Victim of road rage defends himself, ends up in jail & loses home & property ...

[Spandauer]

GLOOB: "...the fact remains that his life was in danger."

Exactly.

Seems though that they picked the wrong person.

Just hope Mr. Lewis stands his ground (pun intended ) here in Iowa and that at this crucial moment in 2A legislature his case will help illustrating that the RKBA is very frail without further legal protection.

That's why I added the other Des Moines Register article which indicated that basically everything is just fine with the status quo of gun rights in this state.

I have no idea why it is that the NRA has not come up with some sort of legal aid coverage as it's very common in Europe. Imagine how much in premiums they could generate and what the additional revenue would do to their war chest.

 

[Alaska444]

Not necessarily. I have three out of state permits from Shall Issue states. They are valid as long as they are in effect no matter where I live. I didn't see the location of the state that he had his permit or permits. If his state was Shall Issue to residents and non-residents, it would still be in effect.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where his permit(s) was issued. Anyone have that answer? Obviously since he wasn't charged with illegal concealed carry, it is a moot legal issue.

 

[Spandauer]

Alaska444: "I didn't see where his permit(s) was issued."

A former security guard and law enforcement officer, Lewis also is a hunter and gun collector and came to Iowa with a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Lewis, a 49-year-old gun collector, moved to Iowa in 2010 to take a job at an Internal Revenue Service call center. He brought with him a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

The rest were just hypothetical scenarios and the fact that his handgun was returned indicates that his CCW must not have been of relevance at this time.

 

[Alaska444]

Yesterday, 10:33 PM #53
Spandauer
Member


Join Date: November 21, 2008
Posts: 28
Alaska444: "I didn't see where his permit(s) was issued."

A former security guard and law enforcement officer, Lewis also is a hunter and gun collector and came to Iowa with a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Lewis, a 49-year-old gun collector, moved to Iowa in 2010 to take a job at an Internal Revenue Service call center. He brought with him a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

The rest were just hypothetical scenarios and the fact that his handgun was returned indicates that his CCW must not have been of relevance at this time.

+1. The permit(s) in question must have been in effect or he would still be locked up and would most likely have been convicted. Lot's of folks have FL and UT among other Shall Issue states with the most reciprocity of the states. Those sort of permits would still be in effect even if he moved.

Still haven't seen which state he had the permit from, but it doesn't matter since he wasn't charged. One or more were still in effect obviously.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"Right, it was suggested above that Lewis sue his landlord for his eviction. Given that Lewis did not meet his contractual obligations in paying rent, the landlord felt Lewis had defaulted (which he had)"

First article says eviction proceedings began 2 weeks after the incident, and NOT for Non-payment.

"One week after the shooting, a lawyer for Regency Woods typed up a notice that eventually was posted on the door of Lewis’ apartment. It described Lewis as a “clear and present danger to the health or safety of the other tenants.” As evidence, it cited Lewis’ involvement in “an assault with a weapon within 1,000 feet of the property described above” and the fact that he’d been arrested because of it.

Court papers were filed Nov. 14 to have Lewis evicted."

Alright, either way, the tenant violated the lease. The landlord followed the law, went through the proper legal process and got a court-ordered eviction. The court agreed with the clear and present danger concern and granted the eviction. The tenant would still be liable for the remainder of the lease, all associated expenses with the eviction, damages, cleaning, and reletting up until the apartment has been re-let.

Double Naught- "He got his .380 back because it was held by the police. His other guns likely won't be returned to him because they were likely liquidated so that the landlord could recover lost rent and expenses surrounding the eviction and reletting of the apartment."

The guns were not Liquidated, the police officer who let the Jailed fellow know that his stuff was on the curb collected the firearms for him on November 30th. He called first to ask if there were any family that could collect his possessions before they were stolen. The landlord only posted on his door, and as he couldn't post bail, he never knew about this before the 30th.

If law enforcement still had control of the firearms, why weren't they returned? Probably because they were released to the landlord as part of the recovery for what was lost by the non-payment of the remainder of the lease.

Whether or not the tenant knew about the eviction isn't material. The landlord provided proper notification to the tenant at his residence and was in compliance by Iowa law as supported by the court.

