PDA

View Full Version : IMPORTANT: Sykes and Gary Gorski


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

hoffmang
05-14-2009, 7:59 PM
All,

In researching the Sykes case, we ran across two CCW cases from Gary Gorski entitled Mehl v. Blanas, 03-CV-2682-MCE-KJM and Rothery v. Blanas, 08-CV-2064-JAM-KJM. You can read the 80 page complaint alleging a RICO conspiracy in Rothery (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/gorski2amended.pdf) here. Rothery remains in the Eastern District at the District Court level.

Mehl is a carry case with two plaintiffs. One was one of the plaintiffs from Silveira (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0115098p.pdf#search=%22ninth%20circuit%20%22second %20amendment%22%22). The other is a former FBI agent who was discharged apparently for stress and mental disorders from the FBI who took his automobile and firearm away.

Mehl is in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal from this loss (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/gorski1_dct.pdf) in front of Judge Morrison England, Jr. who we also have in Sykes. The Court of Appeals will hear the case on June 11. Mehl is a serious risk that I will elaborate upon below.

Due to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure we had to give notice to the Eastern District that Sykes might be related to Mehl and Rothery and this (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/notice_related_case.pdf) was Alan Gura's filing.

Due to the potential for Mehl to be detrimental to everyone's right to carry in the Ninth Circuit, Don Kilmer, Alan Gura, and I made an attempt to reach out to Gary Gorski and see if we could come to an agreement to let Sykes move forward without facing the risks of Mehl in the Court of Appeals. Our efforts elicited this email from Gary Gorski (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/Sykes-Gura-NRA-interfering-once-again-with-Second-Amendment-litigation.pdf) to me. The email was blind copied to a long list of people which was attested to by the number of replies it received. I believe the email speaks for itself and should be read in its entirety. Suffice it to say that Mr. Gorski's arguments are to be taken with a strong grain of salt since his handle on basic facts is not strong.

After the Judge in Sykes denied our motion of related case (which is what everyone would prefer), Mr. Gorski filed this (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/ObjectionToRelatedCaseSykes1Filed.pdf) and amongst other things, incorrectly asked for sanctions against Alan Gura. Gorski's filing was moot as Judge England had already ruled on the motion Gorski opposed after his ruling.

We will not know what three judge panel Mehl will have until 10 days before argument on June 11. If the case gets the wrong panel, that panel can rule conclusively that there is no right to carry in California and could conflict with the Nordyke panel to cause Incorporation in California to go en banc with Mr. Gorski as counsel for the Second Amendment in that en banc appeal. This would be a worse actual outcome from Silveira as it could actually destroy the gains we've made so far. Further, depending on timing and the exact ruling Mr. Gorski is given by the appeals panel, Sykes could be mooted.

I post this as I want to make sure this community understands that we are faced with a systemic risk to the advancement of the Second Amendment in California. All is not lost as the final outcome of Mehl may very well be a reverse and remand, which will allow the Sykes case to go forward. However, this is why you often hear a lot of us ask people to not move forward with litigation prematurely or without using the seasoned firearms counsel in the state.

-Gene

Edited to add: You can find the attachments to the email above here: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/

Matt C
05-14-2009, 8:06 PM
He seems a little confused about who litigated Nordyke, among many other things...

Librarian
05-14-2009, 8:08 PM
And professionalism! My, what cogent argument and adherence to the niceties!

Kestryll
05-14-2009, 8:08 PM
What an arrogant JACKWAD!!!

Are you sure he's not being financed by the Brady Campaign?

His ego is going to destroy all we've done and screw us all.
What a great 'friend and ally'... :rolleyes:

FreshTapCoke
05-14-2009, 8:18 PM
Is there anything we can do?

bussda
05-14-2009, 8:20 PM
Solid body waste! :banghead:

DDT
05-14-2009, 8:29 PM
Very entertaining. Sure wish the stakes weren't so high with Gorski behind the table.

RomanDad
05-14-2009, 8:29 PM
Regardless of which case is first, none of this is good for the common cause....


Pull it together.

anthonyca
05-14-2009, 8:32 PM
Gene,

Thank you for things like this. Your energy amazes me.

rob
05-14-2009, 8:33 PM
...so the guy that helped screw california in silveira is now attempting to 'undercut' the two attorneys that have made the sykes case possible?

Any chance we can get him to drop his case and take up the right to keep and bear peacock feathers instead?

jb7706
05-14-2009, 8:38 PM
Wow...just wow.

socal2310
05-14-2009, 8:39 PM
God, please change Gorski's heart. If not that, please strike him dead. In Christ's name...

Ryan

FS00008
05-14-2009, 8:39 PM
How can he still have a license...

aplinker
05-14-2009, 8:47 PM
It's a shame that there's always some fraction of a movement who are off their rocker.

You should also warn people that email is NSFW ;)


**--> An interesting Chronicle article on Gorski.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/23/MN210896.DTL&hw=gorski&sn=001&sc=1000


.

FS00008
05-14-2009, 8:52 PM
Would it be possible to file a suit against him on behalf of all pro-2A supporters in the state of California? Maybe try to get his license to practice revoked?!

domokun
05-14-2009, 8:56 PM
Wow that letter is so awesomely UNPROFESSIONAL! :mad:

Nodda Duma
05-14-2009, 9:00 PM
So are you going to sit down with him over a pint per his offer?

-Jason

ChuckBooty
05-14-2009, 9:00 PM
I wonder if some kind of collective complaint to the California Bar would slow his case down. Thoughts?

BobB35
05-14-2009, 9:03 PM
What is the grounds for the Mehl appeal?

Didn't the court just say that the Plaintiffs have no standing, therefore there is no case? Couldn't the appeals court say the same thing and dismiss?

Missing something here I think.

BTW, this guy is a tool that needs to go away. There is a study that show incompetent people are incapable of recognizing it in themselves and/or others. This guy is so incompetent and he doesn't even see it.....

Can't the case be vacated or something???

hoffmang
05-14-2009, 9:04 PM
What is the grounds for the Mehl appeal?

Didn't the court just say that the Plaintiffs have no standing, therefore there is no case? Couldn't the appeals court say the same thing and dismiss?

Missing something here I think.


It is quite possible that the court of appeals could just affirm the dismissal. However, you aren't missing something.

-Gene

gotgunz
05-14-2009, 9:06 PM
Regardless of your opinion at least he as a pair and isn't afraid to speak what is on his mind with colorful detail, even if he is wrong.

nobody_special
05-14-2009, 9:08 PM
Oh. My. God.

Californio
05-14-2009, 9:09 PM
I guess the Army and Rugby failed to teach him anything about teamwork.

Egomaniacs like him do much more harm than good to everything they touch.

sgtlmj
05-14-2009, 9:10 PM
Wow...just wow.

This-to-the-tenth-power. Seriously. :nuts:

383green
05-14-2009, 9:10 PM
I think that Mr. Gorski should take some of the medicine that he offered to Mr. Gura.

sorensen440
05-14-2009, 9:13 PM
What pissed the guy off so much?

hoffmang
05-14-2009, 9:17 PM
What pissed the guy off so much?

As far as I can tell, this document (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/notice_related_case.pdf) was the only thing upon which he has a rational basis to react. The email came to my inbox before Don, Alan, or I had so much as spoken to him or emailed him.

-Gene

amurphy
05-14-2009, 9:17 PM
Wow.... This guy needs to calm down and learn how to type out a professional email....

How is he still in practice ANYWHERE!

I feel very sad...

CALI-gula
05-14-2009, 9:18 PM
Lacks a good deal of loquaciousness for an attorney, does he not? Double-negatives? Expletives? :rolleyes:

.

Centurion_D
05-14-2009, 9:19 PM
Wait a minute. Do I understand correctly that this could have a detrimental effect on incorporation? Is that right? Sorry guys but I'm not a lawyer. What effect will this have on our efforts of getting rid of the AW ban and handgun safety list?

sorensen440
05-14-2009, 9:19 PM
As far as I can tell, this document (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/notice_related_case.pdf) was the only thing upon which he has a rational basis to react. The email came to my inbox before Don, Alan, or I had so much as spoken to him or emailed him.

-Gene
What a punk

Sounds like he is just a hack

CALI-gula
05-14-2009, 9:21 PM
Regardless of your opinion at least he as a pair and isn't afraid to speak what is on his mind with colorful detail, even if he is wrong.

Actually, he is not speaking his mind. He is letting emotion and immaturity get in the way. It's clear he is incapable of conveying a thought with focused effectiveness.

.

CSDGuy
05-14-2009, 9:27 PM
Wait a minute. Do I understand correctly that this could have a detrimental effect on incorporation? Is that right? Sorry guys but I'm not a lawyer.
Nordyke is the incorporation case. Sykes is a Carry Case. They're different cases. Gorksi's cases could have a negative impact on what the Sykes case is trying to do. At least that's how I understand it.

BobB35
05-14-2009, 9:29 PM
What I love about the email is that Gooberski calls the attorney (Gura) who argued before the Supreme court of the US the Heller case (and won) an absolute idiot and f*** up - does he even know who Gura is?.....my original statement stands, this guy is a tool

sgtlmj
05-14-2009, 9:34 PM
What did Alan say about that email?

domokun
05-14-2009, 9:34 PM
Wait a minute. Do I understand correctly that this could have a detrimental effect on incorporation? Is that right? Sorry guys but I'm not a lawyer. What effect will this have on our efforts of getting rid of the AW ban and handgun safety list?

Nordyke is the incorporation case. Sykes is a Carry Case. They're different cases. Gorksi's cases could have a negative impact on what the Sykes case is trying to do. At least that's how I understand it.

If Gorski's case results in an en-banc appeals hearing at the 9th circuit, the hearing could possibly negatively impact the Nordyke ruling and CCW in CA. As far as the effects on the AW ban and the Handgun roster, it could effectively render everyone's effort moot if Gorski doesn't get the job done right.

jdberger
05-14-2009, 9:35 PM
Well. That was an exceedingly professional letter...

It appears that he's got a little jealousy issue.

That's unfortunate.

383green
05-14-2009, 9:36 PM
How is he still in practice ANYWHERE!

Look at how long it took for Jack Thompson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)) to get disbarred, even after the kinds of stuff he included in court filings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)#Filings).

elenius
05-14-2009, 9:41 PM
What about Gorski's claims about standing with regard to the Sykes appellants?

dfletcher
05-14-2009, 9:41 PM
Definitely a "member" of the bar ....

CALI-gula
05-14-2009, 9:42 PM
Well. That was an exceedingly professional letter...

It appears that he's got a little jealousy issue.

That's unfortunate.


Penal envy?

.

jdberger
05-14-2009, 9:43 PM
As far as I can tell, this document (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/notice_related_case.pdf) was the only thing upon which he has a rational basis to react. The email came to my inbox before Don, Alan, or I had so much as spoken to him or emailed him.

-Gene

Sorry, but "rational" is pushing it.

Even if - why did he email Gene? He's not on the header. Who would have "asked him to contact" you?

jdberger
05-14-2009, 9:45 PM
Penal envy?

.

Well played, Sir.... :thumbsup:

CSDGuy
05-14-2009, 9:45 PM
What about Gorski's claims about standing with regard to the Sykes appellants?
He could have looked at his own clients for the Mehl case... At least in Sykes, one of the plaintiffs actually submitted a completed application and doesn't have mental issues...

hoffmang
05-14-2009, 9:50 PM
What about Gorski's claims about standing with regard to the Sykes appellants?
There is no basis to his claims.
Even if - why did he email Gene? He's not on the header. Who would have "asked him to contact" you?

I had asked someone who knew him to introduce us so that I was not calling or emailing him out of the blue.

-Gene

trashman
05-14-2009, 9:58 PM
Wow. I've seen many a Pyrrhic victory, but this guy is looking to perfect the Pyrrhic defeat.

He's like a short, angry carnival barker with a J.D.

--Neill

383green
05-14-2009, 10:14 PM
One wonders whether his clients would be interested in seeing what he has to say about the attorney who brought us Heller.

st.clouds
05-14-2009, 10:16 PM
Researched a bit about Silveira sounds like Gorski has had a bit of history...

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200309230925.asp

:( This guy is a fool and a dangerous one at that.

DDT
05-14-2009, 10:16 PM
The Thompson disbarment is interesting, all those nutty filings were not enough to get him disbarred but he was finally tripped up by:

"The action was the result of separate grievances filed by people claiming that Thompson made defamatory, false statements and attempted to humiliate, embarrass, harass or intimidate them."

If only Gorski were making defamatory and false statements or attempting to humiliate or embarrass them. Then if he would just harass and intimidate them he'd have the trifecta. hmmmm...... Would a call for someone to "Suck My D!ck" be considered humiliating or embarrassing? Would accusing someone of being a professional hack as it relates to a case he didn't even try be defamatory and false? I'll leave intimidation to your imagination.

