BREAKING! SAF lawsuit challenges I-594

44Brent · Jan 27, 2015

The AG has filed an answer to complaint NO. 3:14-cv-6026 BHS, which is attached to this posting. Here are some excerpts of the answer (in context). If you are inexperienced in seeing the legal process in action, what you read may astonish you. You may wonder how it is that attorneys can be so stoooopid to write this stuff. However, once you become familiar with the process you will come to realize that:

1) Defense attorneys deny EVERYTHING. For example, if the plaintiff alleges that the earth is round, the defense attorneys will deny it and require proof that the earth is not flat.

2) Attorneys never want a case to be resolved as long as their clients have money to spend. The attorneys will try to drag cases out as long as their is another nickel to be earned.

3) See number 2.

4) A time proven strategy to bring cases to resolution, is to bankrupt the other side's funding sources and their attorneys' time. In order to bankrupt the other side's funding sources and their attorneys' time, an effective tactic is to have non-parties bombard them massive reams of documents and information that is nominally related to the case. The content has to contain a few grains that are relevant to keep the attorneys sufficiently interested to read the junk you send them. Eventually the person who is paying for the attorneys finally gets tired of paying for the attorneys to read junk that non-parties are dumping on them.
___________________________________________

COMPLAINT: 5. Plaintiff NORTHWEST SCHOOL OF SAFETY ("Northwest School of Safety") is a Washington sole proprietorship owned and operated by Monica Cowles, with its principal offices in Aberdeen, Washington. The Northwest School of Safety provides foundational firearm safety classes to women ranging in age from their teens to their 70s at Ms. Cowles' residence to ensure a non-threatening environment for beginning students who may be nervous about handling firearms.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph 5 and therefore deny paragraph 5.

COMPLAINT: 6. Plaintiff PUGET SOUND SECURITY, INC. ("Puget Sound Security") is a Washington corporation with its principal offices in Bellevue, Washington. Puget Sound Security is a licensed private security company. By Washington State law, Puget Sound Security is required to own or lease the firearms used by its employees and the employees who carry firearms on duty are required to acquire an armed private security guard license.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph 6 and therefore deny paragraph 6.

COMPLAINT: 7. Plaintiff PACIFIC NORTHWEST ASSOCIATION OF INVESTIGATORS, INC. ("PNAI") is a Washington corporation with its principal offices in Seattle, Washington. PNAI is a professional organization of licensed investigators incorporated in the state of Washington, with 38 members. The purposes of the PNAI include establishing goals for professional conduct and behavior, promoting the well-being of the profession, and developing laws that enhance the profession and protect the public. By Washington State law, PNAI's members are required to own the firearms used by their employees and the employees who carry firearms on duty are required to acquire an armed private investigator license.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph 7 and therefore deny paragraph 7.

COMPLAINT: 8. Plaintiff FIREARMS ACADEMY OF SEATTLE, INC. ("Firearms Academy of Seattle") is a Washington corporation with its principal offices in unincorporated Lewis County, Washington. Firearms Academy of Seattle has operated a shooting instruction business with a live fire shooting range since 1995 in Lewis County. Firearms Academy of Seattle cannot determine whether temporary transfers at the shooting range are exempted by I-594 because there is no indication of whether it is "authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located."

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph 8 and therefore deny paragraph 8.

COMPLAINT: 9. Plaintiffs DARRYL LEE ("Darryl Lee") and XEE DEL REAL ("Daisy Del Real") are a cohabitating couple residing in Lake Stevens, Washington. Darryl Lee and Daisy Del Real both have valid concealed pistol licenses and share a firearm that they keep in their home. Darryl Lee and Daisy Del Real cannot determine whether their joint use of their firearm is criminalized by I-594.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph 9 and therefore deny paragraph 9.

COMPLAINT: 10. Plaintiff JOE WALDRON ("Waldron") is a resident of Florida. Waldron is the legislative director for the Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ("CCRKBA"), the Chairman/Treasurer of Gun Owner's Action League of Washington, and is a registered Washington state lobbyist; he travels to Washington frequently for business related to those positions.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph 10 and therefore deny paragraph 10.

