associates
03-14-2014, 11:40 AM
We are in discovery phase right now. An MSJ is the likely next step, which will hopefully take place by early summer.

LoneYote
03-14-2014, 4:00 PM
We are in discovery phase right now. An MSJ is the likely next step, which will hopefully take place by early summer.

Thank you very much. It is nice to see your posts in the threads....

Hylas
03-14-2014, 4:12 PM
Dros'd about 10 firearms since 2011... when can i expect my check lol

safewaysecurity
03-14-2014, 4:28 PM
We are in discovery phase right now. An MSJ is the likely next step, which will hopefully take place by early summer.

Which would mean we should expect a decision around the end of the year. Slow and painful...

Sputnik
03-14-2014, 9:10 PM
Another step in the right direction! Keep it up guys!

dantodd
03-14-2014, 10:29 PM
I wonder if the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc. would be interested in writing an amicus. It seems this is more about abuse of taxation power than guns.

bassplayer
03-15-2014, 2:40 AM
Which would mean we should expect a decision around the end of the year. Slow and painful...

With the speed of the court - by the end of WHICH year?

2027? :D

Dan K.

readysetgo
03-15-2014, 7:07 PM
With the speed of the court - by the end of WHICH year?



2027? :D



Dan K.


Hopefully they owe us interest! It'll be like a cheesy annuity that we never even signed up for. :D

jdberger
03-19-2014, 10:23 PM
I wonder if the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc. would be interested in writing an amicus. It seems this is more about abuse of taxation power than guns.

I'm pretty sure that one of Chuck's former associates now works for Howard Jarvis.

readysetgo
06-13-2014, 11:27 AM
Another DROS fund raid in the works... seems relevant news.

Calguns discussion thread here: SB 580 - $15 Million raid of fees paid by gun owners, to fund APPS confiscation / DOJ (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=14282145)

Mute
06-13-2014, 1:08 PM
Go get 'em! I tired of this crap. Why even bother with the formality of passing a fake law when they just do whatever they want anyways?

big jim
01-17-2015, 3:32 PM
Were the MSJ's ever ruled on in this case?

readysetgo
01-17-2015, 3:49 PM
Were the MSJ's ever ruled on in this case?
Nothing new listed here: http://michellawyers.com/gentry-v-harris/

:shrug:
Another DROS fund raid in the works... seems relevant news.

Calguns discussion thread here: SB 580 - $15 Million raid of fees paid by gun owners, to fund APPS confiscation / DOJ (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=14282145)
For posterity... ^^^this died (thankfully) in the assembly last year.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
01-17-2015, 4:01 PM
Were the MSJ's ever ruled on in this case?

We are still in the discovery phase. Hopefully we will be ready for a dispositive motion in the next couple months. We will keep everyone updated.

mabilis_matulis
01-17-2015, 4:41 PM
Good..

Bhart356
01-17-2015, 5:20 PM
According to this case the CADOJ is sitting on a multi-million dollar surplus in a special fund dedicated to supporting the DROS process. Yet they claimed they were resource-constrained and could not comply with the Court order to revise the process in Sylvester v Harris.

Uh, maybe I'm not connecting the dots correctly.

dave_cg
01-17-2015, 8:33 PM
According to this case the CADOJ is sitting on a multi-million dollar surplus in a special fund dedicated to supporting the DROS process. Yet they claimed they were resource-constrained and could not comply with the Court order to revise the process in Sylvester v Harris.

Uh, maybe I'm not connecting the dots correctly.

I thing the issue is the DOJ *was* sitting on a surplus, but it was raided for general funds, which is what the suit is about.

baddos
01-17-2015, 8:51 PM
Resources doesn't mean only money.

Drivedabizness
01-17-2015, 9:34 PM
This is yet another slam dunk that should have been that never was.

Never mind....

rlc2
02-03-2015, 10:07 PM
We are still in the discovery phase. Hopefully we will be ready for a dispositive motion in the next couple months. We will keep everyone updated.

From another very grateful gun owner and law abiding citizen of CA.

hmmm...when you win this, can we gun owners file a class action lawsuit to get our money back, and triple damages? j/k...

but make them pay!

rlc2
02-03-2015, 10:11 PM
I spoke to a guy who worked gun shows in TX and now here, and he said they can get an ok on background check via NICS in 15 minutes...

but CA holds it up, and not for the 10 day limit- there is something else, technology wise, or maybe its just foot dragging...

I may not have gotten that quite right, but if so, then not only is CA DOJ not using DROS for what they should be, but what they are spending is not getting the job done,

vs other states that have no problems doing so....

That also makes me skeptical of the CA DOJ whine about money, manpower, and conforming on Silevestre in 6 months, and Judge Ishii's reply...