383green
05-14-2009, 10:24 PM
I'll leave intimidation to your imagination.

Well, he did threaten to ruin Mr. Gura's evening by showing up at the same pub... :whistling:

FS00008
05-14-2009, 10:30 PM
That he did...

I bet we have a solid case based upon this e-mail and past actions on Gorski's part to file multiple complaints with the bar...

What do the legal eagles think?

Hopi
05-14-2009, 10:30 PM
Kind of sounds like Gorski is challenging Gura to a duel.


I'm sure I don't have to say it, but I really wish his name would stop pooping all over our progress. He needs to go on a loooooong road trip.

domokun
05-14-2009, 10:36 PM
Kind of sounds like Gorski is challenging Gura to a duel.

I concur! It sounds like he's out demanding satisfaction! :chris:

http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-fight-a-duel-3

Stubby
05-14-2009, 10:37 PM
I am sitting here at my computer so completely shocked at the unprofessional amateur attitude Gorski has.

Maybe it is just best I take a big breath and go to bed before I really say what I feel:mad:

Roadrunner
05-14-2009, 10:44 PM
Professionalism isn't exactly Gorski's strong suit, is it.

Gray Peterson
05-14-2009, 10:48 PM
What about Gorski's claims about standing with regard to the Sykes appellants?

He believes that one must apply and get denied a license with a certain period of time. Except for USDCA For the DC Circuit (which the Navegar and Seegars case messed up for), doing futile acts is not required to get standing, merely an interest in getting a license. Some people, as a bit of a preventative measure, try to apply or apply and get denied in order to automatically get a legal injury to gain standing so that situation isn't brought up with standing (great example would be the Goycke v. Toomer case in Georgia over non-resident licenses). Better to get that tossed aside. It's not strictly necessary outside of DC Circuit.

In a nutshell, he's wrong.

tophatjones
05-14-2009, 11:02 PM
Gorski sounds like the type of guy who'd get his whole squad killed because he wanted to perform "heroic deeds in time of war". People like him are how the word "frag" was invented.

What can we do, do we just sit back and leave it up to chance whether he ruins it for us?

oaklander
05-14-2009, 11:02 PM
Just another example of my theory about California Gun Politics/Law:

Basically, you have "team players" like the NRA, CGF, and CRPA. The "team players" get stuff done because they work together and have a strategy. They try not to let their ego get in front of their work.

Then, on the other hand, you have the "vocal idiots." These are the people who are driven by ego, picture themselves as crusaders, file poorly thought out cases, and thus screw things up for the rest of us.

All it takes is ONE attorney with more balls than brains to screw things up for the entire friggen state.

Just disgusting.

Gray Peterson
05-14-2009, 11:18 PM
It is my opinion from reading Gorski's Mehl/Tau case, reading the Rothery/Hickman case, this sort of thing seems like "throwing spaghetti on the wall" litigating that has no place in Second Amendment litigation.

The very rude comments towards Gura (assuming he's part of the NRA) is a severe lack of knowledge on his part, and that to me indicates that he's off in his own little world.

Even worse is the fact that he kept things so quiet that no one would file even an amicus brief. I guess he knew that some groups would try to amicus that this is a bad case. He's clearly under the assumption that he's the gods gift to the RKBA.

If he gets the wrong panel, this could set things back by years for us here, if we could ever recover. This is as clear an indication that bad kinds of litigation can actually indirectly cause death. To the hundreds of Californians each year who are murdered in cold blood who may have had a CCW if they could get it, to thousands and even tens of thousands of rapes, gay bashings, and other forms of anti-social violent behavior towards innocent people every year, their blood will be on his hands.

Many of the folks here have family here. Children, both adult and youngster, brothers, sisters, spouses, partners, people that they love and care for. A couple of extra years under the current practices increases the chances of something bad happening to them.

If you want to voice your displeasure at Mr. Gorski unnecessarily endangering the lives of your family and friends with crappy "spaghetti on the wall" litigation and jealous disposition at people who actually DID make it to the Supreme Court (which he didn't), feel free to email your comments to usrugby@pacbell.net.

FS00008
05-14-2009, 11:22 PM
I don't think that will do anything... he will just respond to us in a similar manner to the way in which he was speaking towards Mr. Gura. Seriously, what can we do to help to get rid of Gorski's menace!?

DDT
05-14-2009, 11:23 PM
All it takes is ONE attorney with more balls than brains

I will have to say that Mr. Gorski's email should suffice as prima facie evidence of this spot on this continuum.

7x57
05-14-2009, 11:27 PM
Look at how long it took for Jack Thompson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)) to get disbarred, even after the kinds of stuff he included in court filings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)#Filings).

I'm particularly enchanted with the idea of filing a motion before the Florida Supreme Court with cartoon squirrel and monkey pictures.

7x57

Gray Peterson
05-14-2009, 11:28 PM
Gorski sounds like the type of guy who'd get his whole squad killed because he wanted to perform "heroic deeds in time of war". People like him are how the word "frag" was invented.

What can we do, do we just sit back and leave it up to chance whether he ruins it for us?

Voice your displeasure with him directly. His contact information is in the .pdf file that Gene posted, including his email address and his office phone number. Not sure if it will be in any way effective, but I think a few thousand emails and voicemail messages from the angry gun owners on this site plus others (if you can spread the word to other sites) will at least very LOUDLY make it clear to him that he's in the wrong. Whether or not he'll listen is a different story, but it gives us something to focus on since none of us can at the moment do anything to the case.

bwiese
05-14-2009, 11:30 PM
I'm sure there must be many others, aside from me, who noticed that, when reading material Gorsky has written, there's an atrocious amount of misspellings and poor grammar. (In fact, in the Gorski blast letter Gene quoted, he spells Robert Levy's last name as "Levi".)

I also note that - at least in the copies I've seen on the web - the near-disastrous Silviera was equally poorly written by Gorski.

When an attorney can't even manage grade-school spellling nor is smart enough to use a spelling checker on material that'd supposedly evolve into a major case, that shows a clear lack of judgement - and IQ.

Here's what Dave Kopel wrote about Gorski's previous case, Silviera v. Lockyer:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200309230925.asp

I believe Gorski even admitted the case was formulated after an afternoon of rugby and beer.

Please, Gary, stick to your rugby and beer; you might be qualified in those realms.

Gray Peterson
05-14-2009, 11:30 PM
I don't think that will do anything... he will just respond to us in a similar manner to the way in which he was speaking towards Mr. Gura. Seriously, what can we do to help to get rid of Gorski's menace!?

1 person or 10 is easily dismissed.

Hundreds, maybe even thousands? Not so easily dismissed.

Everyone should ask him why he's willing to put in danger the lives of ourselves and our families while we live or visit in California. I'd really like to know his response, or if he'd respond other than a "I know I'm right, and the judges will know I'm right, because this case is just that good", when it isn't.

bulgron
05-14-2009, 11:31 PM
Crap. I was afraid Gorski would pop up and screw things up for us. Silveira was his gift to the gun owners of California, and is the reason why we have to screw around with BBs. Now he's trying to do the same thing to us on carry rights.

I have a very bad feeling about this.

jdberger
05-14-2009, 11:41 PM
Just another example of my theory about California Gun Politics/Law:

Basically, you have "team players" like the NRA, CGF, and CRPA. The "team players" get stuff done because they work together and have a strategy. They try not to let their ego get in front of their work.

[snip]

Nice to see that last orgainization back in there! ;)

7x57
05-14-2009, 11:43 PM
this (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/notice_related_case.pdf) was Alan Gura's filing.



Plaintiffs are confident that their presentation of the core constitutional issues in this action will be efficient and coherent


Now that's an eloquent insult-by-inference if I've ever read one. The judge must have gotten a chuckle out of it.

Looks like Gorski got it too, but didn't find it funny.

7x57

Dr Rockso
05-14-2009, 11:46 PM
That was the craziest email I've ever read. Gork belongs in a nut house...

By the way, Gork's email implies that Gura and Levy are on bad terms. Is that true or just more delusional ramblings?

inmyownsummerami
05-14-2009, 11:50 PM
Dude's fricken clown shoes.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 12:05 AM
OK. I'm about to step in and defend Gorski. Hear me out, OK?

First, I do NOT support the tone he took with the letter Gene cites. It was over the top. However, it was to a small PRIVATE group and didn't turn into a public squabble until Gene posted here.

Look at the date of Gorski's missive: May 12th. Now look at the date of this PUBLIC filing Gura did that honked Gorski off to this degree:

Filed 5/5/2009, Eastern District Federal Court

COME NOW the Plaintiffs [you know their names already] and pursuant to
Local Rule 83-123 provide notice that this action may be related to:

Rothery v. Blanas, 08-CV-2064-JAM-KJM
Mehl v. Blanas, 03-CV-2682-MCE-KJM

The previously-filed cases contain numerous allegations of which
Plaintiffs have no knowledge and which, regardless of their merit,
appear wholly unrelated to the instant case.

However, to the extent the earlier cases can be construed1 as
challenging the constitutionality of denying gun carry permits for
lack of “moral character” and “good cause,” the cases are related.

It would be detrimental to the public interest to attempt answering
the important constitutional question raised by this case within the
context of the earlier-filed cases, which do not present the issue in
a coherent fashion. Moreover, Plaintiffs note that a Rule 12 motion
filed by Defendants in Rothery has gone unopposed and thus may be
treated by the Court as conceded.

Rule 83-123 contemplates the relation of cases where doing so “is
likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort.” Plaintiffs
are confident that their presentation of the core constitutional
issues in this action will be efficient and coherent, enabling and the
Court to render a considered decision on the merits on dispositive
motions raising only questions of law.

Signed: Alan Gura (and Kilmer's name also printed on the bottom)

Again: this was a public filing. Look at the section in green. You think that wasn't going to piss Gorski off? Folks, it was gratuitous. Gura needed to file something to the effect of "Gorski's case is different than mine", sure, but he didn't need to slap Gorski like that in public.

Then look at the section in red. It's bull. See, "failed on a rule 12" would mean (as I understand it) that Gorski filed a case, the other side filed an "answer to complaint", Gorski then failed to deal with the answer. But Gorski *did* deal with it - by filing an amended complaint. See also this minute entry by the judge in question...ah, except oops, Gene didn't include it in the list of "Gorski documents" even though I've seen it in a message from Gorski that was CCed to Gene.

The filename is "FACmootnessIssue.pdf". Put it online, Gene. Because it shows Gorski is technically correct when he criticized Gura's note in red above.

It seems to me Gorski is still bitter over how he was treated over the Silveira case. We now know in hindsight that the Silveira decision didn't hurt us, and in another post I'll talk briefly about how I think it helped. But regardless, he was seriously chewed up by some elements of the California gunnie scene. Don Kilmer was among the detractors.

So when Gorski saw that public filing as of 5/5/09 by Gura, with Kilmer's name also on the bottom, he quite predictably flipped out. Again: yes, Gorski's language is over the top.

BUT HE DID SO PRIVATELY, NOT PUBLICLY.

OK. So there's bad blood both ways, with Gura actually starting it, not Gorski.

So what's the situation with Gorski's cases?

Actually, not half bad.

There's two cases, call 'em "Gorski 1" filed in 2006 (which is going to oral arguments before a three-judge 9th Circuit panel in about a month) with two plaintiffs, Mehl and Lau.

Mehl is in good shape. Ordinary guy, does high-end security, needed CCW to protect himself off-duty from the people he pisses off on-duty. He SCORED a permit in Shasta on that basis, and then was allowed to keep it when he got to Sonoma County. He goes to Sacramento County and not only is his renewal app denied, SacSheriff stripped him of the permit earlier than he would have normally lost it due to moving.

So once he's been denied, he's told he can't reapply for a year. A year later he re-applies, they take in his initial application and then the sheriff's office blow off the procedural follow-up portion of the app in which his "good cause" gets taken down. So they manage to kill off that application without a "good cause" listed. Mehl CAN prove that he tried to apply. The defense is saying "because the app isn't complete, he doesn't have standing" but it's incomplete because of the sheriff's actions. The initial judge of course took the opportunity to screw him. But, that doesn't mean the 9th will. The good news though is that if the 9th DOES screw him on standing, not really a big deal as far as possible effects beyond Mehl is concerned.

The other plaintiff is...wow, not your average bear :). Like spy novels? You'll freakin' LOVE this dude. Start here:

http://cryptome.org/lau-v-fbi-dkt.htm

Pay particular attention to Lau's declaration found therein.

Bottom line:

FBI fires him, he sues, wins, gets official findings that he was treated horribly, even wins the right to go back to the FBI once he has his head on straight.