COMPLAINT: 11. Plaintiff GENE HOFFMAN ("Hoffman") is a resident of California. Hoffman is the Chairman of the CalGuns Foundation and a board member of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph 11 and therefore deny paragraph 11.

COMPLAINT: 12. Plaintiff ANDREW GOTTLIEB ("Andrew Gottlieb") is a resident of Arizona Andrew Gottlieb is a trustee of a trust which owns firearms and other tangible property, the trustees of which include Andrew Gottlieb and Plaintiff Alan Gottlieb.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph 12 and therefore deny paragraph 12.

COMPLAINT: 13. Plaintiff ALAN GOTTLIEB ("Alan Gottlieb") is a resident of Bellevue, Washington. Alan Gottlieb is the founder and Executive Vice-President of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation and the Chairman of CCRKBA. Alan Gottlieb is also a trustee of a trust which owns firearms and other tangible property, the trustees of which include Alan Gottlieb and Plaintiff Andrew Gottlieb.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph 13 and therefore deny paragraph 13.

COMPLAINT: 14. Plaintiff GOTTLIEB FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST ("Gottlieb Trust") is a trust established under the laws of Washington, with its address in Bellevue, Washington. Alan Gottlieb and Andrew Gottlieb are co-trustees of the Gottlieb Trust, which includes firearms and other tangible property.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph 14 and therefore deny paragraph 14.

COMPLAINT: 15. Plaintiff SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. ("SAF") is a nonprofit member organization incorporated under the laws of the state of Washington with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. SAF has over 650,000 members and supporters nationwide. The purposes of SAF include promoting the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms and education, publishing, and legal action focusing on the constitutional right to privately own and possess firearms.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph 15 and therefore deny paragraph 15.

COMPLAINT: 16. Defendant BOB FERGUSON ("Ferguson") is the Attorney General of the State of Washington and is obligated to supervise his agency and comply with all statutory duties under Washington law. He is charged with enforcing, interpreting, and promulgating regulations regarding the transfer of firearms under Washington law, including I-594. Ferguson is responsible for executing and administering Washington's laws, customs, practices, and policies at issue in this lawsuit. Defendant Ferguson is sued in his official capacity.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the first sentence of paragraph 16. The second and third sentences of paragraph 16 state legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent an answer to those sentences is required, they are denied. The fourth sentence of paragraph 16 is admitted.

COMPLAINT: 52. Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution provides a similar, although broader right, stating that the "right of the individual to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired . . . ."

ANSWER: Paragraph 52 does not accurately quote Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution, which states that "the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state, shall not be impaired." Moreover, the characterization of the right as "similar, although broader" is a legal conclusion as to which no response is required and to the extent an answer is required is denied.

COMPLAINT: 57. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees due process by requiring adequate guidance to those who would be law-abiding that they may have a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited. Vague statutes are thus prohibited because they impermissibly delegate basic policy matters to law enforcement, judges, and juries on an ad hoc and subjective basis.

ANSWER: Paragraph 57 states legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent an answer is required, Paragraph 57 is denied.

COMPLAINT: 58. Article I, Section 3 of the Washington State Constitution provides a similar, although broader right, stating that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

ANSWER: Defendants admit paragraph 58 accurately quotes Article I, Section 3 of the Washington State Constitution, however, the characterization of the right as "similar, although broader" is a legal conclusion as to which no response is required and to the extent an answer is required is denied.

VI. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. The Plaintiffs have failed to set forth irreparable harm or any other basis upon which injunctive relief is available.
3. The Plaintiffs lack standing.
4. The Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe for review.
5. Lack of jurisdiction as to certain claims under the Eleventh Amendment.
6. Certain of the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity.