"Lewis learned about all this at roughly 7:30 a.m. on Nov. 30. One jail guard led him to another, who was on the phone. The deputy serving the eviction warrant wanted to know if Lewis had any relatives who could get Lewis’ belongings off the 11th Street curb.

"The evicting deputy seized four handguns, three rifles, a shotgun and a machete that had been left in the apartment. But all his clothing and furniture disappeared on Nov. 30, along with a laptop containing the only copy of his fourth novel (a western)."

Iowa law has no mandate for there to be a duty of the landlord to store the belongings of an evicted tenant. Abandoned property left behind by the evicted tenant can be seized by the landlord to recover lost $. The items taken by the deputy should have gone to the the landlord if the landlord claimed them as a remedy of lost rent, damages, legal fees, advertising, and other reletting expenses.

 

[bhesler]

I think the problem lies more in the application of the eviction law in regards to his lease.

"It described Lewis as a “clear and present danger to the health or safety of the other tenants.” As evidence, it cited Lewis’ involvement in “an assault with a weapon within 1,000 feet of the property described above” and the fact that he’d been arrested because of it."

He was incarcerated at the time of the eviction proceedings, and therefore not a clear and present danger, and he was evicted prior to being found guilty of assault. So it turns out that he was evicted for being involved in a self defense shooting, and deprived of his property as a result.

 

[Dnaltrop]

The firearms WERE returned Naught. When he got out of Jail.

Stop Skimming Neighbor!

As the article says, he lost "Most of his possesions" and if you read, the only Items preserved from the Curb were the firearms and a Machete.

Everything else was taken

Seizure of the Firearms is a generic term for "Taking possesion of" and does NOT mean the same thing as permanently transferring ownership.

The Landlord had a paying tenant (Via His Mother in Kansas), they weren't out any money. They evicted him for defending himself, without consideration of the truth of the situation. (or whatever version of the truth the Evidence supported)

I don't know of any state that mandates storage of an Evicted tenant's belongings, and I'm a believer in "at will" employment, and similarly a Landlord should be able to evict anyone they like as long as they follow the steps.

For them, he was Guilty the moment the Police arrived.

BTW~ "Alright, either way, the tenant violated the lease. " Self defense is a violation of the lease? That's a rider I've not seen in the finest of fine print.

 

[gpjoe]

If he were not in clear violation of his lease, why did the court allow the eviction? Is it not the resposibility of the court to ensure the eviction is legal?

 

[Dnaltrop]

Read the article gpjoe, their reason for the eviction was that the fellow presented a...

“clear and present danger to the health or safety of the other tenants.” As evidence, it cited Lewis’ involvement in “an assault with a weapon within 1,000 feet of the property described above” and the fact that he’d been arrested because of it."

This done within 2 weeks of his arrest, before his case was even heard out, and before it was ruled Self Defense.

If you read the article, the Lawyer who drafted the notice is refusing comment, but that's SOP as you never want to make commentary on ongoing litigation.

The Courts are FAR from Infallible... History has borne that out many times. Why do you think some states compensate Death-row inmates that have been cleared by years-old DNA? "Oops" lacks that certain something something.

Note- It's not the responsibility of the court to collect evidence on the part of a party who is not in attendance. Without knowing more, I'd guess that the Lawyer presented the paperwork, Mr Lewis was obviously unable to attend the event, and it was rubber-stamped through.

PS: I'm not advocating for the fellow... Just Very Pro-Reading.

 

[Spandauer]

"clear violation of his lease"

That means BEFORE a tenant has the opportunity to defend himself in court against potentially wrongful alligations the landlord has the opportunity to evict him and confiscate his property / put it out on the curb with the consequence of it being stolen / destroyed?

The question seems to be more than justified if the landlord "clearly" has that right.

I didn't know that he is actually a writer and had his latest book saved on the lap-top the landlord put outside.

To me it sounds as if Mr. Lewis wasn't the only one who discharged a firearm ... seems like there were several others who might turn out shot their own feet.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The Landlord had a paying tenant (Via His Mother in Kansas), they weren't out any money. They evicted him for defending himself, without consideration of the truth of the situation. (or whatever version of the truth the Evidence supported)

Iowa has their clear and present danger law. It is specific. The landlord filed for eviction under the law with the court and it was granted by the court.