Oh, and all charges related to shoplifting are dropped. The guy has no convictions.

OK. So he tries for a CCW permit in Sacto.

Sac Sheriff's office clearly got word from the FBI to the effect this guy is squirrelly. But SacSheriff didn't deny him on that basis. Instead they said "you don't have good cause", even though EVERY other retired FBI agent in the county scored CCW as a matter of course.

And it gets better: as part of the boilerplate kiss-off letter on CCW, SacSheriff puts in "but you DO know you can always pack at home or place of business, right?" language - translation: we're not saying your gun rights are stripped.

So in a post-Heller/Nordyke word, Mr. Lau might actually be in good shape.

Or not. I will note that I wouldn't have used this guy as a test case, although I do personally believe Mr. Lau is literally a hero who risked his life for this nation.

OK. So that's the plaintiffs. What else is going on with "Gorski 1"?

Gorski managed to compile extensive data on the CCW issuance malpractices of SacCounty, better than anything I ever got. Gorski learned that some people were scoring permits on a VERBAL application without even a background check, getting that stuff later. He has details for miles on obvious connections between cash and permits, in every imaginable variant and a few I've never even seen before.

So Gorski is using the CCW corruption data to "supercharge" the civil rights violation claim regarding CCW.

Think of it this way: right now, via Nordyke and Heller together, it looks like we're getting a right to self defense protected at around the same level as the right to seek the (lawful) employment of your choice. Which is fine. There are employment-related permits that are either strictly controlled (say, commercial drivers licenses for semi-tractors) or in some cases even limited in number (taxi and tow truck permits). However, there's a huge body of case law built up saying the handling of these permits (or other administrative situations such as building permits, zoning, etc.) cannot be handled in an "arbitrary or capricious manner".

You'll see that phrase in both the Gura and Gorski complaints, for good reason: it kicks in this huge body of case law. The difference is, Gorski is prepared to prove it, Gura isn't - Gura's gameplan calls for zero discovery. Gura is operating on pure legal theory which makes the process a lot shorter and gets "up the court food chain" faster. Fine. Gorski took the longer, slower route and by almost pure dumb luck it's paid off, letting him hit the 9th circuit right as it changed it's mind on the whole "individual right" thing.

Better yet: since the Gorski1 case was dismissed on a summary judgment, the court (including the 3 judges of the 9th) have to treat all of Gorski's allegations as correct!!! OK? Yeah, they'll have to send it back to the lower court to prove it but trust me, he'll be able to...assuming he can get at least one plaintiff certified as plausibly legit. (Also note that the trial court in Gorski1 took the word of the defense about Lau's mental hangups when in a summary judgment hearing the judge has to take the plaintiffs at their word - not the defense!)

Gorski2 is similar, except that his plaintiffs are better (no weirdness, good applications, etc.) and he's going even further with the "SacSheriff have been bad boys" thing: he's claiming RICO violations.

The resulting pleading looks messy as hell but guys, read it:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/gorski2amended.pdf

Don't just skim, READ. And be advised: Gorski can prove these claims.

Upshot: in both Gorski1 and Gorski2, the cases aren't just saying "people's rights have been stripped". That would be like, say, unconstitutional limitation of a business permit or something. Rather, Gorski is acting like this is similar to taxi permits or tow truck permits being sold under the table for cash corruption - which has happened and been slapped down royally by various courts.

This gameplan of Gorski's takes longer, but it's more sure-fire in the long run.

Pre-Nordyke/Heller, Gorski's gameplan was dead-nuts necessary. Post-Nordyke/Heller, it still helps supercharge the equal protection portion of the claims without doing any harm except slowing things down some.

Hating on Gorski over the legal situation is not right, except perhaps criticism of the plaintiff(s?) in Gorski1. And standing failures aren't likely to screw anything else up.

Dr Rockso
05-15-2009, 12:12 AM
See also this minute entry by the judge in question...ah, except oops, Gene didn't include it in the list of "Gorski documents" even though I've seen it in a message from Gorski that was CCed to Gene.

The filename is "FACmootnessIssue.pdf". Put it online, Gene. Because it shows Gorski is technically correct when he criticized Gura's note in red above.
Looks like that one is online
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/FACmootnessIssue.pdf

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 12:23 AM
Let me add something about Silveira.

Gorski "flushed the grabbers out from under cover".

What happened was, ALL California gun control was founded on two principles:

* "Miller Mutilations", turning US v. Miller into support for a collective right in the lower courts.

* US v. Cruikshank in which states were allowed by SCOTUS to violate the 2A (AND at the same time the 1A (right to peaceful assembly) and 15A (voting rights) in 1876.

Read Hickman v. Block and Fresno Rifle and you'll see the Cruikshank connection clearly. In some instances US v. Presser is cited but that just refers back to Cruikshank for support.

Gorski in Silveira managed to convince the 9th Circuit (and Judge Reinhardt in particular) that the Cruikshank case was stone-cold evil and was written in support of the KKK. Which is the bare-bones truth.

That caused Reinhardt to try and create a whole new model for gun-grabbing that avoids Cruikshank. The Reinhardt model basically said that the 2A couldn't mean individual rights because there weren't enough guns around per Michael A. Bellesiles and "Arming America" - plus the demented ravings of Reinhardt's wife, director of the SoCal chapter of the ACLU.

Two weeks after the Silveira decision was reached, "Arming America" was finally, convulsively put to death as credible scholarship - so a revised Silveira decision stripped out all references to Lyin' Mike. But that just left weird holes and preserved a bunch of "scholarship" that was all dependent on the "breakthrough research" of Arming America.

A later 9th Circuit three-judge panel then castigated Reinhardt, saying we should just stick with Hickman and Fresno Rifle as models for gun-grabbing.

So by the time this crap all hit the Nine Robes In DC, it wasn't just that circuits were in conflict over the 2nd Amendment. The 9th Circus couldn't even agree with itself!!!

And the obvious truth that Gorski first spoke, that the Cruikshank decision was a friggin' demonspawn, shows up in Heller: one of the footnotes discusses how Cruikshank also torched the 1st Amendment, and better yet Justice Scalia cites with approval the book "The Day Freedom Died" by Charles Lane - in which "the day" in question is the day the Cruikshank decision was handed down. This is quite possibly the nastiest insult a current panel of justices ever handed out to a former panel, in public, EVER.

And it happened over an issue Gorski brought to a three-judge circuit panel first.

Still think Gorski screwed us over in Silveira?

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 12:24 AM
Dr. Rockso: THANK YOU, my apologies all (and Gene!) - I missed that one.

The point still stands: Gura's public slam of Gorski on the "rule 12" issue wasn't warranted.

DDT
05-15-2009, 12:32 AM
So you are saying that telling someone to suck your d!ck is an acceptable platitude in a private email bcc'd to numerous people (by Gene's telling) of course we don't know how small a circle Mr. Gorski chose to add on the bcc line so you are clearly incorrect (or at least without standing to state) that the email asking another member of the bar to perform fellatio on Mr. Gorski was sent to a small group.

Also, since Mr. Gorski chose to append bcc's to the invitation you are also incorrect in stating that Gene is the one who "spilled the beans" (or genes, to use a homophonic euphemism.) By adding unnamed and an unknown number of bcc's Mr. Gorski chose to make the letter available to a wider distribution list than he insinuated.

bulgron
05-15-2009, 12:36 AM
Dr. Rockso: THANK YOU, my apologies all (and Gene!) - I missed that one.

The point still stands: Gura's public slam of Gorski on the "rule 12" issue wasn't warranted.

Neither is Gorsky's tone in that email he sent.

If he loses Mehl and we get screwed on carry rights in this state, there's going to be a whole lot of people truly pissed off at him. People were mad enough after Silveira. Gorsky would do well to tone down the unprofessional attitude, and instead spend some time figuring out how to run a frackin' spell checker.

Kestryll
05-15-2009, 12:39 AM
Sorry Jim, Gorski is nothing more then a foul mouthed idiot who is going to screw us all so deep in to the ground it will take years to undo his damage.
If we even can.

All for the sake of ego and arrogance.

If he screws this up and costs us Incorporation and CCW the blood of EVERY person unable to defend themselves BY LAW will be on his hands.

N6ATF
05-15-2009, 12:41 AM
If he loses Mehl and we get screwed on carry rights in this state, there's going to be a whole lot of people truly pissed off at him. Even from beyond their untimely fresh graves. Brains!

Fixed.

Dr Rockso
05-15-2009, 12:44 AM
Still think Gorski screwed us over in Silveira?
Yes (http://calnra.com/michel/), I (http://calnra.com/kates/) do. (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200309230925.asp)

The biggest problem that I have with him is that he's trying to go it alone. This is not the kind of fight that some lone attorney working out of his home office and making copies at the local Kinkos is going to win. He would appear to be a stunning example of rule #1 of the laws of teamwork:
1. The Law of Significance
People try to achieve great things by themselves mainly because of
the size of their ego, their level of insecurity, or simple naiveté
and temperament. One is too small a number to achieve greatness.

Gray Peterson
05-15-2009, 12:46 AM
Better yet: since the Gorski1 case was dismissed on a summary judgment, the court (including the 3 judges of the 9th) have to treat all of Gorski's allegations as correct!!! OK? Yeah, they'll have to send it back to the lower court to prove it but trust me, he'll be able to...assuming he can get at least one plaintiff certified as plausibly legit. (Also note that the trial court in Gorski1 took the word of the defense about Lau's mental hangups when in a summary judgment hearing the judge has to take the plaintiffs at their word - not the defense!)

You're assuming that every 9th Circuit judge will actually do so. Regardless of any sort of rule that "requires them to take it for fact", they can still in their own minds not take it for fact, especially if they, how shall I put it, "violently disagree" with the Nordyke determination that the 2A is incorporated. Unlike Gorski, Gura's presence in front of the panel is generally a clue to the judges (I take this opinion due to my observances of the Heller case while it was in front of SCOTUS) that if they mess around and try to pull a stupid, 9th DCA is only a stepping stone to SCOTUS, and better to write an intellectually honest ruling so that they don't get overturned by SCOTUS again.

Gorski, on the other hand, is the kind of litigator both the NAACP (racial civil rights litigation) and Lambda Legal (gay rights litigation) warn against, the type of folk who filed rambling and incoherent cases against racial segregation laws and things like Defense of Marriage acts which when they lose, NAACP and Lambda (which Lambda still does, btw) have to spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean up after the mess, and in a lot of cases, can't ever reverse a Court of Appeals ruling since En-Banc and SCOTUS aren't required to take their cases. NAACP got lucky. Lambda has not gotten that lucky....yet.

Unless we have a semi-friendly or friendly panel, they'll likely rule against him and the positions he takes because they just don't like him and the way he litigates. Or they may just take him for a fool and use his incoherent nature as a weapon to attack our civil liberties and "right the wrong Nordyke brought".



Hating on Gorski over the legal situation is not right, except perhaps criticism of the plaintiff(s?) in Gorski1. And standing failures aren't likely to screw anything else up.

Except if he gets of a panel of judges who will take this great opportunity to squash right to bear entirely throughout the entire 9th Circuit, which will have an effect in California, Hawaii, and to a lesser extent, Oregon and Washington (with the problems and issues we're having up in Seattle with Mayor Nickels).

Gorski essentially told Gura to perform a sex act on him because he was pissed off and wanted to generally humiliate Gura. Gorski also BCC'd that particular email to a LOT of people, not just Gene, but also to SAF up here in Bellevue as well.

Jim, you're defending a guy who from my perspective doesn't have a grip on reality. He didn't differentiate between Gura and the NRA (even though of all the people out there, Gura got repeatedly screwed by the NRA a few years ago with Seegars and has more reason to be upset at them in particular). He also filed a completely time barred motion (as the judge already ruled on the motion to relate 3 hours before), demanding sanctions on Gura, for a filing that he was required to do under the FRCP. Again, Gorski filed 3 hours too late, after the judge had ruled. It's not going anywhere.

I also make one other point: Both Gorski and TBJ (Team Billy Jack) have filed these sort of equal protection suits. If you compare the equal protection lawsuits that TBJ has filed versus what Gorski has filed, TBJ's complaints are a lot more concise, and from my research, a lot more effective in getting the permitting process equalized. I may not neccesarily agree with Billy Jack's methods, or his manners towards others, but his lawyers on this subject are the real gems.

What's Gorski busy doing? Filing time-barred motions and telling another member of the California bar to perform a sex act on him. I'm not sure if something like this violates the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, but this sort of erratic behavior should cause them to take notice.

Gorski's understanding of the Nordyke cases, the Parker/Heller cases, and so on, has been fundamentally flawed.