Apec
02-03-2015, 10:50 PM
Taxation without representation at its finest - those DOJ guys deserve the worst.

bruss01
02-04-2015, 6:59 AM
I had thought this case was mooted by legislation passed in the past year or two legally authorizing their use of that money for whatever they wanted, consequently no more "surplus" and no legal recourse? Did I misunderstand something somewhere?

dca965
02-04-2015, 7:27 AM
I spoke to a guy who worked gun shows in TX and now here, and he said they can get an ok on background check via NICS in 15 minutes...

but CA holds it up, and not for the 10 day limit- there is something else, technology wise, or maybe its just foot dragging...

I may not have gotten that quite right, but if so, then not only is CA DOJ not using DROS for what they should be, but what they are spending is not getting the job done,

vs other states that have no problems doing so....

That also makes me skeptical of the CA DOJ whine about money, manpower, and conforming on Silevestre in 6 months, and Judge Ishii's reply...

(emphasis mine)

We live in the most tech-savvy state in the Union, so I find it hard to believe a DROS is held up for (10-days) due to technology, it's more likely the foot-dragging (which you have so stated) and I'd even go further to speculate that CA DOJ programmed their systems to manditorily hold a submission to that 10-day limit in order to fulfill the legislative intent of the original bill.....IMHO. :facepalm:

RobertMW
02-04-2015, 8:06 AM
(emphasis mine)

We live in the most tech-savvy state in the Union, so I find it hard to believe a DROS is held up for (10-days) due to technology, it's more likely the foot-dragging (which you have so stated) and I'd even go further to speculate that CA DOJ programmed their systems to manditorily hold a submission to that 10-day limit in order to fulfill the legislative intent of the original bill.....IMHO. :facepalm:

If you read through the Silvester v. Harris case and decision, it comes to a pretty clear picture that it is mostly foot dragging and shenanigans. They do a LOT of things that make the system pop up horrible false positives, which then puts you at the bottom of a large pile of other false positive reports, which are then reviewed manually. Oh, and any of those false positives? They will likely never be flagged, or corrected, so that you get dragged through the mud again and again.

How bad of shenanigans? They mutate the information that you put on your DROS and then check to see if any of those names, or dates of birth, or anything, get close to the ID of a prohibited person, so if you are John Smith, you are screwed, you're going to be about 20 different prohibited people all at the same time.

dca965
02-04-2015, 8:18 AM
If you read through the Silvester v. Harris case and decision, it comes to a pretty clear picture that it is mostly foot dragging and shenanigans. They do a LOT of things that make the system pop up horrible false positives, which then puts you at the bottom of a large pile of other false positive reports, which are then reviewed manually. Oh, and any of those false positives? They will likely never be flagged, or corrected, so that you get dragged through the mud again and again.

How bad of shenanigans? They mutate the information that you put on your DROS and then check to see if any of those names, or dates of birth, or anything, get close to the ID of a prohibited person, so if you are John Smith, you are screwed, you're going to be about 20 different prohibited people all at the same time.

And there we have it! Thanks RobertMW, it just proves the point that the Anti's wrote the bill exactly as they intended/foresaw it to be implemented!! A "win" for them, undoubtedly! :mad:

teg33
02-04-2015, 8:22 AM
From another very grateful gun owner and law abiding citizen of CA.

hmmm...when you win this, can we gun owners file a class action lawsuit to get our money back, and triple damages? j/k...

but make them pay!

Why not, that's a good idea. I'm in

readysetgo
02-04-2015, 8:36 AM
I had thought this case was mooted by legislation passed in the past year or two legally authorizing their use of that money for whatever they wanted, consequently no more "surplus" and no legal recourse? Did I misunderstand something somewhere?
Yes you missed reading the OP. That legislation is exactly what's being challenged here. Notice all the references to SB 819 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB819)? That was, what's come to be referred to as "the DROS fund raid." A tax, dressed up as something different, to avoid the proper procedures a tax must go through in the legislature.

HibikiR
02-04-2015, 8:53 AM
This makes how many 2A cases that Harris has to juggle?

Maestro Pistolero
02-04-2015, 10:57 AM
This makes how many 2A cases that Harris has to juggle?

None. She's on the campaign trail AND the public tit. She uses underlings to not handle the work load in a timely fashion now.

bruss01
02-04-2015, 12:45 PM
Yes you missed reading the OP. That legislation is exactly what's being challenged here. Notice all the references to SB 819 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB819)? That was, what's come to be referred to as "the DROS fund raid." A tax, dressed up as something different, to avoid the proper procedures a tax must go through in the legislature.