ROBERT W. FERGUSON
Attorney General
NOAH G. PURCELL, WSBA # 43492
Solicitor General
s/ R. July Simpson
R. JULY SIMPSON, WSBA #45869
Assistant Attorney General
JEFFREY T. EVEN, WSBA #20367
Deputy Solicitor General
REBECCA R. GLASGOW, WSBA #32886
Deputy Solicitor General
PO Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
360-753-6200
Counsel for Bob Ferguson, Washington Attorney
General's Office and John R. Batiste

RW-Ore · Jan 27, 2015

The defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph so they deny the paragraph ?
Does this then give them a reason to deny with no recourse ?

Stomper · Jan 27, 2015

LMAO.... Too funny. It merely amounts to them making sure EVERY STEP on the legal "staircase" is used as opposed to taking the steps 2 at a time.

Next will come their response which will be a request sent to each plaintiff in the suit requesting specifc information on how they are illegally damaged. They of course are allowed a certain amount of time (i.e. 30-180 days) to draft and send those requests, which you can be certain they'll take the maximum amount allowed.

This is going to take a while, possibly years.

U201491 · Jan 28, 2015

N-U-L-L-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N by 800 K ----............................... case won.

Dave Workman · Jan 28, 2015

Taku said:
N-U-L-L-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N by 800 K ----............................... case won.

Don't put the cart before the horse. Don't ever presume that any public action "nullifies" a law.

Stomper · Jan 28, 2015

It'd be awesome if it worked like that, but it'd only work on a case by case basis as people get sucked into the system and prosecuted. Then you'd have to count on enough people selected to be on a jury that'd see it that way.... not good.

The only real viable way (as I see it) is.

1.
The courts overturn I594 on Constitutionality.

2.
The legislature voids it through whatever machinations they have.

3.
Ballot initiative passed by the people, repealing it.

44Brent · Jan 28, 2015

The AG's response is going to be Exhibit "A" in my complaint to my State Senator as to why the entire funding for the AG's office needs to be canceled (after a full audit, of course).

Point #1: The AG and four attorneys are unable to determine if the SAF exists. (i.e. they don't know how to use a Bellevue phonebook or query various tax reports for non-profit foundations).

Point #2: If the AG and four attorneys are unable to determine if the SAF exists, how can the state possibly be competent at registering all gun owners and determining if a firearm was lawfully "transferred"?

Point #3: The AG does have time and money to spend on attempting to force a grandmother to create a flower arrangement (against her wishes) for homosexual weddings. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wash...provide-flowers-sex-wedding/story?id=18922065

Once I get my letter written, other people might want to copy it and sent it to their state senators. You might be shocked to learn that you as a taxpayer, have a right to determine how your tax dollars are spent.

Gunguy45 · Jan 28, 2015

The answer is really pro-forma. And yes, denying EVERYTHING is pretty standard procedure, not indicative of anything in particular. It's the motions filed during and after discovery that have the substance, if there is any to be had.

GunnyG · Jan 28, 2015

RW-Ore said:
The defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph so they deny the paragraph ?
Does this then give them a reason to deny with no recourse ?

Nahhhh.. it just amounts to this:

Gunguy45 said:
The answer is really pro-forma. And yes, denying EVERYTHING is pretty standard procedure, not indicative of anything in particular. It's the motions filed during and after discovery that have the substance, if there is any to be had.

Sort of like this?

Diamondback · Jan 28, 2015

I lack sufficient information to admit or deny that Bob Ferguson is a human being, a United States citizen, a citizen of Washington State or in any way qualified to be Attorney General of the State of Washington, and therefore deny all of the previously stated.

Bazooka Joe · Jan 28, 2015

Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny

I don't know the rules in Washington, but in some jurisdictions if you neither admit nor deny, then the allegation is deemed admitted by the court.

44Brent · Jan 29, 2015

Want to have some fun throttling the government at it's weak chokepoint? Take off your gun-owner hat, put on your tax-payer hat, download the zip file containing a sample letter with documents , and mail them to your State Senator. If you don't like the sample, rewrite it to fit your own viewpoint, just as long as you stick to the point of "I don't want my taxes to be mis-spent by the Attorney General to stonewall on I-594". This is similar to the letter I am sending to Tim Sheldon. Some of the formatting is lost in this posting.

The AG is definitely not going to like these types of letters going out to State Senators, as no bureaucrat wants to have external bodies looking into their internal operations.