Also, in his email, he berated Kilmer for bringing the claim about the 2nd amendment to the federal courts. If he knew anything about the history of Nordyke, he would have realized that Kilmer at the district court level didn't introduce a 2nd amendment argument, however the judge introduced the 2nd amendment issue sua sponte. Once the judge introduces that issue, Kilmer as a lawyer cannot merely concede or argue away that issue, or he would not be working in the best interests of his clients (the Nordykes).

torsf
05-15-2009, 6:40 AM
Sorry Jim, Gorski is nothing more then a foul mouthed idiot who is going to screw us all so deep in to the ground it will take years to undo his damage.
If we even can.

All for the sake of ego and arrogance.

If he screws this up and costs us Incorporation and CCW the blood of EVERY person unable to defend themselves BY LAW will be on his hands.

So, if he does screw up - will the Chicago case + SCOTUS ruling on incorporation be our only hope of undoing his damage?

Bruce
05-15-2009, 6:49 AM
"Prof. Levi"? WTF is Prof. Levi? :confused:

Roadrunner
05-15-2009, 7:13 AM
Maybe everyone should send a letter and ask Mr Gorski to stop helping.

bulgron
05-15-2009, 7:36 AM
Maybe everyone should send a letter and ask Mr Gorski to stop helping.

He won't listen. His ego is running way out ahead of his abilities.

Ever since I discovered the existence of "lone gun" attorneys like Gorski I've been terrified that one would pop up and screw us over. And to think we had all this lovely momentum on our side.

But no, wouldn't you know it, Gorski rides to the rescue again. Why can't guys like that stick to divorce settlements and leave the constitutional lawyering to people who know what they're doing? Oh, that's right, he's utterly convinced that he knows what he's doing.

Here's a clue, dude: if you can't even get your spelling right, much less write a coherent sentence, you aren't going to win at the appellate court level. The court is hostile to your case. You NEED to get some help and lots of it if you hope to be successful.

Oh, but what's the use? His ego is bigger than the whole god damn state. Guys like Gorksi are at least half the reason why California's laws are as screwed up as they are.

Well, maybe the dice will roll in our favor and we'll get a friendly panel out of the 9th.

Fat chance.

CCWFacts
05-15-2009, 7:46 AM
For a long time I've considered evil self-indulgent cranks like Gorski to be the biggest threat. This really sucks. Unfortunately there is no way to reach people like that; they are on auto-pilot. I hope the NRA will do whatever is possible to stop him from this madness.

Mute
05-15-2009, 8:19 AM
That SOB is ticked not because he got called out in public but because he got called out on the truth. His ego is writing checks his body (and legal skill) can't cash. He's a bigger enemy to CA's gunowners than anyone from Brady.

Legasat
05-15-2009, 8:24 AM
I can't say that I follow everything that is going on, but it IS interesting reading. Hope Gorski doesn't screw us.

:lurk5:

CCWFacts
05-15-2009, 8:27 AM
He's a bigger enemy to CA's gunowners than anyone from Brady.

I've been saying that about him for a long time, and when Nordyke came out I knew our biggest danger was some clown like him, and that's why we needed to get our cases in quickly.

I hope this works out ok somehow.

The NRA should really look for any possible avenue it can find to stop this guy. He's like the Hurricane Katrina of the 2A here in California.

I wonder if it would be possible for the NRA to reach out to his plaintiffs, and convince or induce them to drop it? Really, if it comes to making a cash payment of $100k to these plaintiffs to get them to drop their case, it would be money well-spent.

DDT
05-15-2009, 8:47 AM
First, as a member of the California gun rights movement, all the attorneys in a very real sense are working for me and my rights. If ANYONE who worked for me or with whom I worked EVER, EVEN ONCE treated another member of my staff or team the way that Mr. Gorski treated Alan Gura et. al. in this missive he would be looking for work elsewhere.

Second, after Jim's efforts to work on CCW and enter into the conversation here I really felt that we were on the same team. Unfortunately he has taken this opportunity to jump into bed with an incredibly arrogant, unskilled attorney who has done more to harm than help our cause.

Finally, By deciding to secretly extend the distribution of his missive via BCC Mr. Gorski is directly responsible for its release into the public. How dare you try and apologize for such disgusting and humiliating treatment of another human by trying to say it was supposed to be a private email. In my entire professional life I have never written anything even close to the offensive expression of such vitriol. I have also never done so in my personal life though there have been some brutally honest missives none would dare to be so humiliating nor sexually explicit.

Gray Peterson
05-15-2009, 9:01 AM
For a long time I've considered evil self-indulgent cranks like Gorski to be the biggest threat. This really sucks. Unfortunately there is no way to reach people like that; they are on auto-pilot. I hope the NRA will do whatever is possible to stop him from this madness.

You should still email him to voice your displeasure.

CCWFacts
05-15-2009, 9:10 AM
You should still email him to voice your displeasure.

He's like an animal. To quote the Onion, "you can't argue with a goat".

His plaintiffs on the other hand are not driven by ego. They're along for the ride. If we could somehow approach him and show them the error they are making, that may be the solution. If the plaintiffs don't want the case to continue, it can't continue.

wildhawker
05-15-2009, 9:13 AM
I rarely have a chance to read such an outrageous piece of correspondence. I'm afraid that contacting this man would do nothing more than inflame him further.

We must find a means by which to reach out and bring him in, or God help us in the future.

bulgron
05-15-2009, 9:14 AM
Finally, By deciding to secretly extend the distribution of his missive via BCC Mr. Gorski is directly responsible for its release into the public.

If Gorski has thought to encrypt his email, then he MIGHT have a claim to it being a private communication. But the fact of the matter is, emails that are sent over public networks without encryption are the logical equivalent of sending a post card through the US mail; anyone can and does read them.

Gorski invited public discussion of his juvenile ravings. If he didn't want the gun rights community to see the quality of his intellect, he should have sent the email via the postal service and in a sealed envelope. Or, better yet, refrain entirely from the abusive language.

Gorski may actually have a point. But whatever that point is, it got lost in the dismally poor quality of his communication style. Unfortunately, the exact same thing is probably going to happen when he gets his cases before the 9th Circuit panel. All the best evidence and brilliant arguments in the world won't save you if you have the communication skills of a 12-year-old whiny self-indulgent prat.

Gray Peterson
05-15-2009, 9:15 AM
I rarely have a chance to read such an outrageous piece of correspondence. I'm afraid that contacting this man would do nothing more than inflame him further.

So what's he really gonna do to you for emailing him?

bulgron
05-15-2009, 9:18 AM
His plaintiffs on the other hand are not driven by ego. They're along for the ride. If we could somehow approach him and show them the error they are making, that may be the solution. If the plaintiffs don't want the case to continue, it can't continue.

I believe someone needs to show them Gorski's email, as well as some of the analysis of his performance in Silveira. If they actually care about gun rights, they'll immediately decide to get as far away from the guy as is possible.

If, on the other hand, they don't actually care about advancing gun rights in the United States, then we're flat-out screwed.

donstarr
05-15-2009, 9:19 AM
I rarely have a chance to read such an outrageous piece of correspondence. I'm afraid that contacting this man would do nothing more than inflame him further.So what's he really gonna do to you for emailing him?

Probably nothing to wildhawker personally. However, my fear would be that he responds like my 6-year-old when he's in "one of his moods": no amount of logic or reason will sway him, and such attempts often serve to enhance his "I'm right! I'm right! I'm going to do it my way!" tantrum.

Gray Peterson
05-15-2009, 9:26 AM
Probably nothing to wildhawker personally. However, my fear would be that he responds like my 6-year-old when he's in "one of his moods": no amount of logic or reason will sway him, and such attempts often serve to enhance his "I'm right! I'm right! I'm going to do it my way!" tantrum.

Then have him throw his tantrum.

wildhawker
05-15-2009, 9:28 AM
So what's he really gonna do to you for emailing him?

I'm not worried about what he'd do to me directly, trust me. My point was simply that antagonizing Gorski will do little to further the outcome we all desire.

Gray Peterson
05-15-2009, 9:32 AM
I'm not worried about what he'd do to me directly, trust me. My point was simply that antagonizing Gorski will do little to further the outcome we all desire.

The man is putting the lives of ourselves and our families at risk by doing what he's doing. Since doing anything illegal is well...illegal, that leaves things like emailing him and asking him not to endanger our families.

It's an old missive: You can't score a basket unless you actually make the shot.

Edit: usrugby@pacbell.net is his email address.

donstarr
05-15-2009, 9:36 AM
Then have him throw his tantrum.

That would be fine, unless his expression of his tantrum is to go ahead with the case, no matter how many reasoned arguments against it are presented.

That is, logical and reasoned arguments that suggest he drop the current case may, for whatever reason, inflame him so much that he disavows logic and reason altogether (presuming he currently gives them any credence).

I would think that contacting his plaintiffs (presuming that's 'ethical') would be a better strategy.

hoffmang
05-15-2009, 9:43 AM
This was a private communication until I started receiving replys from an unknown number of people who were blind carbon copied.

If one wants private communications, one needs to now blind copy the world.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
05-15-2009, 9:44 AM
That would be fine, unless his expression of his tantrum is to go ahead with the case, no matter how many reasoned arguments against it are presented.

That is, logical and reasoned arguments that suggest he drop the current case may, for whatever reason, inflame him so much that he disavows logic and reason altogether (presuming he currently gives them any credence).

I would think that contacting his plaintiffs (presuming that's 'ethical') would be a better strategy.

Look at the background that Gene provided. He had attempted to make a reasoned and logical argument, but that elicited the email that we're all reading.

He's going ahead with the case anyway. It can't hurt to try.

7x57
05-15-2009, 9:46 AM
Second, after Jim's efforts to work on CCW and enter into the conversation here I really felt that we were on the same team. Unfortunately he has taken this opportunity to jump into bed with an incredibly arrogant, unskilled attorney who has done more to harm than help our cause.


I think this isn't fair to Jim. He may be defending Gorski, but he's making rational and coherent arguments. He might be dead wrong, but I think we're on the same side. Let's not turn it into a personal thing.

7x57

Gray Peterson
05-15-2009, 9:49 AM
I think this isn't fair to Jim. He may be defending Gorski, but he's making rational and coherent arguments. He might be dead wrong, but I think we're on the same side. Let's not turn it into a personal thing.

7x57

Agreed. Reasonable men can disagree as to strategy. Jim is reasonable. Gorski on the other hand.....

wildhawker
05-15-2009, 9:53 AM
I've made the same case re UOCers, and understand where you're coming from. However it makes you feel to have 'done something' with Gorski, I'm afraid that those sorts of personalities rarely acquiesce by stern talkings-to.

This man has bought in to what he's doing.

The man is putting the lives of ourselves and our families at risk by doing what he's doing. Since doing anything illegal is well...illegal, that leaves things like emailing him and asking him not to endanger our families.

It's an old missive: You can't score a basket unless you actually make the shot.

Edit: usrugby@pacbell.net is his email address.

383green
05-15-2009, 9:56 AM
If one wants private communications, one needs to now blind copy the world.

I think you meant to write not blind copy the world.

bwiese
05-15-2009, 10:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2483143#post2483143)
.


His plaintiffs on the other hand are not driven by ego. They're along for the ride. If we could somehow approach him and show them the error they are making, that may be the solution. If the plaintiffs don't want the case to continue, it can't continue

At least one the plaintiffs is somewhat 'defective' - appears the ex-FBI agent was cashiered from the agency for shoplifting.


Contrast this with the 'good people' we have for the various recent CGF cases. You need to pick "nice clean people", where the only argument centers around the gun issue(s) at hand. Any deeper 'color' on plaintiffs adds a variety of reasons the case can go sideways - we don't want another Miller.

Dirtbiker
05-15-2009, 10:06 AM
WOW, that Gary Gorski is like, (a little humor to help a bad situation)

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/harley15502002/insp_captkirk_preview.jpg

Roadrunner
05-15-2009, 10:09 AM
Well sports fans, I took the plunge and wrote Gary Gorski, and this is what I wrote:

Dear Mr Gorski:

I recently read an email from you regarding litigation to further a citizens right to carry a firearm in California. Needless to say, the letter was rude, poorly written, and inaccurate. After reading the letter and doing some research, I discovered this article http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200309230925.asp . So now I have to ask you, who's side are you on? It would appear that the people you have insulted have been more successful at furthering our fight for freedom than you. First, Alan Gura and his team were successful and beat D.C. in the Heller case, and Don Kilmer and his group brought incorporation to states in the 9th circuits district. Contrasting that with your track record, I can only conclude that your "help" will only do more harm than good. So my strong request to you sir is please stop helping. As a citizen of this state, I would like to see my rights fully restored, but if you continue on this collision course, I fear that it will be the death nail for our rights. How can that in any way help us?

