Dennis Riley:           No, thanks to the TUP directive from the county we no longer live next to a shooting gallery and require that the six shot limit imposed by the planning commission be adhered to.

Jim Riley:                  Do you live next to the sort of major reenactments we once did 2-3 times a year?

Dennis Riley:           We no longer live next to the major reenacments  that occurred 2 to 3 times a years, although those would have been acceptable in the absence of the daily mock battles.

Jim Riley:                  Do you live next to a thousand rounds a day?

Dennis Riley:           Thanks to the elimination of Scott's live load and movie shoots we, thankfully, no longer live next to thousand rounds per (some) day(s).

Jim Riley:                  Have I scaled back my program and compromised on the shooting issue?

Dennis Riley:           Yes you have scaled back your program and  compromised on the shooting issue.

Jim Riley:                  Is our project "identical" to the Royal Rangers project?   (Dennis Riley Quote from the March 23, 2006 Planning Commission meeting:  "This project is IDENTICAL to a project you declined to approve. The Royal Rangers project..."

Dennis Riley:           Your project is not identical to the Royal Rangers project, however, it is similar.

Dennis Riley:           But I cannot not take such a charge casually.  My remarks at the Crestline meeting were true and accurate.  They clearly stated the difference between live shoots and mock battles.  The reporter obviously condensed the remarks into a simple (but erroneous) fact.  Reporters make mistakes.  They take notes on the fly and seldom quote  remarks entirely.  So what to do about it?  First, a simple call to me to verify the truth would have been appropriate.  I never even read the article.  I still do not know the name of the reporter.  You rushed to judgment and branded me a liar without checking the source and before I had even heard of the article.  

Jim Riley:                  See my response above.    I wrote, very carefully, that "if" you were quoted correctly, (you are saying you were not, finally), you would be guilty of telling a lie.      No call was necessary to you because no charge was made.    As the previous and subsequent coverage proves, you were quite willing to continue over-stating our impact and I stand by my claim that you have consistently mischaracterized us as a "shooting parlor" and a "military theme park."     Those falsehoods have served you well in your cause and you have been reluctant to give them up until now.     

Dennis Riley:           You never gave me the opportunity of calling the reporter before you went to print.  You certainly didn't leave me with any incentive to set the record straight.  In future, do me the courtesy of an e-mail inquiry when you think something is untrue. 

Jim Riley:                  Hopefully, if the lines of communication remain open, you will certainly have that courtesy.    For many years, as you know, you expressly ordered me not to have any communication with you and during one of our last phone conversations, you invited me onto your property so that you could "knock me on my ass."   

Dennis Riley:           For example,  when you charge Thad with the untrue statement that he thought the Davis house was "hideous", he called you to personally correct your misjudgment.  He didn't go on the worldwide web and call you a liar.  You notice I used the word "misjudgment"?  Another example:  When you and I disagreed on the chronology of events regarding your offer to reduce numbers of rounds and Scott's live shoot, you called me a liar.  You don't seem to allow for people to have differing recollections.   So, how about this: check the facts first, then make your case for calling someone a liar.

Jim Riley:                  The facts have been checked.   Not one but three newspaper stories and numerous community meetings have you on record as routinely, grossly, irresponsibly characterizing our project as a shooting gallery and a theme park.    Evidently you are now backtracking on your Royal Rangers comment.   You are recorded as saying our projects are "identical."    Now you are saying they are "similar."       For many years, you have demonstrated a habit for shifting positions when it was convenient.      As to Thad, Scott and I have a clear memory of Thad lamenting as "hideous" what was widely reported to be a plate-glass, ultra modern steel and cement domicile in Oak Glen.  Thad wanted to discuss architectural standards in Oak Glen in a way--I remember--that clearly made Jon Davis uncomfortable.  Evidently you are the one that doesn't allow for differing recollections.

Dennis Riley:           Second, You actually think I could sway a reporter by appealing to his worst instincts.