I don't know of any state that mandates storage of an Evicted tenant's belongings, and I'm a believer in "at will" employment, and similarly a Landlord should be able to evict anyone they like as long as they follow the steps.

Actually, most states do in some capacity. Iowa and Texas are not states that do. The landlord did follow the stops.

Note- It's not the responsibility of the court to collect evidence on the part of a party who is not in attendance. Without knowing more, I'd guess that the Lawyer presented the paperwork, Mr Lewis was obviously unable to attend the event, and it was rubber-stamped through.

So the landlord provided proper notification as per law. Filed in court as per law. The tenant did not respond and did not send legal representation to court and so lost the case....all by the numbers and letter of the law. It may be a shame, but everything I have read so far indicates that the landlord did not act improperly.

BTW~ "Alright, either way, the tenant violated the lease. " Self defense is a violation of the lease? That's a rider I've not seen in the finest of fine print.

Stop skimming TROP. Read the Iowa laws yourself. It isn't a rider. It is a specific law.

 

[charlie echo]

... DA: "current law works."

Note: The victim is former LEO. While he was in jail for 112 days he got evicted from his apartment and his property (including laptop) was moved to the sidewalk by his landlord.

Read this one first:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...ppy-to-be-free-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News

Then this one:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012302230053

Ande here comes the update:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120224/NEWS01/302240017?odyssey=mod|mostcom

Please consider to help:




Thank you for your time!

(Attn: moderator. As I'm not a senior member here by any means & not very familiar with all rules of posting please feel free to move my posting to the appropriate forum if this one is not the right one. Im not affiliated with the victim in any way but it could be you or me and that's why I contributed. Thank you!)

Thank you.

Reminds me that if someone wants to pass me while I'm passing then let the idiot pass.

Takes courage snd clearity to know when to press on or lay back or not react.

 

[Dnaltrop]

Ok, Fair enough, but lets actually cite the law rather than telling others to do so.

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/co...fo&service=iowacode&ga=83&input=562A#562A.27A

DANGER TO OTHERS.
1. Notwithstanding section 562A.27 or 648.3, if a tenant has
created or maintained a threat constituting a clear and present
danger to the health or safety of other tenants, the landlord, the
landlord's employee or agent, or other persons on or within one
thousand feet of the landlord's property, the landlord, after the
service of a single three days' written notice of termination and
notice to quit stating the specific activity causing the clear and
present danger, and setting forth the language of subsection 3 which
includes certain exemption provisions available to the tenant, may
file suit against the tenant for recovery of possession of the
premises pursuant to chapter 648, except as otherwise provided in
subsection 3. The petition shall state the incident or incidents
giving rise to the notice of termination and notice to quit. The
tenant shall be given the opportunity to contest the termination in
the court proceedings by notice thereof at least three days prior to
the hearing.

As the story states, The first notice he received was on the day his apartment was cleaned out. (unless other information that contradicts this arises) The only reason he was unable to see the notice on his door, was his financial incapacity to pay bail. Hell I wouldn't put my family through the expense either. Not to mention the disposition of first and last months rent and security deposit. , I see nothing mentioned about those.



2. A clear and present danger to the health or safety of other
tenants, the landlord, the landlord's employees or agents, or other
persons on or within one thousand feet of the landlord's property
includes, but is not limited to, any of the following activities of
the tenant or of any person on the premises with the consent of the
tenant:
a. Physical assault or the threat of physical assault.
b. Illegal use of a firearm or other weapon, the threat to
use a firearm or other weapon illegally, or possession of an illegal
firearm.

A firearm collector found to have acted in self defense, albeit well after the fact. It still remains that he used his weapon Legally at the time, and committed no assault (or was cleared of all charges, it's too bad there's no video)

Just to be clear, the ONLY charge the prosecutors attempted to press in court was reckless use of a firearm causing injury. Not assault, Not an illegal weapons charge. http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/co...=billinfo&service=iowacode&ga=83&input=724.30

3. This section shall not apply to a tenant if the activities
causing the clear and present danger, as defined in subsection 2, are
conducted by a person on the premises other than the tenant and the
tenant takes at least one of the following measures against the
person conducting the activities:

You're Right, you have my apologies, it IS a specific law... Right there!

a. The tenant seeks a protective order, restraining order,
order to vacate the homestead, or other similar relief pursuant to
chapter 236, 598, 664A, or 915, or any other applicable provision
which would apply to the person conducting the activities causing the
clear and present danger.
b. The tenant reports the activities causing the clear and
present danger to a law enforcement agency or the county attorney in
an effort to initiate a criminal action against the person conducting
the activities.