Sincerely,

And this was his response:

Thank you for your email.

First, Gura argued a case that the Court accepted out of thousands it rejects, which is the luck of the lottery more than anything else. Other well briefed Second Amendment cert petitions were made well before Gura came onto the scene – and keep in mind, he did not even enter the scene until Emerson and my Silveira Case brought the issue to the legal spotlight – and just like what the NRA did with Levy, Gura is pulling that same stunt with my litigation.



He made a Notice or Related Case filing as a vehicle to damage my case, and help his. But let’s be perfectly clear, a monkey in a business suit could have done a better job than Gura by keeping his mouth shut at the Supreme Court. Gura did more harm than good, and if you want proof, here it is – just read the transcript attached, but to save you the trouble, I pulled out his most obvious blunders that no Constitutional lawyer would have ever made. The citations are to the official transcript of the oral argument which is attached.



Gura’s first stupid mistake came at 54:8, where he states that the “militia” requirement must be relied upon to “understand the amendment”. At that point, CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS had to stop Gura from falling into the first trap laid for him, by stating “So a conscientious objector who likes to hunt deer for food, you would say, has no rights under the Second Amendment. He is not going to be part of the militia. He is not going to be part of the common defense, but he still wants to bear arms. You would say that he doesn't have any rights under this amendment?” 54:16-22. Then, even after CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS tries to direct Gura from the trap he is falling prey to, he still gets into the stupid militia argument, and that is when JUSTICE SCALIA stops Gura, by stating “Which shows that maybe you're being unrealistic in thinking that the second clause is not broader than the first.” 56:15-17.



After these initial stumbles by Gura, Gura then tries to adhere to Miller (a case that went unopposed by Miller as his attorney never filed an opposition, and submitted the matter on the government’s brief = that is called ineffective assistance of counsel and is reversible error), when in fact it should have been overruled which seems to be what the Court wanted to do. See JUSTICE KENNEDY: “Well, you're being faithful to Miller. I suggest that Miller may be deficient.” 63:5-7.



But where Gura really puts his foot in his mouth is at 75:5-8, where he states: “MR. GURA: Justice Ginsburg, that would depend on the licensing law itself. We don't have a problem with the concept of licensing so long as it's done –“



It sounds to me Gura believes we should all obtain a license before we speak, or practice our religion, or assert our right to a jury trial while we’re at it. Gura uses a term of art “arbitrary and capricious manner” at 75:15, which is a rational basis test under the Equal Protection clause, and NOT a strict scrutiny test. Again, Gura has clearly demonstrated a basic ineptitude at standards of review.



Then, Gura goes off by arguing “reasonable standards” 75:23, “reasonable licensing” 76:4, and it all comes to a crescendo as follows commencing at 77:5:

“JUSTICE STEVENS: May I ask this question? Are you, in effect, reading the amendment to say that the right "shall not be unreasonably infringed" instead of "shall not be infringed"?

MR. GURA: There is that inherent aspect to every right in the Constitution.

JUSTICE STEVENS: So we can -- consistent with your view, we can simply read this: "It shall not be unreasonably infringed"?

MR. GURA: Well, yes, Your Honor, to some extent, except the word "unreasonable" is one that troubles us because we don't know what this unreasonable standard looks like.”

At this point, JUSTICE SCALIA has heard enough of Gura relegating an enumerated right to a rational basis test as compared to strict scrutiny and goes out of his way to reverse Gura’s position by re-stating Gura’s position for him: “JUSTICE SCALIA: You wouldn't put it that way. You would just say it is not being infringed if reasonable limitations are placed upon it.” 77:18-20.

In sum, if Gura is your man arguing your rights, then you deserve what he delivers. I, on the other hand, am not going to have some idiot diluting my constitutional rights because of sheer ineptitude and ignorance. I would not expect the average citizen to possess my knowledge of the legal system, and I would recommend that you study constitutional law for about 17+ years and actually conduct 75 jury trials before you attempt to even understand what is going on. Please reply – I would love to hear what you have to say now – I’m really interested in how much (or little) you actually understand what is going on. And yes, I’m human too – I make mistakes. I mixed Gura with Seegars – but I notice how my apology was not published on that issue, and it’s not like I wasted my time in following the DC fight with the NRA. If that was the ONLY fact I had transposed, which has no legal relevance – that is a mistake I can live with. I know much about related case filings, and Gura’s filings where both unnecessary and frivolous, which leads me to conclude he’s just upset that he may not get paid because someone is doing the work for free. So go ahead, and donate money to organizations who are more concerned with generating revenue to line their pockets and pay attorneys than actually winning – you would think they would help, and not try to interfere with ANY Second Amendment case. Since Mehl will be heard in June, please try to be part of the solution, and not the problem. And just an example of the disinformation out their, Plaintiff Lau was vindicated by five separate administrative bodies, and under Federal law, he can return to work as an FBI agent once he recovers from his 6.5 years of undercover work in China that caused his PTSD– maybe you should ask what was an FBI agent doing in China? The FBI threw Lau under the bus, but every agency to hear his case found in his favor. Do you think PTSD is a valid reason to deny a person a CCW? By the blogging, it would seem so – so I guess all those vets coming back from war should be barred from even owning a gun because most have PTSD.

So it appears that Gary Gorski isn't interested in incremental progress, he wants it all at once. I would also encourage everyone to write, as I was invited by him to respond back to him.

oaklander
05-15-2009, 10:22 AM
Jim, VERY bad call.

In my earlier post, I outlined the fact that there are TWO groups of people in California gun politics (1) those IN the know, and (2) the "lone swinging willies."

NRA, CGF and other legitimate gun rights organizations are working hard to get things done in California. The last thing we need is more "lone swinging willies" to screw things up.

Gorski is indefensible. That you would think that he deserve ANY defense makes me wonder about your judgment.

OK. I'm about to step in and defend Gorski. Hear me out, OK?

CCWFacts
05-15-2009, 10:29 AM
I believe someone needs to show them Gorski's email, as well as some of the analysis of his performance in Silveira. If they actually care about gun rights, they'll immediately decide to get as far away from the guy as is possible.

Someone really needs to do that. I haven't met Gary but I can imagine he does not exude an aura of competence and professionalism. I expect that Mr. Gura does. If these plaintiffs had a chance to meet the winning team, and hear their perspective, I believe there is a very good chance of getting them to back down.

If there's anything I could do to help on that I would be eager to.

Getting to the plaintiffs will be the key to stopping this train wreck, in my not-a-lawyer opinion.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 10:29 AM
It isn't Gorski that the Sacramento Sheriff's office REALLY needs to worry about.

It's Lt. Twomey (ret.) - one of their own.

Who wrote up a 64page declaration for Gorski that is the single most damning condemnation of the California CCW process EVER, period, end of discussion.

Download it here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2483465

If all Gorski ends up doing is getting this document in our hands, we'll owe him bigtime.

READ IT. The California CCW system itself literally cannot survive the revelations in this declaration. This is one reason I support Gorski (within limits, I think his tone was over the top and I didn't realize he'd BCCed so many people - GMail's web interface doesn't show BCCing very well).

The other reason I have a soft spot for Gorski is that he WAS attacked first, by Gura, in the public filing of 5/5/09.

ke6guj
05-15-2009, 10:33 AM
This is one reason I support Gorski (within limits, I think his tone was over the top and I didn't realize he'd BCCed so many people - GMail's web interface doesn't show BCCing very well).
Um, does anything show BCC'ing well? Its called "Blind Carbon Copy" for a reason.

CCWFacts
05-15-2009, 10:33 AM
Gorski is indefensible. That you would think that he deserve ANY defense makes me wonder about your judgment.

I have to leap to Jim's defense here.

Ok, I do not agree with Jim's reasoning and analysis of the situation.

But there's a big difference between Jim and Gary.

Gary is driven by an evil self-indulgent ego, a willingness to literally sacrifice hundreds of lives in order to promote himself and his delusions.

Jim's willingness to try to understand Gary is driven by open-mindedness, creativity, and a certain quirkiness.

There's a world of difference.

I don't agree with Jim about a lot of things (including on this issue) but he has done a lot for CCW in this state and his motives have always been about the greater good, never about himself. Ok, he is open-minded and creative, maybe so much so that he's too open to listening to someone like Gary. But that's a fault I can live with, because in some ways it's a positive fault. And you know, it's great to have Jim around because sometimes he does have some very creative insights, or puts things together in a way that hasn't been thought of before. I value creative ideas just for their creativity, whether they prove to have merit or not.

Gary's faults come from an inner wickedness and attachment to delusions and to self.

truthseeker
05-15-2009, 10:34 AM
I just read this whole thread and I am hoping that "we (gun owners)" don't end up screwed to the point of no return.

Also, Gorski seems to be using spell check (at least in the e-mail response) except that he is merely hitting the "change" button without looking at what word is going to be changed.

An example would be "their" when it should be "there" in the sentence:

"And just an example of the disinformation out their, Plaintiff Lau was vindicated by five separate administrative bodies, and under Federal law, he can return to work as an FBI agent once he recovers from his 6.5 years of undercover work in China that caused his PTSD– maybe you should ask what was an FBI agent doing in China?".

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 10:38 AM
Um, does anything show BCC'ing well? Its called "Blind Carbon Copy" for a reason.

Most EMail reader apps show that BCCing is going on - not WHO it's going to, but that it's happening at all.

GMail's web interface doesn't.

oaklander
05-15-2009, 10:40 AM
This will explain things for the newbies:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2drt0zt.jpg

Matt C
05-15-2009, 10:40 AM
So it appears that Gary Gorski isn't interested in incremental progress, he wants it all at once. I would also encourage everyone to write, as I was invited by him to respond back to him.

Actually those are all valid points and the same things I noticed when I first read the transcript. That does not excuse the letter though, nor the loose cannon filings.

DDT
05-15-2009, 10:41 AM
I think this isn't fair to Jim. He may be defending Gorski, but he's making rational and coherent arguments. He might be dead wrong, but I think we're on the same side. Let's not turn it into a personal thing.

Agreed. Reasonable men can disagree as to strategy. Jim is reasonable. Gorski on the other hand.....

The reason I said that is that Jim's defense of Gorski was not limited to a defense of his legal strategy but rather a defense of his behavior.
it was to a small PRIVATE group and didn't turn into a public squabble until Gene posted here.
So when Gorski saw that public filing as of 5/5/09 by Gura, with Kilmer's name also on the bottom, he quite predictably flipped out.(note that Gorski's email didn't mention Kilmer at all)
Gura actually starting it, not Gorski.


I believe that had Mr. Gorski shown the ability to explain his legal position without the vitriol and inaccuracies of the core cases in his self-proclaimed area of expertise he might have garnered a few converts and fans here despite his legal track record. There are a number of people who feel that we should be grabbing more of our rights back at a time than "The Right People" have chosen. Jim March is an excellent example of just that, he disagrees with the route Kilmer, Gura et. al. have laid out and is willing to discuss it reasonably and, I believe, he has been engaged in a respectful manner by the members here. Is that not true Jim?

All I ask is that he not try and make excuses for Gorski's behavior or try to deflect who is responsible for the insult flinging and the solicitation of plaintiffs actively involved in Sykes. I appreciate your opinions on the mitigation of damages in the wake of Silveira and the discussion of the plaintiffs and claims in Gorski's current cases. I hope you continue to discuss these issues as they effect us directly and it is good to have an alternative view.

ilbob
05-15-2009, 10:47 AM
I am not overjoyed with the idea that there is a self anointed group of "the right people" that get to control the litigation, and everyone else. Thats pretty egotistical on its own. I find it ironic that some of those "right" people were the "wrong" people not that long ago (lest we forget the NRA trying to derail Gura).

But personally, just speaking for me, I am inclined to think that a relatively simple and focused case is a much better tool for reclaiming our rights, and Gura has done some superb work in that respect.

Forgetting the strictly legal angle, he has written dozens of briefs that not only address the legal issues, but address them in ways that are succinct and to the point, and readable by the average person. In the long run, the obviousness (if that is a word) of what he is advocating comes through, even to non-believers. And that may be far more valuable long term than just winning a court case.

Most legal pleadings are gibberish to me. Even most of the pro-2A amicus briefs in the last few cases are Greek to me. Not Gura's. His ability to communicate in writing may be as valuable as his legal skills. Nobody remembers the professional orator that spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg, but few people don't recognize "Four score and ten years ago...".

DDT
05-15-2009, 10:49 AM
This is one reason I support Gorski (within limits, I think his tone was over the top and I didn't realize he'd BCCed so many people - GMail's web interface doesn't show BCCing very well).

Gene was pretty clear in his very first post in this thread that the missive was widely distributed via BCC. Did you just dismiss his claim out of hand or did you contact Mr. Gorski and ask him about his BCC list?