Jim Riley:                  Absolutely.    Tell someone--anyone--they are living next to a major battle re-enactment EVERY DAY and you are feeding them false information so they can write false stories.      Unless the Press Enterprise got you wrong on that one as well (is this a pattern with you and reporters?), you did that as recently as April 3 of this month.

Dennis Riley:           Maybe so, but then so could you.  I recall a story in the Press Enterprise that was very slanted toward you.  I disagreed with the tone and the facts, but I didn't threaten to have the reporter fired, or demand to rewrite the story myself. 

Jim Riley:                  Time for you to do a fact check.    I have never threatened to "have a reporter fired."     How could I?    Why don't you take a stab at documenting that one, Dennis?

Dennis Riley:           In two cases now you have berated and threatened two newspapers that you disagreed with.  So, let's let them do there job and hope for the best.

Jim Riley:                  Correction.    I have scolded them.    I have berated them.   I have asked our supporters to protest against unfair and biased coverage, but I have never "threatened" them.      What, precisely, do you mean by that?

Dennis Riley:           Royal Rangers:  They are now going to completely enclose their musket fire within an indoor range.  I rest my case. 

Jim Riley:                  What case are you "resting?"    The two issues are completely different.   I repeat, we do not conduct, nor have we asked that we be able to conduct live musket fire.    They are enclosing their range because they are shooting projectiles.   We don't.     Do you think Williamsburg conducts musket fire demonstrations INSIDE the  Governor's palace?

Dennis Riley:           I think you are reaching when you say I was impeaching their credibility as people or as an organization.  I never made that charge.  I simply stated what was an obvious glaring fact,  that their outdoor gun range was a complete circumvention of the county ordinance prohibiting the discharge of weapons - in effect - an illegal gun range.  The sheriff, John Hernandez, reached the same conclusion and so testified to the planning commission.  Was he impeaching their credibility too?  Let your readers judge.

Jim Riley:                  I would guess that Sheriff Hernandez stuck to the facts and didn't  accuse them of "stealth."    Your words:  "My remarks were noted in a meeting where Crestline residents were reviewing the proposed Royal Rangers camp. I warned them about allowing a shooting range in the guise of a youth camp."     Your contempt for their organization apparently knows no bounds if you are capable of characterizing their actions in that way.    When you say someone is establishing a "shooting range in the guise of a youth camp" you are painting a picture of conspirators, sitting around a table and saying, "hey guys;  I know how we'll get a shooting range!   We'll call it a YOUTH camp!"      That is a reprehensible approach to their project and their organization.

Dennis Riley:           Skinning baby bears:  Sometimes I think we are replaying "The Milagro Beanfield War" here in Oak Glen.  There is sometimes no accounting for what people will say - on your side as well as mine.  I don't believe you skin baby bears. 

Jim Riley:                  Thanks!   I don't club baby seals either.

Dennis Riley:           But I do know that someone on your side of the clan was conducting an un-permitted hunt club, that they often strayed onto private property, and took quite a bit of deer and bear out of the hills.  It was kind of sad to hear about it.  For years I have chased out "poachers" who had no license and lacked the courtesy to even ask permission to be on our property.   You got some people's dander up with that activity.  I don't know if you still do it, but I hope not.  At any rate, one person's mistaken suspicions do not dismiss their core concern - that someone was probably conducting a "wildcat" hunting club on Riley property.

Jim Riley:                  For the record, any animal that has been hunted on this property has been taken with the proper tags and overseen by Fish and Game who encouraged us to form a club established under their guidelines as to what could and could not be done.  Contrary to what you think, they have jurisdiction superior to the County in matters of wildlife.  They were never guided hunts, but always adhered to the club guidelines they gave us.  Not more than 2 bears, 2, were taken and 1 deer.  I hardly call that poaching.  Alison Law should know, the initial meeting with Fish and Game was set up at her non- compliant business establishment, so if anyone is to blame it should be her.  Hypocrisy.      