Ok, you are right, I glossed the OP and mistook this for the lawsuit to get the DROS lowered because there was a huge surplus - which said suit, preceded the legislative approval for them to do just exactly that, raid the till. So now there's a lawsuit to fight the law they passed implicitly to invalidate the suit that challenged the surplus to begin with. Yee haw. I have now fully read the OP and I do hope our side prevails but this is one I am not as confident in winning.

I expect them to try to make the case that background checks up front are one important tool to keep prohibited people from getting guns, and that APPS is an equally necessary tool to remove guns from people who BECOME prohibited. I personally have all kinds of issues with how the APPS program is being handled but having a team that performs that function is a natural and nearly eventual consequence of having firearms registered. Which makes it unsurprising to me that they eventually got around to requiring long arms to be registered as well as handguns.

I'd like to see us win, and do away with slush-fundiness, the APPS program (as currently implemented), and even with registration. I think that's kind of a tall order though.

wildhawker
02-09-2015, 4:48 PM
This just in...

Case Number: 2013-80001667

Case Title: David Gentry vs. Kamala Harris

ROA Entry: Notice of Hearing filed.

A document associated with the case number and register of action entry above was added to our system on 2/9/2015 4:45:06 PM.

canopis
02-10-2015, 1:57 PM
This just in...

Details from the court website (https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/SearchByCaseNumber):

Petition for Writ of Mandate - Writ of Mandate scheduled for 06/05/2015 at 09:00:00 AM in Department 31 at Gordon D Schaber Courthouse .

Untamed1972
02-12-2015, 10:35 AM
Ok, you are right, I glossed the OP and mistook this for the lawsuit to get the DROS lowered because there was a huge surplus - which said suit, preceded the legislative approval for them to do just exactly that, raid the till. So now there's a lawsuit to fight the law they passed implicitly to invalidate the suit that challenged the surplus to begin with. Yee haw. I have now fully read the OP and I do hope our side prevails but this is one I am not as confident in winning.

I expect them to try to make the case that background checks up front are one important tool to keep prohibited people from getting guns, and that APPS is an equally necessary tool to remove guns from people who BECOME prohibited. I personally have all kinds of issues with how the APPS program is being handled but having a team that performs that function is a natural and nearly eventual consequence of having firearms registered. Which makes it unsurprising to me that they eventually got around to requiring long arms to be registered as well as handguns.

I'd like to see us win, and do away with slush-fundiness, the APPS program (as currently implemented), and even with registration. I think that's kind of a tall order though.

If they want to have their APPS program then it needs to be funded thru the normal procedures and appropriated funds. If it's for safety of the general public.....then the cost must be shared by the general public......not my taxing gun owners who have done nothing wrong except to exercise their constitutional rights. The DROS fee is only supposed to be enuff to cover actual costs of the background check program. The fact that there was a surplus means we'd been being over charged for years. Then they turn around and claim they can't comply with the change to the 10-day wait because they have no money. Can't have it both ways.

It cost me $15.75 to renew my UT CCW. which includes making me a new card and mailing it to me....renewal app all done online BTW. Why does it cost CA $25 to run a single background check for a purchase?

readysetgo
07-09-2015, 4:29 PM
No case updates I know of but...

Relevant news, found posted in CCW sub-forums:

JULY 9, 2015

Audit faults Department of Justice for gun case backlog (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article26870383.html)

Lawmakers in 2013 approved legislation appropriating $24 million to the Department of Justice to address a backlog of cases of prohibited people having guns. But the state auditor said the department had failed to fully implement seven of eight recommendations made in 2013 to improve department procedures.

Story links to audit report: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-504.pdf

Story also back links to a news report from March:
MARCH 17, 2015

California continues to have large backlog of prohibited gun owners (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article15138524.html)

In a letter to Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, several GOP senators called for a hearing on the program, in part to demand that justice officials explain how the department has spent 40 percent of the $24 million “when they didn’t hire the needed staff to end the backlog.”

Basically, after robbing us, they proceeded to fail at their own utopian attempts miserably. Or did they? Maybe they got some of their cousins jobs or expanded that dreaded overtime for their agents. :rolleyes:

wildhawker
07-09-2015, 4:40 PM
I'd have to check the docket. Saw something come across last week but can't recall offhand. Maybe a proposed order dismissing the case? Will check later.

readysetgo
07-09-2015, 6:00 PM
I'd have to check the docket. Saw something come across last week but can't recall offhand. Maybe a proposed order dismissing the case? Will check later.
Yeah, after my post above I saw there was a bunch of activity from Feb - Jun 15. I can't make sense of it all though.