Ok, I'd certainly consider Shooting someone to be an extreme form of pressing charges... but the parties causing the clear and present danger have been processed by the police.

c. The tenant writes a letter to the person conducting the
activities causing the clear and present danger, telling the person
not to return to the premises and that a return to the premises may
result in a trespass or other action against the person, and the
tenant sends a copy of the letter to a law enforcement agency whose
jurisdiction includes the premises. If the tenant has previously
written a letter to the person as provided in this paragraph, without
taking an action specified in paragraph "a" or "b" or filing
a trespass or other action, and the person to whom the letter was
sent conducts further activities causing a clear and present danger,
the tenant must take one of the actions specified in paragraph
"a" or "b" to be exempt from proceedings pursuant to
subsection 1.

This part below is Mildly troubling, but again, he was not made aware of the proceedings beforehand, though his landlord was obviously aware of the incident.

However, in order to fall within the exemptions provided within
this subsection, the tenant must provide written proof to the
landlord, prior to the commencement of a suit against the tenant,
that the tenant has taken one of the measures specified in paragraphs
"a" through "c".

Well, He's certainly fulfilled his duties in being cleared of the charges and Likely pressing charges as subsection B requires.

So He needs to write a letter apparently now?

Anything else you'd like? I don't disagree with you that they had the legal right, But they certainly handled it EXTREMELY poorly, and without factual information.

Being accused of a crime is not conviction. The guy just couldn't afford lawyers or Bail.

Note- Feel free to call me a skimmer again... You're the fellow who composed Post #28 after not reading the article, and tells other people to do his work.

 

[Bonesinium]

Anyone have the specific firearm, use of force, and self defense statues? I know there are some states that cannot convict one of illegal possession in legal self defense scenarios, even if the carrying was illegal initially. I am also pretty sure all these states have a right to bear arms in their state constitution.

I find it disappointing people think what happened to him was okay, on grounds he may not have had a valid permit, by nature of essentially a technicality. So does moving mean your otherwise legal permit means you are now not capable of carrying? Furthermore, all charges were either dropped, or he was found NOT guilty of, therefore, it was determined regardless of the status of his carry permit, that he didn't do anything wrong.

From what I can tell, he was not notified of his court hearing on the eviction, because he was incarcerated. Chances are, him not being notified means the eviction process was not followed properly, and therefore his eviction illegal. In that case, someone is certainly responsible for his possessions, and that is NOT him.

I am further disappointed in the lack of discretion from the DA, though not surprised at all. I cannot even begin to count the number of times you read about prosecutors and police pursuing charges on things that anyone using any reasonable thinking would know are ridiculous. No surprise considering our flawed judicial system, which is clearly evident in this situation.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Read the article gpjoe, their reason for the eviction was that the fellow presented a...

“clear and present danger to the health or safety of the other tenants.” As evidence, it cited Lewis’ involvement in “an assault with a weapon within 1,000 feet of the property described above” and the fact that he’d been arrested because of it."

This done within 2 weeks of his arrest, before his case was even heard out, and before it was ruled Self Defense.

I think that is what is going to bury the landlord. They did not evict him for failure to pay rent. They evicted him because of the "assault with a weapon" for which he had not stood trial and for which he was found not guilty. I would think he would have a strong standing based on those grounds.

 

[Dnaltrop]

Agreed.

The big issue is on what constitutes notification.

If a landlord knows for a fact that a client is in jail, and is the sole resident of the apartment, They had to know that posting notice on his door would go unanswered. He had had contact through his mother with them about paying his rent in the interim.... they knew his temporary address, especially as they were evicting him for having been placed there. .

As referenced in the story, He didn't know he'd actually been evicted until being denied housing assistance after his release. All he knew at that point, was that his apartment had been cleared out and he was reduced to sleeping in his car. ( lucky the police seized that for him, I wonder if he had to pay Impound fees?)

