Here's the PDF link of Goldstein vs Peacemaker

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/fi...Oo_VxnqbEgwIxn18OOJ4

Sorry can't figure out how to post the doc.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
exactly - a counter suit

ask for the name of every person on or related to the legal team that has had anything to do with the case

ask for the home address of every person on or related to the legal team that has had anything to do with the case

ask for the telephone numbers (home, cell, work) of every person on or related to the legal team that has had anything to do with the case

ask for the email addresses of every person on or related to the legal team that has had anything to do with the case

ask for a copy of each and every email from every person on or related to the legal team that has had anything to do with the case


in short, do to them what they are doing to you and tell the judge that its need in order to properly represent yourself during the defense to make sure the legal team is not being unduly interfered with

hell, I'd even ask for vehicle registration and mileage records as well

Fuck that. Demand they give every username and passwords for every social media outlet.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
That's unreal...and frankly infuriating.

I can only hope that there's a resolution here and consequences for the despicable people responsible for this, including the judge.

Absolutely, I never heard of a Court requesting all this information before as it has no baring on a noise complaint. Just posturing to show power is my guess.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Would it be reasonable for the club to appeal that ruling?

One presumes the club is incorporated? Therefor, ISTM inexpert view, the only possible purpose of that demand is, quite simply, to facilitate harassment.

Somebody tried that a few years ago, on a local club around here. Court told 'em "Club was here before you were. You moved in there knowing, or should have, the club and attendant noise existed." Told 'em to go pound sand.

It went the same at a Club I was Member to. Eventually, the run down rental property next door went up for sale. The low life tennants would play loud, annoying music out the 2nd floor windows. My Club bought the property and tore the multi family rental down as we needed a beautiful archery range.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

That's complete BS. How is the members information pertinent to the case?

To sue individual members.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
go after the people that brought the lawsuit

make them feel their pain

stuff like this really pisses me off

Bring counter suit and buy supressors..

quote:

Originally posted by P226RN:
Here's the PDF link of Goldstein vs Peacemaker

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/fi...Oo_VxnqbEgwIxn18OOJ4

Sorry can't figure out how to post the doc.

Read it. The range went through the planning process. That included the enviormnts requirements. The planning commission held a number of public hearing. The Goldstein appear to have been at all of them.
The suit talks about promises to be a good neighbor but there are no specific.the Goldstiens claim the range opens before published hour and goes later. However, the suit doesn't mention the planning approve set any hours. The decibel level was also not set. The human voice, at three feet runs 65-70 decibles. Measurements at the Goldstein house have been in the 40s. There is a claim that a reading of 94 decibels as recently measured. That's comparable to a drill, violin or truck.
One thing about noise ordinances, they are hard to enforce. You have to get measurements over time. A 94 decibel reading it could be just one second.
This has gone through mediation and it seems the Goldstiens aren't agreeable.
This n short, it doesn't appear that the club can't be held to the verbal promises not on paper.
About the planning process. The commission had to look at the enviorment impact, the zoning, and the use. It is not possible to simply tell someone they cannot develop their land. No doubt the Goldstiens expected their place would be quite and undisturbed forever. However, they now have neighbors.

Yep and it happens all over the country. You buy somewhere and hope that it will remain undeveloped and quiet until you meet your maker. But 9 times out of 10 this will not be the case. Unless you can afford a couple hundred acres. Anything smaller and you roll the dice. But I don't go requesting the customer information of the people that shop at the Walmart they just put in down the street.

Will have to see how it goes. Throwing some $ at the fund is a start. Showing up when needed is the next step. I am no legal wiz kid so I will just do what I can.

I absolutely love PNTC so it's upsetting on many levels.

This crap is not uncommon. And it goes on with airports as well. Developers buy cheap property because of the noise, build lavish houses on them, sell them, and then people who buy the houses complain about the noise.

Never made sense to me.