As it stands, because this community seems to be very fickle about protecting apple trees but not understanding what is required to protect them, we are not asking for hunting clubs or live shooting in our application.

One of my earliest memories of the farm was watching you take a rifle to coyotes on your front porch, so I don't think we disagree about varmint shooting.  (Is this legal?   I have never shot a coyote, but I wouldn't see a problem in it, if they were threatening farm animals or children.)   Our Conditional Use Permit, in any case, asks for no such hunting clubs or live shooting.

Dennis Riley:           Theme park:  I don't think that you are going to install a roller coaster any time soon. 

Jim Riley:                  I do hope that is purely rhetorical, Dennis.   In the twenty years our family has owned the property, no one has even imagined such a thing.    I suppose it's a convenient characterization and at least one person at the planning commission meeting said "we don't need another Disneyland in Oak Glen," but that is so far removed from the realm of possibility, and the realm of what is actually done here, that it can only be called what it is:  total ignorance.

Dennis Riley:           I'm sure that Walter Knott never thought so either.  But you never answered my main point which is:  what are the neighbors concerns based on the models they see in Oak Glen?They see shootouts, toy trains, inflatable bouncers and bazaars. 

Jim Riley:                  You've thrown a lot in one basket.    There's nothing "theme park" about an Old West shootout.    Enoch Parrish, Oak Glen's founder, wore a sidearm at all times.    To lump that history in with inflatable bouncers is to fail to distinguish between history and turnstiles, between heritage and comic books.   The neighbors have only to look at what we have done for twenty years to understand we are not proposing theme park attractions.

Dennis Riley            Most of these are designated commercial uses and are thus given more leeway.  They will probably continue under whatever new community plan is eventually authorized.  For you to have official recognition as a Revolutionary War  reenactment site, complete with costumes and daily battles - well, a reasonable person could call that a theme park.  

Jim Riley                   Not quite.    A detractor might call it a theme park.     Sturbridge Village would not likely be called a theme park and it was built--from scratch--in the 20th century as an homage to the ways of the past.     The most recent marketing material I received from Williamsburg, included a picture of a young man of ten or eleven standing in front of a line of colonial soldiers holding a stick musket.      Very few people would call Williamsburg a "theme park."     

Dennis Riley            Rawhide, Arizona is a western theme park.  It is open to the public and features gunfights on a daily basis.  They have rides, covered wagons and such, not roller coasters,  but rides nonetheless.  Calico Ghost town is a theme park.

Jim Riley                   You're going to have trouble finding anywhere on the Calico Ghost town website, where they refer to themselves as a "theme park."     Why do you think that is?

Dennis Riley            But both are very remote locations.  In fact, Rawhide moved out of a residential neighborhood to its present location.  The same with Founder's Ranch in New Mexico.  All feature gunfights as their main attraction.  All are remote.  The term "theme park", in itself, is not a negative term.   It can be when in proximity to adjoining residences.  The issue before our community is this:  what is the dividing line between what is essentially a farm or an amusement park.  Perhaps there needs to be a distinction between "living history" and "adventure (or theme) park"?

Jim Riley                   The planning commission and the land use staff have apparently decided we're remote enough to perform the limited musket fire that we're asking for, but proximity to residences has almost nothing to do with the notion of a "theme park" being a pejorative label.   There are theme parks that don't lunge to the lowest common denominator, and, of course, they should be applauded, but the baggage associated with massive parking, cheap retail, and thrill rides can be used to tar good projects as well.     Your son Tim's references to Disney America at the planning commission is a case in point.     Why would your side of the family compare a small scale living history farm to a major mega-million dollar theme park with thrill rides and turnstiles if your family were not intent on overstating our impact and cheapening our appeal?     