The law in Iowa requires notification by Personal representative or Certified mail,

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/IACODE/2003/562A/29A.html

 

[Spandauer]

Update on Iowa legislature: "Iowa House passes two controversial measures ..."

... on right to bear arms" [Wednesday 8:10 PM]

Bill sponsor Matt Windschitl, R-Missouri Valley, invoked the case of Jay Rodney Lewis when arguing for its approval. The West Des Moines man, whose story was noted in the Des Moines Register, spent 112 days in jail after firing on two men who accosted him last October. He was ultimately acquitted of counts of intimidation with a dangerous weapon and going armed with intent.

Lewis could have avoided the charges and the jail time altogether, Windschitl said, if the bill under consideration had been law.

[emphasis added by me]

read the whole article:

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/...-iowa-house-on-controversial-gun-legislation/

 

[Spandauer]

Black History Month

It's interesting: while Democrats were celebrating Black History Month yesterday they walked out on a black man about to be writing another chapter of Black History.

To you guys from Iowa: please call your representative, give them a little "private lesson" and ask to sponsor the Jay Rodney Lewis Bill!!

 

[Sam1911]

Black History Month

It's interesting: while Democrats were celebrating Black History Month yesterday they walked out on a black man about to be writing another chapter of Black History.

Not sure where you're going with this one...

Democrats are the only ones who celebrate Black History month?

And Democrats are "walking out" on Mr. Lewis?

Or Mr. Lewis should be given special (better or worse) consideration because of his race?

Better have some specifics to back up those statements or drop that line of reasoning.

 

[Dnaltrop]

Criminy... Keep the Race out of it. You'll turn the discussion entirely from the facts and get the thread closed. The situation is entirely inflammatory enough without bringing in abstracts and derailing from Empirical evidence.

Mr Lewis hasn't mentioned race once in the video, or the articles, he's angry at the process. So stop obsessing about skin color.

Mr. Lewis is an aspiring author and gun collector, who was evicted without receiving notice, by a landlord operating without factual data, because his landlord chose to save a few bucks on certified mail, When they had full knowledge that he was unable to pay bail and return to his apartment to receive notice.

Heck, they could have told his Mother that they were evicting him when she was on the phone with them. The Landlords have no possible way to claim that they didn't know exactly where he was.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Anything else you'd like? I don't disagree with you that they had the legal right, But they certainly handled it EXTREMELY poorly, and without factual information.

Good to see you did your reading, but you have still missed a critical point. So you can disagree all you want, but it isn't my view. It is the view of the court. So the landlord had the legal right, filed, and the court agreed.

If the landlord provided information that was not factual to the courts as you claim, I am sure that will all come out. Until that happens, however, the actions were completely legal and upheld by the court.

Being accused of a crime is not conviction.

Right, but a conviction is not a necessary criterion to the clear and present danger law. And if it was, are you saying that the court did not understand this fact?

As the story states, The first notice he received was on the day his apartment was cleaned out. (unless other information that contradicts this arises) The only reason he was unable to see the notice on his door, was his financial incapacity to pay bail.

Proper notification was apparently given and substantiated to the court. The fact that he failed to see the notice isn't the fault of the landlord or his being unable to make bail.

You seem bent on insisting that a lot of criteria were not met, but that is a perspective not shared by the court that granted the eviction. Go argue with them.

Hell I wouldn't put my family through the expense either. Not to mention the disposition of first and last months rent and security deposit. , I see nothing mentioned about those.

I am not sure of the relevances of what you would or would not put your family through matters here. So you think these monies should be returned? Why would the first month's rent be returned? Those monies were gone at the point the tenant took the keys. The deposit would also be forfieted with the eviction. Depending on the lease, the last month's may be as well.

 

[Dnaltrop]

Yes, It's good that I actually read at a nearly Robotic speeed apparently, because you weren't willing to cite any of the law yourself to make your points, much less read the article you were commenting on initially.

You can hammer on "technically they were within their rights" all you want. Technically they stuck the notice in a disused lavatory, at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet with a sign on the door reading "Beware of the Leopard".... Of course he was unable to stop them from knocking his house down for a Bypass.

