litigation v. justice

For many years I've heard how "justice is denied to the poor." I've always dismissed this as emotional horse-hockey designed for consumption by left leaning wealthy do-gooders who are having a conscience attack. I've also generally rejected the premise that right-leaning causes operated under the corollary of "justice is served by wealth," and the resulting "golden-rule" conclusion that "those who have the gold make the rules." In America, a land of laws, all citizens were supposed to be equal under the law. No one was supposed to be able to force another to give up their freedoms without due process and justice. Hence, all citizens would be able to obtain justice regardless of their class and the size of their bank account.

Collapse!

Pithy sayings and idealistic attitudes aside, I'd never really run into a situation where my own freedoms and the freedoms of others would be badly mangled without true justice. I had also naively assumed that justice would be free in the "home of the free and the land of the brave."

Yesterday, I learned otherwise. Yesterday, an entrepreneur (we'll call him Mike) with a wife and a new baby was forced to close down the business that he and his wife had been running for about 1-2 years. Why were they forced to close it? No customers? - No. This business generally had about 100 customers every weekend. Inadequate cashflow? - No. The business seemed to net about $1000 (My own personal guess here) per weekend. Government regulation? - No. Mike was, to the best of our knowledge, complying with all applicable laws and regulations.

The reason Mike had to close his business was because he could not afford to seek justice. You see Mike ran a shooting range. He had a five year lease on the land where the range was located. The landowner had agreed to its use, to the improvements Mike had already made, and to the improvements Mike planned on making. Whenever the landowner requested that Mike modify or change something in the operation, Mike seemed to have found a way to work with the landowner. The shooters who showed up each weekend were high caliber citizens. There were doctors, law enforcement officers, teachers, military personnel, and people with more vocations that I never got the chance to meet. As with most shooting events, the general atmosphere was one of courtesy and friendliness sprinkled with a healthy dose of competitiveness.

So what happened? The landowner died about three months ago. I remember that Mike, in deference to the landowner's family and their loss, canceled the matches that weekend. He was not required to show that courtesy, but he did because that is who Mike is. Last week, Mike received a letter from the county telling him that because he had an unauthorized septic system, he would have to cease operations until it came into compliance. This was strange, as Mike had porta-potties. The porta-potties were adequately maintained (as testified to by the Queen who also shoots with me sometimes). The conclusion that most of the shooting community arrived at was that a neighbor was upset and was trying to close us down by making multiple baseless complaints to the government. The government was then obligated to investigate the allegations and Mike was obligated to defend his business. However, the defense of his business would necessarily cost significant amounts of money and time.

According to Mike,

"The attacks are coming from Hayes County, the neighbors, and the new landowner... They are using everything within (and outside)their power to shut us down. After discussing our situation with several people including legal counsel. It has become apparent that this range is no longer viable for our use. Legal counsel has advised me that a big part of their plan is burying us in litigation....legitimate or not.

After spending one of the worst weeks in my life agonizing over this. With much regret, we have decided to shut the range down. We think it is the best thing for us and all of our friends and shooters."

I'm stunned by how easy it was to shut down this range. I've tried to "see other peoples points of view," but I find that I really can't. The new landowner is not, in good faith, honoring the lease that he inherited/bought with the land. I wonder whether he is trying to develop the land, so he needs to end the lease?

As any range designer knows, the impact area is one of the most important parts of a range. Based upon what I've seen of the range, I believe the impact area is not an issue. There is increased traffic on the county road that accesses the range. I could see neighbors being unhappy about that. But if the new landowner is trying to develop the land, then this will be a moot issue and will probably get even worse for neighbors. Are the neighbors worried about having "so many people with guns around?" I think that this should be a non-issue in a rural community, especially in Texas.

But why would Hayes County officials be trying to close down a business? Do they believe that more tax revenue could be generated from developed property rather than from a shooting range? If so, the county is signing on as a willing party to close the range down in order to aid development and boost tax revenues. There are many ways for the government to take one's property. This is apparently the most legal, even if it is the most illegitimate.

In the end, I understand Mike's reasoning. Rather than spend time, effort, and treasure to fight an injustice that has so many players stacked against him, it is more expeditious to pick up your chips and move to a new table where the dealer is not cheating. But it does gall me that a man has had to close down a going business because of the high probability that the neighbors will bankrupt him with litigation. This is not right in Texas. This is not right in America.

Read more!

Collapse!