IIRC Virginia is an Open Carry state. IMO the range should arrange picketing of these individuals and inform those doing the picketing that Open Carry is permitted in Virginia. Would just love to see the faces on those libtards with they arrive home and are greated by 20 or 30 protestors with AR-15's slung across their backs.

Sounds like it's time for a SIGforum shoot/fundraiser, breakout the .50 BMGs with muzzle breaks, .338 Lapuas etc.

That's complete BS. How is the members information pertinent to the case?

It is a method of harassment that is common in legal cases. Show up for the hearings and hire the best legal help the club can afford. The rest is just speculation. Our club has quite a few attorneys that love to shoot and they likewise love to fight this kind of crap. They train for it full time and crave the conflict. Let them handle the suit. Make them feel the hurt.

quote:

Sounds like it's time for a SIGforum shoot/fundraiser

They already have one.

https://www.gofundme.com/peacemakers-legal-fund

I will start off by stating that ultimately do not see how this information would be useful at trial in relation to any nuisance complaint and I think that this is just an attempt by the plaintiff to be as disruptive and burdensome as possible. Also, I also do not see how the FFL information would be useful. I also do not know anything about West Virginia discovery rules.

However, with that being said, it is important to realize that discovery rules are incredibly broad. Generally speaking, the information that is being requested does not actually have to be information that is expected to be admitted at trial. Instead, all someone has to show generally is that the information requested is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Off hand, based upon the allegations in the complaint, I can see one big argument being made that would allow this information to be discoverable. Given that the law suit alleges that part of the reason that the range should be considered a nuisance is that the range is conducting activity outside of its normal, published hours, it can be argued that the information pertaining to members and those individuals who have used the range could lead to admissible information because it would allow the plaintiffs to contact these individuals and ask whether they have used the range or gone through training outside of the stated hours. Granted, depending on the information that is requested from members and from people signing waivers, it is possible that there is additional information that is provided that would not be relevant for the purposes of attempting to contact people and this information should hopefully be allowed to be redacted.

As I said above, in regard to the FFL information, I do not see any way where this would be relevant and it appears to be a massive overreach by the judge. Granted, I don't know the exact arguments that were made about why this information should be discoverable, but it seems that if someone bought a gun and used it on the range, their information would be available through the waivers and it would not be necessary to use the FFL information for that purpose. About the only way that I could see this information being useful (and there is no indication of this from the lawsuit or on the website so this is pure speculation) is if there are rental guns or dealer sample machine guns (or other class 3 weapons) that are used at the range. I am not a class 3 expert so I the dealer sample machine guns may not be the right term, essentially I am talking about machine guns and other class 3 weapons that may be available for use by the public or other entities. I believe that this would be a more compelling argument regarding any machine guns to the extent that it could potentially be argued that the noise emanating from shooting machine guns is more of a nuisance then the noise emanating from other semi-automatic weapons. This argument seems like a big stretch and is complete speculation as there is nothing that I saw in the pleadings along this regard.

Also, as someone else previously mentioned, although these records have to be produced, they are being produced under a protective order, and this would allow the information to be reviewed by the lawyers, but it cannot be published or distributed without further order of the court. Another important consideration is that most discovery information never really becomes part of the court file or public record. Generally speaking, discovery is provided directly to the other attorney, so it typically is not possible for someone to go and request this information from the court clerk on account of it being a public record. Additionally, even if the documents are part of the public record, there is generally a way that they can be put "under seal" or some other mechanism that would protect the information from public disclosure even if it is part of a public record.

As I said at the beginning, although I think that there is a legitimate argument to allow this information to be discovered, I believe that the plaintiff is really just attempting to make things as hard as possible on the defendant and trying to make them expend money on items other then the actual defense of the case. I also desperately hope that the range is able to redact certain information that could not potentially lead to admissible information under even the broadest argument. However, I do not think that the disclosure is as dire as some seem to suggest for the above reasons. I will admit though that it is easy for me to say this because it is not my information that is being sought.