_____________________________

{tax payer name}
{tax payer address}
{tax payer city, state, and zip}
{date}

Senator {senator name}
{your district}th Legislative District
312 Legislative Building
PO Box 40435
Olympia, WA 98504

RE: Request budget adjustment for Attorney General's Office

Dear Senator {name}:

When I grew up, I assumed that an Attorney General would engage in activities designed to benefit society, such as defending widows, orphans, and the elderly from unscrupulous businesses. However, Bob Ferguson, the current elected Attorney General of Washington has taken his office in a different direction that lies somewhere between extreme culture wars and gross mismanagement. There are two cases which illustrate both aspects that I wish to bring to your attention.

Case 3:14-cv-06026 in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Tacoma. Northwest School of Safety et al v. Ferguson et al.

In this complaint (Attached as Enclosure No. 1) the plaintiffs seek an injunction against a portion of initiative I-594 on the basis that it is in conflict with various Federal and State Laws, and therefore amounts to a complete ban on firearm ownership in certain situation, as the law requires "transfers" to be made in manners which conflict with existing laws. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in response to the failure and refusal of law enforcement officers across the state to provide guidance to the public on how to conduct "transfers", and when "transfers" are required.

Under Section 5 of RCW 43.10.030 the Attorney General is required to "Consult with and advise the governor, members of the legislature, and other state officers, and when requested, give written opinions upon all constitutional or legal questions relating to the duties of such officers." However, the Attorney General has assigned four attorneys to defend I-594, and in an Answer to the Complaint (Attached as Enclosure No. 2) brazenly displayed their intent for the Attorney General's Office to never provide answers to questions as to how the "transfer" provisions of I-594 can be legally followed. In essence, the Attorney General is not only stonewalling the general public, but now has allocated four attorneys to spend their time stonewalling a Federal Judge. This can be easily illustrated by just one small section of the Complaint and the Attorney General's corresponding section of the Answer.

COMPLAINT: 15. Plaintiff SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. ("SAF") is a nonprofit member organization incorporated under the laws of the state of Washington with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. SAF has over 650,000 members and supporters nationwide. The purposes of SAF include promoting the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms and education, publishing, and legal action focusing on the constitutional right to privately own and possess firearms.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny paragraph 15 and therefore deny paragraph 15.

It is simply impossible that all four attorneys could be so incompetent as to be unable to determine if the SAF exists, and what it's purpose it serves. All it would take is one attorney to search the Secretary of State's corporate registration documents with UBI Number 600241867, and publicly available tax returns to confirm that SAF exists, that it is located in Bellevue, and that it does what it says it does. This is an improper allocation of resources to assign four attorneys to provide dishonest answers pretending that they cannot determine if the plaintiff SAF exists. The four attorneys the Attorney General has assigned to stonewall the Federal Judge, in order to prevent the public from knowing how to interpret I-594 are:

Noah Purcell
Solicitor General
"R." July Simpson
Assistant Attorney General
Jeffrey Even
Deputy Solicitor General
Rebecca Glasgow
Deputy Solicitor General

Case 3-2-00871-5 in Benton Superior Court. State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers.

In this case the Attorney General is attempting to force a florist to provide wedding flowers for homosexual "marriages" against her will, and in violation of her religious beliefs. This case is so outrageous and ridiculous that it has caught the attention of the media on a widespread nationwide basis. Some of the news services that have covered this story include: KPLU 88.5, Tri-City Herald, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Seattle Weekly, New York Daily News, and Charisma News.

Summary

I pay thousands of dollars each year in taxes to the State of Washington and don't want any portion of my taxes to be misspent by Bob Ferguson. I don't care whether these cases represent cultural extremism, or gross incompetence of the Attorney General. I simply object to what he is doing with my portion of taxes that the legislature is allocating to his office. Therefore, I am requesting that you take action to:

Force a full and complete white-glove audit of the Attorney General's Office.
Defund the Attorney General's budget to the point where Bob Ferguson focuses on performing his core duties, and loses interest in allocating limited resources to this type of legal nonsense.