Dennis Riley:           Shutting down your C.U.P.?  The county has set a limit of  six shots a day and 65 grains of powder.  Notice that I said "county".  For all your good intentions to limit the number of shots fired on any given day, the fact is you could not control the actions of your siblings or nephews on the farm.  We asked you if the 20 shot limit you offered was just for you, or was it for Ryan and Jesse and Scott and anyone else who happened along?  You said,  "just trust us". 

Jim Riley:                  I said nothing of the sort.    I said that the 20 shots would apply to the whole farm.    Chalk this up to different recollections, but the fact is we have collectively controlled shooting.    If we hadn't, you wouldn't still be relying on your nearly two and a half year old instance of "thousand round a day" abuse--Scott's church party.    

Dennis Riley            Even you admit that Scott's live shooting events nearly broke up your relationship. 

Jim Riley                   Partly because Scott continues to perceive--accurately--that you won't acknowledge any compromise and you won't recognize any adherence to standards on our part.    It took three angry unpublished emails from you and my threat to keep from publishing your comments--just to get you to acknowledge that we have compromised on the shooting issue.        As I wrote earlier, if you don't acknowledge your neighbor's flexibility, it will lead to a failure of enforcing officers to respond to your complaints.     When a wedding party popped some balloons outside the packing shed after a reception, you were so sure it was gunfire that I had trouble talking you down from your misperception.  

Chill, Dennis.   Or no one will ever take you seriously.

Dennis Riley:           Nonetheless, Scott continued to host live shoots for Mormon elders on the farm.  Jesse hosted a cowboy shootout on the porch of the barn as part of a wedding ceremony. 

Jim Riley                   I don't know about any live shoots Scott has hosted since then and Jesse moved his shooting up out of the barn area when you complained.    You are conflating an imaginary live shoot with an old west blank shooting event, by the way.

Scott may have felt some authority, however, in hosting a live shoot, (the one that you keep complaining about two years after the fact)   since you set that example with your yearly "Cowboy Near Years Eve" parties, where you asked all your Cowboy reenacting friends to bring up their pistols and fire away all night.      Scott's commentary:   A callous disregard for shooting off at midnight was always a badge of honor with Dennis at those parties.  He justified them as 'quaint' little parties, but 1000's of rounds were fired by he and all his cowboy friends before the New Years Eve meals. Again, these are classic Dennis rationalizations for his inconsistent behavior.

Dennis Riley            Scott still intends to host movie shoots.  I guess he'll get one cylinder's worth per movie.  The point?  You could not speak for, nor enforce any limit.  

Jim Riley                   False.     We have enforced a limit.    Our temporary use permit has no restriction on the number of rounds, just a restriction on not breaking the noise ordinance and shooting between 10 AM and 3 PM.     We have abided by that rule for nearly two years.   We have been told by the county, now that our planning commission approval is on appeal, that we are no longer under the six shot rule, but under the temporary use rule.     We will probably stick to the six shot rule, just to show how flexible we really are, but our attorneys are saying a first amendment issue may be at stake, and when we really begin showing the community how little noise these muskets make and how you have hyper-sensationalized the issue, you may not be happy with the results--not because we will be any more noisy, but because the extent of your failure to reason will be a very public issue.

Dennis Riley            The county has set limits that you could, or would not, do on your own.  And that was only because of petitions to the county and written protests.   You were willing to sacrifice it all - milking cows and candle dipping - for the right to keep your shooting.  You put it all on one roll of the dice because shooting was so important. 

Jim Riley                   Unlike you, I welcome the third party arbitration that has occurred by county review of our land use.       The county understands that a vital part of our history can't really be shown to guests with re-enactors yelling boom and redcoats re-plunging a spring-loaded bang flag into their muskets.      A total silencing of the guns could never be enforced in Williamsburg, a densely populated suburb, and it can't be enforced here either.

Dennis Riley            So, why not admit that this issue was never about objection to your living history program.  There just is no evidence to support that charge. 