Docs here: http://michellawyers.com/gentry-v-harris/

Last three activities listed there:
6/5/2015 - Court - Tentative Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1

6/2/2015 - Plaintiff - Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

6/1/2015 - Court - Ruling on Request for Production of Withheld Documents Via Expedited Dispute Resolution Procedure

sbrady@Michel&Associates
07-28-2015, 6:37 PM
Gentry is slowly moving forward in Sacramento. On June 1, 2015, the Trial Court ordered Defendants Kamala Harris (Attorney General for the State of California) and Stephen Lindley (Chief of the California Department of Justice’s Firearms Bureau) to produce 11 documents they had withheld from the Plaintiffs. The documents concern the Department of Justice’s (Department) internal analysis of the amount being charged for the DROS fee. Defendants withheld the documents under a claim that production of the documents “would chill full and candid assessment of departmental budget issues in general and similar issues affecting the Bureau of Firearms in particular.” The Trial Court, did not agree, however, and it ordered the production of all 11 of the documents the Plaintiffs had requested. The Trial Court stated it could “identify no public interest in not disclosing records of an analysis the Department is required to perform in order to charge the public a fee.”

Just a few days later, on June 5, 2015, the Trial Court heard oral arguments on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (MJOP), which was an attempt to knock out a major portion of Plaintiffs’ case. The MJOP was grounded in the claim that Senate Bill (SB) 819 (allowing the DROS Fee to be used to fund APPS-based law enforcement activities, and perhaps more) violates Proposition 26, as found in Article XIIIA, section 3, of the California Constitution. Proposition 26 requires a 2/3 vote of each house for any bill that will result in “any tax payer paying a higher tax.” Plaintiffs argue that SB 819 turned a portion of funds collected under the guise of the (overinflated) DROS fee into a tax because it changed who pays for APPS-based law enforcement. Before SB 819, it was paid for out of the general fund; after SB 819, DROS fee payers appear to be the only ones footing the bill.

On July 20, 2015, the Trial Court finalized its ruling on the MJOP. Unfortunately, it ruled in favor of the Defendants, dismissing the SB 819-based claim, apparently based on Defendants’ argument that, because SB 819 did not raise the amount at which the DROS Fee is charged (i.e., it was $19 before SB 819 and remains $19), it did not create a “higher tax.” That ruling will (at least for now) knock out Plaintiffs’ Proposition 26-based challenge to the DROS fee. Plaintiffs’ position is that the ruling incorrectly confuses the distinct concepts of fees and taxes, and that Plaintiffs will likely seek review of the ruling at the appellate court level.

Regardless of the ruling on the MJOP, the case will continue. Plaintiffs intend to pursue at least one other claim in this lawsuit (seeking to have the Department of Justice actually calculate what the DROS fee should cost), and they may attempt to add new claims based on other constitutional arguments not previously raised. There are, however, procedural concerns to evaluate before determining how best to proceed. But we will keep everyone updated.

Copies of the orders mentioned above are available at:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Ruling-on-Request-for-Production-of-Withheld-Documents-Via-Expedited-Dispute-Resolution-Procedure.pdf

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Gentry_Order-After-Hearing.pdf

readysetgo
01-18-2016, 3:20 PM
Looks like an amended complaint was filed 12/30/15. This issue should not fall out of our minds IMO, they robbed us cold w/ this tax hidden as a fee.

First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandamus (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/First-Amended-Complaint-for-Declaratory-and-Injunctive-Relief-and-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus1.pdf)

Curious about the docs mentioned by Brady here (thank you Mr. Brady btw for your explanations in this thread):
[snip]On June 1, 2015, the Trial Court ordered Defendants Kamala Harris (Attorney General for the State of California) and Stephen Lindley (Chief of the California Department of Justice’s Firearms Bureau) to produce 11 documents they had withheld from the Plaintiffs. [snip]

Are these 11 docs unavailable for public consumption? What is the word for a request of documents such as this, "discovery"?

wireless
01-18-2016, 4:21 PM
I'm curious about this too^

Drivedabizness
01-20-2016, 8:20 PM
Looks like an amended complaint was filed 12/30/15. This issue should not fall out of our minds IMO, they robbed us cold w/ this tax hidden as a fee.

First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandamus (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/First-Amended-Complaint-for-Declaratory-and-Injunctive-Relief-and-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus1.pdf)

Curious about the docs mentioned by Brady here (thank you Mr. Brady btw for your explanations in this thread):


Are these 11 docs unavailable for public consumption? What is the word for a request of documents such as this, "discovery"?

Linky no worky

readysetgo
01-20-2016, 8:28 PM
Linky no worky
Link looks good, whole site may be down. :shrug:

PartyBarge
01-21-2016, 10:03 AM
When I see the NRA on board with a lawsuit, it makes me so happy to be a member of the NRA. I'd hate to think my membership dues went only to ads, glad to see it make it's way into the legal system as well.

PartyBarge
01-21-2016, 10:05 AM
Link looks good, whole site may be down. :shrug:

Link works for me.

Drivedabizness
01-21-2016, 2:46 PM
worked for me just now