Sincerely,

{tax payer name}

ENCLOSURES:

Case 3:14-cv-06026, Complaint.
Case 3:14-cv-06026, Answer.
Case 3-2-00871-5 as described by Alliance Defending Freedom.
Case 3-2-00871-5 as described by ABC News.
Case 3-2-00871-5 as described by KPLU radio.
Case 3-2-00871-5 as described by Tri-City Herald.
Case 3-2-00871-5 as described by a Facebook support group.
Case 3-2-00871-5 as described by Huffington Post.
Case 3-2-00871-5 as described by New York Daily.
Case 3-2-00871-5 as described by LA Times.
Case 3-2-00871-5 as described by Seattle Weekly.

CC:

Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Second Amendment Foundation
Alliance Defending Freedom

Dave Workman · Jan 29, 2015

While Brent's letter is good, remember that if you use his as a basis for your own...change it here and there to give it originality and localize it to YOUR district.

Otherwise, it becomes part of a manufactured letter campaign and they don't get so much attention after a while.

One can tell that a good bit of thought went into this letter.

skjos · Feb 5, 2015

The lawsuit may want to seek and additional Plaintiff.

Under I-594 can a moving company transport your firearms to a new address? As I understand it they can under federal law, but its unclear if the driver or drivers would need to take ownership of the firearms through an FFL to transport them in WA state.

Dave Workman · Feb 5, 2015

skjos said:
The lawsuit may want to seek and additional Plaintiff.

Under I-594 can a moving company transport your firearms to a new address? As I understand it they can under federal law, but its unclear if the driver or drivers would need to take ownership of the firearms through an FFL to transport them in WA state.

Separate lawsuit. Help Yourself!

U201491 · Feb 5, 2015

Dave Workman said:
Don't put the cart before the horse. Don't ever presume that any public action "nullifies" a law.

"You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your tricks of war." (Napoleon)

Fight these people in the courts and you eventually will lose all, but fight these people in the battlefield and they will lose. America was not created in the Palace in England. It was made in the fields towns and mountains of what is America and earned and paid for by blood..
(me)

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
(Thomas Jefferson) ....................Still holds true today.

In other words today you can fight the weak and legal fight for freedom till freedom is finally lost.
Especially when you fight within a corrupt and infiltrated system.
Which it is.

But what the hell, it's all just my opinion...................

slimmer13 · Feb 5, 2015

skjos said:
The lawsuit may want to seek and additional Plaintiff.

Under I-594 can a moving company transport your firearms to a new address? As I understand it they can under federal law, but its unclear if the driver or drivers would need to take ownership of the firearms through an FFL to transport them in WA state.

Who really gives a crap about all the stupid scenarios that nobody will ever get charged with?

I almost wonder if all the vagueness about what exactly is a transfer is, is a way for the antis to get the people fighting it to spend their finite resources on eliminating the more pointless areas of this piece of garbage rather than going after the only thing that really matters, the prohibition of the transfer of OWNERSHIP between private individuals without govt approval.

Its like getting eaten by a lion and someone shooting off his tail instead of putting one in his head. Nice gesture but at the end of the day you still get eaten.

Monica Cowles · Feb 5, 2015

Taku said:
"You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your tricks of war." (Napoleon)

Fight these people in the courts and you eventually will lose all, but fight these people in the battlefield and they will lose. America was not created in the Palace in England. It was made in the fields towns and mountains of what is America and earned and paid for by blood..
(me)

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
(Thomas Jefferson) ....................Still holds true today.

In other words today you can fight for freedom till freedom is finally lost.
Especially when you fight within a corrupt and infiltrated system.
Which it is.

But what the hell, it's all just my opinion...................

So.....what are you DOIN"--besides sharing your 'opinion'?

The keyboard's never won a war...yet....

U201491 · Feb 5, 2015

That's about all on here. Already saw what Washingtonians are willing to do and not do. Frustrating to watch a a state of Apathy and knowing we live in one that is all infected with the liberal POX. Yep just an observation and opinion.

Take it or leave it..........................