Jim Riley                   Nonsense.    The first and last line of your attorney's letter requests a DENIAL.   A vital though certainly not solitary part of our living history program included the story of the American Revolution.     You have consistently asked us to tell that story without a single musket shot.     Reasonable people have interpreted that request to be what it is--an effort to terminate our program.       

Dennis Riley            You simply hid all the shooting within plain sight and called it a "Living History" farm.  That way anyone who protested the shooting would  be against history, kids and apple pie. 

Jim Riley                   Your collective family protests have included objections to our overnight camping programs.     Thad has complained about senior citizens leaving the farm on a Saturday night after a Patrick Henry Dinner.      When you go on record against Lexington and Concord, a kids group camp, and old folks having a dinner in the country--well, you decide how that sounds.    

Dennis Riley            At any rate, the county has at least acknowledged that there is a difference between milking cows, busses and firing guns. 

Jim Riley                   Yes, they have--as they should, but they did it by seeking something you can't stand--"balance."     They also agreed that busses are a bigger noise impact than firing guns--which should have an interesting impact on your own land use application.

Dennis Riley            Power Grab?  You described Devon's lease as a monopoly.  I simply restated your characterization. 

Jim Riley                   In this particular exchange, the first instance of the term monopoly was from you.    I don't know if you are referring to a previous exchange, but, yes, Devon did describe his business role on the farm, several times, in monopoly terms.     When my wife and a friend wanted to start a historical clothing business on the farm, her friend was told we all had to have Devon's approval.     Your own language:   "How arrogant for Devon to have been given a business monopoly that excluded Lord Jim!"     Someone who questions a monopoly--by your way of thinking--should be called grasping, baronial?   Questioning a monopoly earns you the title "Lord Jim?"

Dennis Riley:           It was not my word.  But if Devon had a monopoly on the business, so did Scott , as the lease was in both their names.  In the beginning there were four players, me, Scott, Devon and Ray Riley.  Scott will challenge this but it is absolutely true:  dad agreed to incorporate the farm management between the four of us - not me alone, as you imply.  He offered a stock split as follows:  Dennis, 23%; Devon 25%; Scott, 25% and himself (Ray), 28%.  The specific reason he told Scott was that he did not want to see Devon and I have an equal percentage (50%) with he and Scott.  His formula would have split it 47% Devon and I, and 53%, he and Scott.  Scott will counter this by showing you a tax return listing me as one third owner.  It is true that the initial returns reflected the first year's ad hoc management that included Devon's and my music and tour receipts.  Since dad was the owner, he was listed on the return.  But that was hardly a formal partnership. The four-way split was the first attempt at a formal management structure.  He had every right to do it that way, it was his farm.  But I knew that it was a sucker's bet.  Devon's interests, or mine, could have been outvoted every time.  I declined to accept the offer and that left Devon and Scott in a three way partnership with dad.  Neither Devon nor Scott wanted that either. They held out for, and got, a 50-50 split as partners in their own corporation, along with a lease,  without dad included.  Their reason:  neither of them wanted to do all the work and not have all the votes. 

Jim Riley                   As I understood the transaction at that point, Dad removed himself for his own reasons--not because Devon and Scott insisted on a 50-50 partnership.     "All of the work" fell, significantly to Dad, since he had to pay 10 huge installment payments to keep the farm in the family.     Scott's recollection is also different from yours, in some significant respects.   To wit:  