The other reason I have a soft spot for Gorski is that he WAS attacked first, by Gura, in the public filing of 5/5/09.

I find this difficult to believe. Gura stated his opinions on one of Gorski's cases to the best of his knowledge. Nowhere did you read a personal attack. Can we say the same for Mr. Gorski. His actions were the equivalent of shooting someone for stepping on your Nikes getting off the bus.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 10:49 AM
Jim March is an excellent example of just that, he disagrees with the route Kilmer, Gura et. al. have laid out and is willing to discuss it reasonably and, I believe, he has been engaged in a respectful manner by the members here. Is that not true Jim?

Well you're close. I am NOT disapproving of the tactics in the Gura/Kilmer suit, in that now (in the post-Heller/Nordyke era) a "pure motions case" on the legal merits might work. And because it's a faster gameplan, it's worth trying. Best of luck to 'em, although I do hope they get past standing issues via funky application status. (I suspect at least one Gura/Kilmer plaintiff will survive though, the guy originally from Shasta County...)

However, I think Gorski's approach of including details on the corruption behind the process and actually proving the corruption, have MORE merit, but it'll take longer. And in the meantime, the documents generated by that "deeper effort" may be useful elsewhere - the Twomey declaration is a bombshell usable in OC and should be placed on the desks of the OC Board of Supes by Monday AM:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=184458

But I'm not against the tactics of Gura or Kilmer, except that slamming Gorski in public was uncalled for.

ke6guj
05-15-2009, 10:49 AM
Most EMail reader apps show that BCCing is going on - not WHO it's going to, but that it's happening at all.

GMail's web interface doesn't.ok, gotcha

Roadrunner
05-15-2009, 10:51 AM
Actually those are all valid points and the same things I noticed when I first read the transcript. That does not excuse the letter though, nor the loose cannon filings.

I won't argue that Gura had some moments that may have been brain farts, but the results are far more desirable than the losses that Gorski has obtained through his "eloquent litigation".

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 10:52 AM
I find this difficult to believe. Gura stated his opinions on one of Gorski's cases to the best of his knowledge. Nowhere did you read a personal attack. Can we say the same for Mr. Gorski. His actions were the equivalent of shooting someone for stepping on your Nikes getting off the bus.

Sorry, Gura's filing speaks for itself. He not only slammed Gorski, he made a claim that Gorski was getting tossed on a rule 12 issue when in fact Gorski dealt with that via an amended complaint, supported by a judge's minute order.

Gorski will have to live with what he wrote, but so will Gura - and Gura drew and fired first.

oaklander
05-15-2009, 10:53 AM
I agree, I'm a little uncomfortable with the whole idea of "anointed ones" as well. That being said, the best work we have done in California has been when there has been coordination among the various groups.

Whenever there's been a win in California (at least recently), it's been the result of teamwork and coordinated action - NOT the result of a lone swinging willie.

While sometimes the various groups disagree about best strategies, they generally work together on most issues.

What we are seeing with Gorski is someone completely out of the fold, a bull in a china shop, so to speak.

I am not overjoyed with the idea that there is a self anointed group of "the right people" that get to control the litigation, and everyone else. Thats pretty egotistical on its own. I find it ironic that some of those "right" people were the "wrong" people not that long ago (lest we forget the NRA trying to derail Gura).

But personally, just speaking for me, I am inclined to think that a relatively simple and focused case is a much better tool for reclaiming our rights, and Gura has done some superb work in that respect.

Forgetting the strictly legal angle, he has written dozens of briefs that not only address the legal issues, but address them in ways that are succinct and to the point, and readable by the average person. In the long run, the obviousness (if that is a word) of what he is advocating comes through, even to non-believers. And that may be far more valuable long term than just winning a court case.

Most legal pleadings are gibberish to me. Even most of the pro-2A amicus briefs in the last few cases are Greek to me. Not Gura's. His ability to communicate in writing may be as valuable as his legal skills. Nobody remembers the professional orator that spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg, but few people don't recognize "Four score and ten years ago...".

HowardW56
05-15-2009, 10:53 AM
What a lovely e-mail...

dwtt
05-15-2009, 11:02 AM
Mr. Gorski reminds me of some of the attorneys I had to deal with when I worked in the IT department of a law firm. I would rather step on dog sh*t than touch one of these people.

truthseeker
05-15-2009, 11:08 AM
I don't understand why "Gorski" and "the right people" cannot get together on a conference call and explain their thoughts on why they are filing certain cases the way they are and where they are expecting to go with these cases in their "quest" for 2 Amendment Rights.

It would seem that both groups want the same thing; however, they are trying 2 different approaches. Is one way better than the other? I guess that would be a matter of opinion and discussion between Gorski and "the right people".

If I were one of these attorneys I would take Gorski up on his invitation to meet (even via conference call) to find out what everyone is "planning out" on the best way to win our cases.

7x57
05-15-2009, 11:17 AM
I am not overjoyed with the idea that there is a self anointed group of "the right people" that get to control the litigation, and everyone else. Thats pretty egotistical on its own.

Abstractly, perhaps. But they are incidentally also the group with the winning track record, while the lone gunmen are those with the consistently losing records. And finally the "right people" seem to be able to agree and cooperate, while the lone gunmen behave precisely as loose cannons with no regard for anything but ego would behave. And finally, "the right people" includes people like Don Kates, the senior statesman of gun rights litigation. Ever wonder why he doesn't come out in support of the lone gunmen, but instead wrote up an article on how badly they have hurt us in the past?

If you want to win, get used to the self-annointed group of people who actually win. Besides, "self-annointed" has a prejudicial connotation. But it is exactly what you would expect if competent people got fed up with losing over and over again due to incompetence. If the self-annointed "right people" start losing and accumulating a bad track record, then it will be time to re-evaluate.

7x57

7x57
05-15-2009, 11:19 AM
I don't understand why "Gorski" and "the right people" cannot get together on a conference call and explain their thoughts on why they are filing certain cases the way they are and where they are expecting to go with these cases in their "quest" for 2 Amendment Rights.


It must be a nice, civilized world you live in, out there in space. I envy you such naive optimism about human nature.

7x57

ilbob
05-15-2009, 11:38 AM
It might be that Gorski's clients' interests do not mesh well with the approach the so called "right people" are taking.

But I also don't see how fighting with Gura serves those interests. Perhaps just for sport.

The thing is that everyone more or less gets to have their day in court, regardless of how other people trying to get a specific ruling might like.

Its inevitable that there will be more and more people filing 2A related cases that are just awful, and not helpful to our cause. We are going to have to find some way of dealing with them that does not involve shooting the lawyers involved. :)

The best way, IMO, is to get good cases filed as quick as possible and get them into the system. My guess is Gura's current case load might well prevent him from effectively pursuing any additional litigation in the immediate future. So just who is going to do so? If the "right people" group does not do so, it is inevitable that someone else will, and we will find ourselves in the unpleasant position of trying to defend the 2A rights of a cop killer or a drug dealer.



I don't understand why "Gorski" and "the right people" cannot get together on a conference call and explain their thoughts on why they are filing certain cases the way they are and where they are expecting to go with these cases in their "quest" for 2 Amendment Rights.

It would seem that both groups want the same thing; however, they are trying 2 different approaches. Is one way better than the other? I guess that would be a matter of opinion and discussion between Gorski and "the right people".

If I were one of these attorneys I would take Gorski up on his invitation to meet (even via conference call) to find out what everyone is "planning out" on the best way to win our cases.

ilbob
05-15-2009, 11:50 AM
You will notice I have not expressed displeasure with what the so called "right people" have actually done (at least to date).

I would also point out that Gura was somewhat of a lone gunmen when he started Parker v. DC 6 years ago. He only became part of the "right people" later on.

Abstractly, perhaps. But they are incidentally also the group with the winning track record, while the lone gunmen are those with the consistently losing records. And finally the "right people" seem to be able to agree and cooperate, while the lone gunmen behave precisely as loose cannons with no regard for anything but ego would behave. And finally, "the right people" includes people like Don Kates, the senior statesman of gun rights litigation. Ever wonder why he doesn't come out in support of the lone gunmen, but instead wrote up an article on how badly they have hurt us in the past?

If you want to win, get used to the self-annointed group of people who actually win. Besides, "self-annointed" has a prejudicial connotation. But it is exactly what you would expect if competent people got fed up with losing over and over again due to incompetence. If the self-annointed "right people" start losing and accumulating a bad track record, then it will be time to re-evaluate.

7x57

yellowfin
05-15-2009, 11:53 AM
Even if Gorski is completely right in his route with Mehl--I can't say 100%, I'm not one of the experts--it seems like the biggest problem isn't at all what he's saying that is the problem we're worried about, but the response it will get, something like an allergic reaction or an improperly prescribed medicine. Even if it were a PERFECTLY written arguement, if it's the wrong arguement to use it won't matter how right he may be. A perfect shot with a 4 iron when you need a 7 iron to get on the green will be worse than leaving it short or in the bunker.

That letter, however, was revolting. Even if falling down stinking drunk it is inexcusable in the verbiage used when addressing a professional matter. If that's a representative sample of what he puts his signature to then I seriously question how he ever gets within 2 miles of a court house.

N6ATF
05-15-2009, 11:54 AM
What we are seeing with Gorski is someone completely out of the fold, a bull in a china shop, so to speak.

Actually that would be an insult to bulls...

MythBusters test "bull in a china shop" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk_zpMory-0 (embedding disabled)

Bad Voodoo
05-15-2009, 12:09 PM
Our efforts elicited this email from Gary Gorski (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/Sykes-Gura-NRA-interfering-once-again-with-Second-Amendment-litigation.pdf) to me.

Wow, I've been navigating the professional business world for almost twenty years now, in three different states, and that has to be THE singularly most unprofessional correspondence I have EVER had the displeasure to read. I almost can't believe that a practicing attorney put "pen to paper" and conveyed that kind of message in a format so easily preserved.

Just how does unabashed unprofessionalism and incompetence like this NOT end in disbarment?

artherd
05-15-2009, 12:27 PM
If there is one thing I have learned in business: in order to elicit real progress one must build teams and unify vision.

Gorski seems glaringly incapable of either.

Roadrunner
05-15-2009, 12:32 PM
I just thought that I would pass this other correspondence on to everyone from Gorski.

This was my response to Gorski's response.

Dear Mr. Gorski:

First let me thank you for responding so promptly. After reading your response, I am of the impression that you want it all now, and are not interested in incremental victories. I would like everything all at once as well, but there is a time for bludgeoning our opponents to win and a time to strategically cut vital arteries so that they just bleed out. Having read the transcripts from the Heller decision, I believe that Gura and his team were doing the latter in order to open the door for further victories down the road.

I am not a legal scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I am also not ignorant of the judicial process. I don't believe that Alan Gura is the bumbling fool you would make him out to be. After all, he did get a 5-4 decision in favor of the second amendment as an individual right. Some would call that a narrow win, but I call it a major victory regardless of how narrow it was. The same goes for Nordyke. Unfortunately, the Nordykes lost their argument, but it was a good day for every citizen in the 13 states that are in the 9th districts jurisdiction. Unfortunately, you have not been as successful, and those that are far more knowledgable than I, have recognized that. The aforemention article that I cited in my last email to you is some of the evidence to your effectivness as a litigator. The bottom line is this, if you must continue down this course, at least form an alliance with the other attorney's that are also in this fight to win. This is not a competition to prove your metal, it's a fight for my rights, and every other Californian that believes in our right to keep and bear arms for self defense and the defense of others.

Thank you for your time and this opportunity to express my concerns to you.

Sincerely,

And his response was:

Thanks "Roadrunner", and my cases are more about exposing the corruption in the process, which even the gun grabbers or liberal 9th Circuit judges can identify with. In Silveira, don’t forget this part of the ruling, which is never addressed in the blogging against me – perhaps you or Mr. Hoffman would like to raise this point with all those bloggers out there. I would be more interested in seeing what they have to say about this argument.

C. The AWCA's Provisions Regarding Off-Duty Police Officers Do Not Offend The Fourteenth Amendment; However, There Is No Rational Basis For the Retired Officer Exemption.

“Plaintiffs contend that the privileges that are afforded to off-duty and retired peace officers under the AWCA violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Specifically, they contend that the pertinent provisions afford benefits to off-duty and retired officers that are unavailable to the plaintiffs, and that there is no rational reason that they and other law-abiding citizens should be treated differently than off-duty and retired peace officers.