Legal? Well that's the issue that will likely be before the court with Mr Lewis at the fore, but that's a very dishonest way to deal with people. The landlord had ABSOLUTE knowledge that Mr Lewis was not, and would not be at the apartment. (this is in the Video, where Mr Lewis is speaking most of the same points that I've put down here.

The issue of what constitutes Notification is the turning point that will decide the case.

The Law does not say " on his door" it says delivered by Personal Service, or a Certified letter. This will likely be the Crux of his lawsuit if he files one.

562A.29A Method of notice and service of process.

Notwithstanding sections 631.4 and 648.5, the written notice of termination required by section 562A.27, subsection 1 or 2, a notice of termination and notice to quit under section 562A.27A, a notice to quit as required by section 648.3, or a petition for forcible entry and detainer pursuant to chapter 648, may be served upon the tenant in any of the following ways:

1. By personal service.

2. By sending notice by certified or restricted certified mail, as defined in section 618.15, whether or not the tenant signs a receipt for the notice.

They chose to act as if he would be anywhere near his front door, rather than a Certified letter.

I will certainly be willing to debate the point with you when we see how Mr Lewis' case progresses.

IF you promise to actually read the full article that is. The only reason i'm participating in this discussion here is that half of post #28 had nothing to do with the article.

As to why it's relevant that I wouldn't put my family through the fees for a bail bondsman?

Justice should not be dependent on Income level. If Mr. Lewis wasn't living paycheck to paycheck as a Paper pusher, He would have paid bail, seen the notice, likely contested his eviction successfully. (rather than the No-show judgement the landlord received, if you don't show up, the Evidence is Moot and you lose the case)

The only reason I wouldn't be screwed is that my Family does not live in another state.

And yes I agree that I misspoke when I threw in the "first months" part... when you've just read had to read the Iowa Renter's code, in the process of doing someone else's research for them, things get missed or mis-stated.

Can't think of anyone who missed anything of even vague importance in discussing this topic. I guess that's a failing specific to me.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7994432&postcount=28

Lets just both walk away for now, and keep our eyes out for the disposition of the case.

(extends hand) Good argument Neighbor, I agree to disagree with you.

 

[roadchoad]

NavyLCDR, I stand corrected. I saw Fall and Oct and assumed this was all last fall.

 

[roadchoad]

Technically they stuck the notice in a disused lavatory, at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet with a sign on the door reading "Beware of the Leopard".... Of course he was unable to stop them from knocking his house down for a Bypass.

Bloody brilliant.

 

[Spandauer]

Sam1911: "Better have some specifics to back up those statements or ..."

"... drop that line of reasoning."

1) I'm not going to drop anything, as there is something called "Freedom of Speech".
2) If you scroll up you'll see that I originally posted - responding to a member indicating that race might have been an issue - that I do NOT think that it was in fact.
3) Yesterday was the last day of so-called "Black History Month" celebrating the achievements and tragic past of African Americans. One source indicated that during the 6 hour break the Democrats commemorated Black History Month although some were quoted having left because they considered this issue not of high enough priority for the average Iowan.
4) This made me question how much they really embrace the unique African American history, while a black man (Mr. Lewis) has recently been suffering from blatant injustice.
5) In my opinion they would have done better doing their job making sure no (black) man may ever suffer because of potential legal loopholes in IA gun-laws.

Dnaltrop:

"Mr. Lewis hasn't mentioned race..."

Wrong:

“I went to jail for one reason and one reason only,” he said. “I’m a black man. James Ludwick is a white man. I think the police had a preconceived notion in their head as to what went on.”

AGAIN: I do not think myself at all that race was an issue, nor did I [!] write the initial posting because of this! I do understand Mr. Lewis might think this way but I hope in the end he will be assured that his notion was not true.

I am rather spending my time here, donating my money and writing to representatives to support an IMO innocent man in particular and any legally armed citizen in general in order to avoid similar occurrences (eviction, loss of property / job, undue time in jail) in the future. After all the life of my family members & friends one day could depend on a guy not hesitating to defend them knowing the former Jay Rodney Lewis Bill backs him up.

So I think there is no reason to get excited or suggesting the discussion might go in the wrong direction, neighbors!