For once Dennis is telling the truth, but the danger is what he is not telling you.  It is an amazing admission on Dennis' part since he maintained, at that time, that it didn't matter that Dad brought about 226 acres to his 12.    Devon and he had started the business and therefore deserved the lion share.  What he has conveniently left out in reference to the 1987 partnership tax return which showed equal 1/3rd percentages between he, Dad and Devon, is that he (Dennis) originally proposed a continuation of those 1/3rd equal shares to extend to the forthcoming S Corp, thus giving Dennis and Devon controlling interest as they enjoyed in the partnership.  Fortunately for the rest of the family, there was no lease on Dad's portion.  Jim was also involved in those initial discussions.  The possibility of selling our Long Beach house and investing in the property was also on the table. Dennis told me that I could either work for a portion of their (Dennis'/Devon's) shares in the new S Corp (7 years for Leah and probably another 7 for Rachel, he never articulated for how long) to equal up to a maximum of 15% (thus giving Dad and I only a collective of 48 1/3rd %, the minority interest) or keep my lot entirely with Jim in a separate venture somewhere else on the farm property.  When I mentioned that to Dad his reaction was less than agreeable and thus later proposed his own percentages that gave him and I controlling interest, close to the percentages he states above, so Dennis is telling the truth in that regard. Dad figured what was good for the goose was good for the gander and since he was bringing the most assets he had a right to. Interesting that Dennis now admits that fact, but believe me, that was not his opinion at the time.  Neither was Dennis' reaction as altruistic as he describes above ("He had every right to do it that way, it was his farm"). He said, and I paraphrase to avoid offense to the young, "it was akin to using Dads proposal as a colostomy on me (Dennis) and telling me (Dennis) that it was for my (Dennis') own good."  I remember being quite aghast and apologizing if that was the way he considered it and that I had hoped that we would reach an accord that would be acceptable to both he and Dad, but Dennis was convinced a conspiracy was born and would not be placated.    The rest of the story is better known: we bumbled through with Dennis continuing to act as manager, his constant complaining that Devon and I were not giving him enough deference in the relations between he and Dad, and that Dad was consciously trying to subvert his (Dennis') authority whenever he (Dad) came out to the Farm.  Devon and I even 'anointed' him in front of Dad and described how we thought it best to follow Dennis' lead.  That wasn't good enough, no matter what we did, we never measured up to his standard of obedience.  We were always "plotting and scheming behind his back", "grabbing Dad's ear when Dennis wasn't looking," etc ad nauseum. 

Dennis Riley:           They had another reason:  neither of them wanted to work and develop the farm for 10 years or so and have another sibling or relative come in and claim an equal share.  Remember the story of the little red hen?   So they went to work (in their own separate ways) and developed the farm over the next ten years.  I went back to my own farm, but took with me a contract to perform music and square dances in the barn.  My reason for requesting, and receiving that contract?  I live right next to the barn and didn't want to see it become a rec hall.  By the way, we are going to send you some pictures of the barn when we got it.  It's a far cry from "the million dollar barn given to Denny so he could play his banjo" that you described.  But the dances I called helped to make it one!  Does this sound like a power grab by me or Devon?  Does it sound like we were crowned King of the farm?  Hardly.  Mostly it was lots of work and little pay.  Then you came along and complained that you had been dealt out of the deal. 

Jim Riley:                  Wrong again, as Scott attests.   I was in on the farm purchase discussions from the very beginning and I remember the day you asked for my support.   "This could be a great gathering place for the whole family," you said.      When we actually got to discussing, however, how a family business could be started on the farm, with opportunities for all of Dad's children, it got hopelessly stymied by a disagreement you had at the time with your daughter in law, Devon's wife, Shelli.    Scott and I, unfortunately, sold our mutually held home in Long Beach, so that I could join the farm enterprise (as Scott was already actively involved), but it looked like that all had to take second fiddle to your own family squabbles.     It's interesting how you turn that into a picture of my showing up late on the scene, isn't it, Dennis?     

Dennis Riley:           Where was your share?  Why weren't you a full partner?  Well, Jim, you weren't there when the deal was cut.  You then took the tack that it was supposed to be a family farm and that Devon had overstepped his rights as a grandson and "stolen" the farm.  Devon left with nothing.  Nice work, Jim.  But your charge of power grab is astonishing.  It should be written up in Forbes magazine as a textbook instruction book for corporate raiders. 