****

“We thus can discern no legitimate state interest in permitting retired peace officers to possess and use for their personal pleasure military-style weapons. Rather, the retired officers exception arbitrarily and unreasonably affords a privilege to one group of individuals that is denied to others, including plaintiffs. In sum, [*103] not only is the retired officers' exception contrary to the legislative goals of the AWCA, it is wholly unconnected to any legitimate state interest. A statutory exemption that bears no logical relationship to a valid state interest fails constitutional scrutiny. The 1999 AWCA amendments include, however, a severability provision providing that should any portion of the statute be found invalid, the balance of the provisions shall remain in force. Accordingly, because the retired officers' exception is an arbitrary classification in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, we sever that provision, § 12280(h)-(i), from the AWCA.” Silveira at 102.

Now, with Nordyke, United States v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557, 566 (9th Cir. 1999) can be overruled, which in that case, the 9th held the Second Amendment does not create an individual right to arms, an equal protection challenge to a gun control law is reviewed "under the rational-basis standard." Now, I can argue strict scrutiny. My goal is to have the CCW law declared unconstitutional, under the Equal Protection clause or the Second Amendment, or both.

Thanks for taking the time to chat. BTW: just so the record is clear, my attack on Gura was based upon what he said in his filings as compared to making the filings. People have the right to say what they want about me, and I’m not going to blog my defense and attack them. But when someone actually makes a filing in a case that they are not a party to, and attempts to deflate it when they are suppose to be on the same side, you can and have seen my reaction.

Any comments on this would be appreciated.

7x57
05-15-2009, 12:45 PM
However, I think Gorski's approach of including details on the corruption behind the process and actually proving the corruption, have MORE merit, but it'll take longer.


Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is true. It never the less remains that we do *not* want illiterate, abusive, and profane attorneys being our poster boys. That tells a judge that everything the media says about us is true.


And in the meantime, the documents generated by that "deeper effort" may be useful elsewhere - the Twomey declaration is a bombshell usable in OC and should be placed on the desks of the OC Board of Supes by Monday AM:


Fine. Maybe so, I don't know--but "elsewhere" needs to be with a different attorney doing the arguing. And that won't happen, thanks to Mr. Gorski's ego.

7x57

bulgron
05-15-2009, 12:46 PM
"My goal is to have the CCW law declared unconstitutional...."

Heller explicitly mentions CCW as an area that states probably can regulate. No court is going to overlook what SCOTUS had to say about CCW, especially given how hostile the courts tend to be to gun rights.

Now, if Gorski had said that he wants to have Good Cause and Good Moral Character declared unconstitutional when applied to CCW permits, I wouldn't have a problem with what he's up to. Indeed, the document Jim March has been trying to bring attention to would seem to perfectly highlight the need for a non-discretionary permit system.

Note that "non-discretionary permit system" is not the same thing as "no permit system whatsoever."

Unfortunately, it looks to me like Gorski wants to have the entire system thrown out on constitutional grounds, thereby allowing concealed carry without any permits whatsoever. No way are the courts going to go for that, at this time. I could be wrong about what Gorski actually wants, though. Maybe his email is just another example of muddy writing skills. Does anyone know what relief Gorski is seeking? Is he asking for a permit for his clients, or is he looking for something more than that?

If eliminating the permit system is truly his goal, he's going to lose. And he runs a high risk of doing it in such a way as to screw us out of a court-mandated shall-issue permit system.

7x57
05-15-2009, 12:50 PM
Sorry, Gura's filing speaks for itself.

Yeah, it does. To me it said pretty loudly that Gura knew very well what kind of impression Gorski's illiterate, crude writing would make on a judge, and he was trying to make sure the judge did not assume that Gura was more of the same, both to avoid putting the cases together and to try to minimize the damage done to the judge's impression of gun rights attorneys.

So while you are technically correct that Gura insulted Gorski indirectly before Gorski insulted Gura directly (I'm not addressing whether Gura made an error in the motion, I leave that to others), in one sense, the fact is that Gorski fired the first shot *at his own foot.* Gura knew that a judge reading it would think "what a screw-up," and Gura was entirely entitled to say "I'm not that screw-up." He did so fairly graciously, too.

Again, this isn't about the "unfiled motion," thing, which I leave to others, it is about the rest of it.

7x57

sreiter
05-15-2009, 12:51 PM
I'm just curious, how does someone actually SEE what [who] was written on a "BLIND cc:" line

Roadrunner
05-15-2009, 12:58 PM
"My goal is to have the CCW law declared unconstitutional...."

Heller explicitly mentions CCW as an area that states probably can regulate. No court is going to overlook what SCOTUS had to say about CCW, especially given how hostile the courts tend to be to gun rights.

Now, if Gorski had said that he wants to have Good Cause and Good Moral Character declared unconstitutional when applied to CCW permits, I wouldn't have a problem with what he's up to. Indeed, the document Jim March has been trying to bring attention to would seem to perfectly highlight the need for a non-discretionary permit system.

Note that "non-discretionary permit system" is not the same thing as "no permit system whatsoever."

Unfortunately, it looks to me like Gorski wants to have the entire system thrown out on constitutional grounds, thereby allowing concealed carry without any permits whatsoever. No way are the courts going to go for that, at this time. I could be wrong about what Gorski actually wants, though. Maybe his email is just another example of muddy writing skills. Does anyone know what relief Gorski is seeking? Is he asking for a permit for his clients, or is he looking for something more than that?

If eliminating the permit system is truly his goal, he's going to lose. And he runs a high risk of doing it in such a way as to screw us out of a court-mandated shall-issue permit system.

What's troubling is what he said about Silveira. I may be wrong, but I believe the only success Gorski had was in successfully having AW's taken from retired police. In other words, I read that if Silveira couldn't have one, neither should retired cops. So, in effect, Gorski not only lost his case, he also put up one more roadblock that didn't exist before his "landmark" case. Am I reading that right?

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 1:00 PM
Any comments on this would be appreciated.

I think it speaks for itself. Gura managed to well and truly piss Gorski off.

Quoting an earlier message:

I don't understand why "Gorski" and "the right people" cannot get together on a conference call and explain their thoughts on why they are filing certain cases the way they are and where they are expecting to go with these cases in their "quest" for 2 Amendment Rights.

I was contacted by somebody close to Gene Hoffman to arrange exactly that sort of meeting with Gorski. But what neither of us realized was that Gura had already filed the 5/5 motion a couple of days prior.

Once that was filed, a "meeting of the minds" wasn't going to happen, or at least not very successfully.

It would seem that both groups want the same thing; however, they are trying 2 different approaches. Is one way better than the other? I guess that would be a matter of opinion and discussion between Gorski and "the right people".

Well, actually their approaches are pretty damned similar. Both say "the current CCW process sucks" [paraphrase of course!]. Both say it violates the "arbitrary and capricious" standard [NOT paraphrased]. Both claim a personal right is involved, which in Gorski's case is remarkable in that he did so pre-Heller/Nordyke in Gorski1, pre-Nordyke (meaning incorporation) in Gorski2.

The ONLY real difference is that Gorski wants to prove outright corruption and criminal activity, and is prepared to go all the way to prove it.

While it makes the case take longer and makes the pleadings longer, it's not otherwise an intrinsically bad idea.

Guys, corruption in business permits, zoning, environmental impact report signoffs, land appraisals, taxi and tow truck licenses and all sorts of other stuff happens all the time. And people sue over it. There's a massive body of case law on the process, and Gorski is NOT doing anything radical in such matters.

If anything, it's Gura's approach that's sorta radical and could only work where an individual right is at stake. Which, thank the deity of your choice, is the case. But many, actually MOST of these other prior corruption cases also involve personal rights: property rights, the right to work, right to engage in commerce, right to a fair contract.

The *usual* gameplan where corruption is involved is to prove the corruption.

Can somebody PLEASE explain why Gorski should take a ration of cowpatties over that?

Because I'm puzzled.

And no, don't quote me the letter from the first post of this thread - yeah, it was ugly, but it was a RESPONSE to abuse, not the start of any abuse.

donstarr
05-15-2009, 1:00 PM
I'm just curious, how does someone actually SEE what [who] was written on a "BLIND cc:" line

You don't. What you can see are a) there IS a list of BCC recipients and b) that someone who wasn't on the original TO or CC lists does a "reply all", implying that they were in a BCC list.

ETA: In (b), the only recipients would be the original sender, the people in the TO and CC lists, and, possibly, the person on the BCC list doing the "reply all". Other members of the original BCC list won't receive the "reply all", since that would allow that "reply all" sender to see that BCC list.

vrand
05-15-2009, 1:02 PM
It is quite possible that the court of appeals could just affirm the dismissal. However, you aren't missing something.

-Gene

:thumbsup:

tophatjones
05-15-2009, 1:09 PM
And no, don't quote me the letter from the first post of this thread - yeah, it was ugly, but it was a RESPONSE to abuse, not the start of any abuse.

Gura may have pissed Gorski off, but he didn't abuse him. He plainly stated Gorski's incompetence, which is the TRUTH. In no way did Gura exaggerate or use name calling, or use any form of abusive language.

Gorski's reaction, however, IS abusive. It was coarse and reckless, and Gene's act of posting his reply provided us a window into Gorski's true nature; someone whose character is so weak he becomes volatile at the first sign of criticism. Remember, those who are incapable of rational requital tend to overreact with abuse in a desperate attempt to throw off the poise of their critic.

vrand
05-15-2009, 1:10 PM
The Thompson disbarment is interesting, all those nutty filings were not enough to get him disbarred but he was finally tripped up by:

"The action was the result of separate grievances filed by people claiming that Thompson made defamatory, false statements and attempted to humiliate, embarrass, harass or intimidate them."

If only Gorski were making defamatory and false statements or attempting to humiliate or embarrass them. Then if he would just harass and intimidate them he'd have the trifecta. hmmmm...... Would a call for someone to "Suck My D!ck" be considered humiliating or embarrassing? Would accusing someone of being a professional hack as it relates to a case he didn't even try be defamatory and false? I'll leave intimidation to your imagination.

:thumbsup:

bulgron
05-15-2009, 1:11 PM
Can somebody PLEASE explain why Gorski should take a ration of cowpatties over that?

That isn't why Gorski is taking a ration of cow patties. He's taking that ration because:

1. He's a lone wolf
2. As a lone wolf, he lost Silveria
3. As a lone wolf losing Silveria, he showed a less-than-stellar level of competency, if various reports on his written briefs are to be believed by us non-lawyer types.
4. He's a lone wolf who by all appearances isn't particularly interested in playing with the rest of the team. That is, he isn't asking for help (so far was we know) when what he should be doing is asking for help.
5. It takes a team effort to successfully win constitutional cases, especially when the courts tend to be hostile to your cause.
6. Did I mention that he doesn't want to involve himself in a team effort?

In other words, because he's a lone wolf who already lost big once before, and screwed everyone in California in the process, we are not happy to see him turning up now when our carry rights are on the line. We don't trust the guy. We have reason to believe that he sucks as a lawyer, and none of the correspondence that have been provided in this thread give us reason to think any better of him.

Hence, the ration of cow patties.

Clear enough?

scottj
05-15-2009, 1:14 PM
So I wonder how the Civil Rights movement kept lose cannons like this from sinking their ship? We are more or less using the strategy they developed; make small strides forward with each carefully considered simple case with ideal plaintiffs. Surely there were plenty of lawyers full of indignation filing not so well thought out voting rights cases?

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 1:14 PM
Heller explicitly mentions CCW as an area that states probably can regulate. No court is going to overlook what SCOTUS had to say about CCW, especially given how hostile the courts tend to be to gun rights.

Right, which is why we see the phrase "arbitrary and capricious" in the Gura/Kilmer and both Gorski pleadings.

That's lawyerspeak code for "there's a well established body of case law regarding how administrative functions are to be carried out". That phrase kicks in that stack of case law - a BIG stack.

Now, if Gorski had said that he wants to have Good Cause and Good Moral Character declared unconstitutional when applied to CCW permits, I wouldn't have a problem with what he's up to. Indeed, the document Jim March has been trying to bring attention to would seem to perfectly highlight the need for a non-discretionary permit system.

Right...

Note that "non-discretionary permit system" is not the same thing as "no permit system whatsoever."

Right...

Unfortunately, it looks to me like Gorski wants to have the entire system thrown out on constitutional grounds, thereby allowing concealed carry without any permits whatsoever. No way are the courts going to go for that, at this time. I could be wrong about what Gorski actually wants, though. Maybe his email is just another example of muddy writing skills. Does anyone know what relief Gorski is seeking? Is he asking for a permit for his clients, or is he looking for something more than that?

If eliminating the permit system is truly his goal, he's going to lose. And he runs a high risk of doing it in such a way as to screw us out of a court-mandated shall-issue permit system.

AH! I see where the misunderstanding is.

OK. Once a judge finds a law to be unconstitutional, it's up to the judge to fix it. He's supposed to do so "with the lightest hand possible" - in other words a judge's job isn't to legislate, but he CAN alter or even destroy legislation that is unconstitutional.