Jim Riley:                  I don't' know if corporate raiders are interested in raspberry patches, but, again, you fail to remember the actual chronology of events.      In the weeks before Dad actually signed on the dotted line, Dad and I worked in the same office.    He kept asking me whether it was a good deal.    I said, "it looks like great land, and Denny thinks it will be a great place for all of us."    Devon, as I believe you mentioned, absolutely could not work things out with his partner, Scott and whether you believe it or not, I am not responsible for Scott having to argue his point against both Devon and Shelli constantly on issues as small as whether Shelli thought it was okay to grind corn meal for the school tours.   

                                    Devon and Shelli chased their uncle right out of that business, as evidenced by the following: a loosely constructed agreement had been crafted  to save their partnership.  Devon and Shelli would continue barn dances and school tours, while Scott and Benita would continue the general store and new business (which included film shoots).  Along came Dreamworks in 1997 with the "Amistad" production and suddenly Shelli declared that film shoots could not be included in Scotts split.  From that point on it was a constant 'yank the chain' arrangement whenever it didn't suit Devon and Shelli's purposes.  Devon and Shelli paid the price for it.      When that partnership was broken, I had the thankless task of trying to get Devon to sign a new lease on the barn.      He refused to even consider my lease proposals, refused to even respond to our requests for a lease, then would only accept one crafted by his counsel, and in the end, when faced with our final demands to either sign or vacate, he bolted--thinking the farm couldn't be run without him and hoping that we would come back to him with wringing hands and apologies.  It was a total martyrdom scenario.  He spent the whole 2001 year without any lease of any kind and subject to an eviction with only a 3 days notice, but he couldn't bring himself to sign even a one-year lease that would have at least been better than what he had in 2001, the Devsco lease having been terminated December 31, 2000 by his and Scotts will.      

Dennis Riley:           Hierarchical control?  I think I have just illustrated that  this is exactly what dad wanted, and you eventually got.  It certainly was never mine.

Jim Riley:                  The family has begun work on a new corporation with opportunity for the heirs to participate, in both management and equity interest.      I will most likely be the CEO, but I can be voted out, depending on the final equity distribution.      I suppose my term of office will depend on how well I can balance the competing interests of the family members.      I'm sure you'll be rooting for our success.

Dennis Riley:           "Now this is a lie, and I think you know it."  There you go again.  You were referring to our signing the petitions in self defense and the fact that you would not compromise on the shooting issue.

Jim Riley                   Petition asking for a code enforcement full court press against us in self defense?    What a concept!     Only Dennis Riley could engineer that one.      Here's your family's record:  open a barbecue without permits, build craft structures and an amphitheater without permits, see hundreds of school children per day, without any land use review, turn a barn into a country general store without permits, burn an abandoned trailer without permits--and then circulate a fire safety & code enforcement petition against us in self defense?    Nice!       

  Dennis Riley:         Do you remember the meeting in your barn?  You had asked the assembled community there to "compromise" and accept your version of the community plan.  Thad then asked if you would be willing to compromise on the shooting and camping issue.  You said, "No, I will not compromise on shooting or camping.  We intend to do both".   You probably galvanized a lot of opposition that night.  Compromise meant agreeing with your plan to include shooting and camping within the "Heritage Zone" idea.  That idea bit the dust that very night.  Were you able to enforce shooting limitations?  In fact, no.  So was my statement a lie, or an opinion?  As I said earlier, I think you would do well to determine the difference.

Jim Riley:                  We have a substantial difference in recollection.     My clear memory of that night is what I have always said, "we will limit shooting;   we will not eliminate it."      You are right, however, in your take on some members of the community.     I had no idea how many people never really liked any commerce in Oak Glen, much less ours.        I also never knew how ardently some people want absolutely no overnight youth camps here--no matter how large the property.         Your failure--now remedied--to recognize our compromise was what I put the term "lie" to.     I stand by it.    Until this exchange, you have acted as though there has been no compromise on the shooting or mock battle issue.     

Dennis Riley:           My calls to Mike and Susan:  Since you put it on the table, Jim, I'll tell you about my conversations with Mike and Susan.  When I talked to Mike he told me that he had suffered a heart attack because of you (I won't use the descriptive words) and had left his business "With nothing!, With Nothing!" - screaming it in my ear. 

Jim Riley                   I also had a discussion with Mike.   Our differences are long since patched up and he gives me a big hug every time he sees me.    On the contrary, he complained that even when he calls to wish you a happy birthday, you keep him on the phone with anti-family diatribes for three hours at a time.

                                    Your calls around to family members illustrate, however, your need to control events, to control lives, to control outcomes.   As a brother and a Christian, you lost all credibility with me when you stood out in the parking lot next to the barn and you said, in a fit of rage, "Jim, you have had too many children."   It was such a strange, weird, outburst, so completely disconnected from anything we were disputing, that I realized something was deeply wrong.     Within the last two years, when I asked you to pray about our troubles together you said, "my only real religion now is music."      

People ask me why we can't patch things up and I say, "well, you don't know Dennis."   

Dennis Riley:           Susan had her own tale to tell of screaming matches, threats and her ultimate capitulation.  Needless to say, I got an answer to my question - "Does Jim speak for you?"  But it begs the question:  Who does really speak for the farm?  Do you have written authorization from either of them to represent their interests?  It is more than just a casual concern.  It goes to the heart of questions raised again, and again, about enforcement.  Can you speak for all the members of the clan who may decide to plop themselves down on it?  Who, if anyone, is legally responsible for accidents, etc.?  Who will see to it that the terms and conditions of your C.U.P. are complied with?  Any collective runs into the problem of "everybody" and "nobody".  "Everybody" owns the tractor when it is running and "nobody" owns it when it is broken.  That rule is also true for liability issues:  "Everybody owns the assets but nobody is liable for them. " There isn't any doubt about who owns my farm, Devon's, our neighbor's farms, and so on. 

Jim Riley:                  For someone who has "stepped away" you sure seem very curious about who owns what in the family.      What it boils down to, for you, apparently, is your assessment of us stated at the Planning Commission meeting:   "some folks would call it a commune."     That observation was dismissed by the planning commission.    Believe me, Dennis, they know who to call about compliance, and they are not very interested in your take on our corporate structure.      

Dennis Riley:           Therefore, everyone knows who to go after if something goes wrong.  But with your farm, someone else is always responsible for things that go wrong.  Example, when the live shoot was going on behind the barn, unannounced, and unplanned I tried to find out who was in charge.  Devon had assured me that the shoot was supposed to take place at the firing range.  But Scott said he never agreed to that.  The event organizer denied responsibility and said go find Scott.  But Scott was not around.  Sometimes you say dad has to make the decision, the next time you say he can't because he's sick.  And on and on. . .  Your explanation of how this is going to work in your C.U.P. would be helpful.

Jim Riley:                  Already given.     The farm is owned by an LLC.   It will be leased long term to a family owned corporation.   Corporations have CEOs and managers.     It's not very difficult to comprehend.    The example, I note you list above, is a commentary on your own son's failed partnership, but the critique you level at us could be leveled at any family business--including your own.    Is Sharon in charge over there?     Are you?       Can Tim make a decision?     

Dennis Riley:           Summary:    Every story has two sides.  If this duel does nothing else it is getting out both of them.  Let the readers decide after they have heard them both.  But in the process,  can we agree that we may have different opinions or recollections of past events?  I will refrain from calling you a liar and I expect the same from you.  Neither one of us has an exclusive right to speak for the entire clan, nor to publish our dirty linen for all the world to see.  I respect your decision to give me equal time on these issues and hope that  we can get closure on them, as they say nowadays.  In the future, when we have  issues that we want to air, we might consider a joint press release.  I understand that an Oak Glen Community Plan meeting (at least the committee)  is being considered.  Perhaps these issues we have dueled over recently will be discussed, perhaps not.