Every judge knows this. Gorski (and for that matter the Gura/Kilmer team as the situation is the same in both cases) didn't spell this out.

Here's the cool part: the California CCW system has faced this before, and had a "bad part" stripped out by the courts in 1972.

The "bad parts" at issue there were clauses that kept green-card-holders (legal alien residents) from obtaining CCW, and applied harsher criminal penalties to them if they packed illegally (felony) versus the bust faced by a US citizen for the same offense (misdemeanor).

Those anti-legal-alien aspects were torn out of the original 1924 law in People v. Rappard, 1972, California appellate court. A recommended read:

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/rappard.txt

I think that's the only copy of it available online to people lacking Lexus/Nexis access. Peter Mancus made me that copy :).

So, if the same thing happens again, the "bad bit" gets stripped: the discretionary part.

If on the other hand the whole law gets tossed, that only lasts until the legislature meets again and replaces it with something constitutional based on the notes the court leaves on the subject.

Neither Gorski nor Gura/Kilmer bothered to spell this out in detail, as it's a normal part of constitutional challenges to a law.

Dirk Tungsten
05-15-2009, 1:14 PM
I think it speaks for itself. Gura managed to well and truly piss Gorski off.




If gorski is truly this thin skinned and Ill-tempered, he's hardly doing gun owners a favor by attempting to get out in front of this issue. The last thing we need is some sawed-off loon as a 2A spokesperson. I've seen some embarrasing video clips of Wayne Lapierre, but nothing approaching that email....

That email is one of the most foul, vitriolic, unprofessional things I've ever read. I'd love to see the reaction of the Bcc recipients. I can't imagine and rational person would hold a higher opinion of gorski after that. Unless the Bcc list was composed solely of Gorski fanboys, I'd imagine some of his supporters are rethinking their decision.

Roadrunner
05-15-2009, 1:15 PM
Jim, rather than trying to expose the corruption that essentially was borne out of the "collective rights" point of view about the second amendment, wouldn't it be better to say that denying a person a right to bear arms outside of the home is unconstitutional because of Heller and Nordyke? Wouldn't it be better to have "good cause" squashed in the courts because it violates equal protection under the 14th amendment? The fact that police are abusing their discretion as to who they give permission to carry a firearm should be easily ended because of the fact that it is our right and not a collective right that can be passed out based on the whims of the state.

bussda
05-15-2009, 1:20 PM
I think it speaks for itself. Gura managed to well and truly piss Gorski off.

...

The ONLY real difference is that Gorski wants to prove outright corruption and criminal activity, and is prepared to go all the way to prove it.

While it makes the case take longer and makes the pleadings longer, it's not otherwise an intrinsically bad idea.

Guys, corruption in business permits, zoning, environmental impact report signoffs, land appraisals, taxi and tow truck licenses and all sorts of other stuff happens all the time. And people sue over it. There's a massive body of case law on the process, and Gorski is NOT doing anything radical in such matters.

If anything, it's Gura's approach that's sorta radical and could only work where an individual right is at stake. Which, thank the deity of your choice, is the case. But many, actually MOST of these other prior corruption cases also involve personal rights: property rights, the right to work, right to engage in commerce, right to a fair contract.

The *usual* gameplan where corruption is involved is to prove the corruption.

Can somebody PLEASE explain why Gorski should take a ration of cowpatties over that?

Because I'm puzzled.

And no, don't quote me the letter from the first post of this thread - yeah, it was ugly, but it was a RESPONSE to abuse, not the start of any abuse.

While Gorski has a right to feel offended, I think most of the pro 2nd amendment legal community has been throwing Gorski under the bus for a long time. The earlier referenced article by Kopel is a good example. And the Silvera case just pounded a lot of pro firearms people down. It was just bad law. Maybe that explains his level of vitriol.

Most here are more concerned about exercising their rights then endemic corruption. And the political community needs to address that corruption, other wise it will continue. Making the connection to that level of corruption and the number of bodies it unearths usually will result in burying the whole issue, not fixing it.

Frankly, a lot of people here are more concerned about protecting family and others. Get the right to carry for all sooner, rather then wait several years more for the corruption trials and the right later.

7x57
05-15-2009, 2:02 PM
I think most of the pro 2nd amendment legal community has been throwing Gorski under the bus for a long time.

Who threw whom under the bus? :confused::eek::chris:

7x57

383green
05-15-2009, 2:02 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2483465

[...]
READ IT. The California CCW system itself literally cannot survive the revelations in this declaration.


While what I have read so far makes me believe that Mr. Gorski deserves the cow patties (and worse) which are being figuratively flung in his direction, I have to agree that the Twomey Declaration looks pretty stunning to me, and I hope that some real good can come from it. I just read the whole thing, and... wow! It's like lifting up the carpet, and the cockroaches don't even bother scampering away. It appears to be well-written to me, with one exception being the consistent use of the word "bate" where I believe the word "date" should have been used (i.e., "bate stamp"). I've since learned that Bates stamp is a legal term of art.

I recommend that y'all read the Twomey Declaration regardless of your opinion of Mr. Gorski. It's a fascinating view of what appears to be a thoroughly corrupt process.

I haven't read the rest of the thread in which it's posted yet... I think I'll head over there to see what folks are saying about it.

bussda
05-15-2009, 2:10 PM
Who threw whom under the bus? :confused::eek::chris:

7x57

Have you read this article by Kopel (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200309230925.asp)? Gorski wasn't really thrown under the bus, he more threw himself. Really helps to understand why a lot of people are really unhappy.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 2:11 PM
"bate stamp"

I think that's a standard term either within law enforcement in Cali(?) or the Sacto Sheriff specifically. Not sure yet, I intend to find out. Could be a weird spellcheck thing.

Davidwhitewolf
05-15-2009, 2:13 PM
because he's a lone wolf who already lost big once before, and screwed everyone in California in the process, we are not happy to see him turning up now when our carry rights are on the line. We don't trust the guy. We have reason to believe that he sucks as a lawyer, and none of the correspondence that have been provided in this thread give us reason to think any better of him.


Well said and I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm still in California BECAUSE I thought we had a very good chance of shall-issue CCW in the courts. If that joker screws this one up, I predict "will no one rid me of that meddlesome priest" is gonna be overshadowed really damned quickly by "meddlesome lawyer."

7x57
05-15-2009, 2:14 PM
Have you read this article by Kopel (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200309230925.asp)?

Yes. That was part of the basis for my post--Gorski threw us all under the bus by being, well, Gary Gorski.

The sad thing is that Gorski is probably, down deep inside, totally on our side. But that's what the road to hell is paved with, so I hear.

7x57

oaklander
05-15-2009, 2:16 PM
He's been up to his antics for quite some time, according to this article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/12/23/MN210896.DTL

Yes. That was part of the basis for my post--Gorski threw us all under the bus by being, well, Gary Gorski.

The sad thing is that Gorski is probably, down deep inside, totally on our side. But that's what the road to hell is paved with, so I hear.

7x57

CSDGuy
05-15-2009, 2:16 PM
I, for one, do NOT doubt the amassed data/information that Gorski has gathered. That info, however, would be more useful in a far better vehicle than what Gorski has on hand. Furthermore, while Gorski has filed/argued/petitioned before the court more than most (alleged by himself), he has not learned to make his arguments more concise and logical in flow. Spelling and grammar mistakes can alter the meaning of what is written quite dramatically. He apparently also needs to be able to tell time. From what I've read here, he filed a motion that has absolutely no effect on things because it was filed 3 hours after the deadline to file said motion. The County of Sacramento and Gura probably didn't realize that the amended complaint was the response that they were looking/waiting for... and probably overlooked it as such.

I think it would be FAR better to go after obtaining firm 2A rights and then go after certain officials for corruption issues with all that info gathered as a hammer and those firmed-up rights as the anvil...

7x57
05-15-2009, 2:17 PM
Well said and I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm still in California BECAUSE I thought we had a very good chance of shall-issue CCW in the courts. If that joker screws this one up, I predict "will no one rid me of that meddlesome priest" is gonna be overshadowed really damned quickly by "meddlesome lawyer."

Hmm. D'ya suppose he'd accept an offer for a long expenses-paid South Seas vacation with a certain meddlesome martial artist in New York? It'd be cheap compared to trying to fix the damage they can do.

The trouble is, there are ten thousand more of them just waiting to pop up, and we'd never keep up exporting them to Tonga. And if we did, Tonga would declare war in revenge....

7x57

383green
05-15-2009, 2:18 PM
I think that's a standard term either within law enforcement in Cali(?) or the Sacto Sheriff specifically. Not sure yet, I intend to find out. Could be a weird spellcheck thing.

Yeah, I thought it might be an acronym. It just seemed odd that it was so consistently used in a context where "date stamp" seemed appropriate.

In any case, I can see why you're excited about the Twomey Declaration, even though I don't share any of your other enthusiasm for Mr. Gorski's approach at this time.

oaklander
05-15-2009, 2:20 PM
"Bates Stamp" is correct. It's the term for those numbers you see on certain legal documents. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_numbering

Yeah, I thought it might be an acronym. It just seemed odd that it was so consistently used in a context where "date stamp" seemed appropriate.

In any case, I can see why you're excited about the Twomey Declaration, even though I don't share any of your other enthusiasm for Mr. Gorski's approach at this time.

Legasat
05-15-2009, 2:21 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/G2034/popcorn.gif

M. D. Van Norman
05-15-2009, 2:23 PM
We do like to eat our own, don’t we?

We have to pull this together somehow. We absolutely cannot afford to lose the revolution.

Davidwhitewolf
05-15-2009, 2:23 PM
When Gura spoke at Santa Clara, I specifically asked him if he was worried about the nunchucks case, and he was nonchalant and appeared unworried about it. So at least there's that.

Incidentally, Gura's Rule 12 comment in his filing seems entirely appropriate to me. I'm not a trial attorney, but this is definitely not softball -- and in my opinion Gura did what he had to in order to get the judge to block Sykes from being mushed together with Gorski's cases, which was the first danger to be avoided.

Gene's summary is not clear to me on this point -- what was the motion the Sykes judge denied, exactly? Was it a good result, or was the good result what ended up being denied?

CCWFacts
05-15-2009, 2:46 PM
Hmm. D'ya suppose he'd accept an offer for a long expenses-paid South Seas vacation with a certain meddlesome martial artist in New York? It'd be cheap compared to trying to fix the damage they can do.

I really do think it would be worth it to offer money to these two villains to stop.

The trouble is, there are ten thousand more of them just waiting to pop up, and we'd never keep up exporting them to Tonga.

No, I don't think so. Gorski is one of the very few who has just enough ability to file cases and appeal them and so on. There are not more of him, or if there are, they're too late or too incapable to do the damage.

And if we did, Tonga would declare war in revenge....

I would be delighted to send some practice targets over to the Tongan sumo training school.

vrand
05-15-2009, 2:49 PM
Have you read this article by Kopel (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200309230925.asp)? Gorski wasn't really thrown under the bus, he more threw himself. Really helps to understand why a lot of people are really unhappy.

Quote from the article:

"The three-judge appellate panel randomly selected to hear the Silveira case had two Democratic appointees, including Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the most prominent leftist judge in the country. The adverse outcome in Silveira was a foregone conclusion. The appeal could have, and should have, been withdrawn at that point.

But Gorski did not withdraw the appeal."

This guy is a loose canon :eek:

command_liner
05-15-2009, 2:50 PM
Not that I want to get bounced off the board, but if Goreski wants
a certain act performed by Gura, can we all just pitch in and hire
suitable professional that will call herself "Alan Gura" and show up
at Goreski's place?

That seems like the cheap, fast way out of this problem. We must
assume Goreski has a residence in Nevada, where such actions would
not be a crime.

[Mods, if this is thinking too far outside the box, feel free to
zap it]

CSDGuy
05-15-2009, 3:01 PM
When Gura spoke at Santa Clara, I specifically asked him if he was worried about the nunchucks case, and he was nonchalant and appeared unworried about it. So at least there's that.

Incidentally, Gura's Rule 12 comment in his filing seems entirely appropriate to me. I'm not a trial attorney, but this is definitely not softball -- and in my opinion Gura did what he had to in order to get the judge to block Sykes from being mushed together with Gorski's cases, which was the first danger to be avoided.

Gene's summary is not clear to me on this point -- what was the motion the Sykes judge denied, exactly? Was it a good result, or was the good result what ended up being denied?I believe that this is the motion you're wondering about. The Related Case Motion (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/notice_related_case.pdf) Beyond that, I have no idea about the rest of the stuff... I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a party to any of these cases.

truthseeker
05-15-2009, 3:15 PM
IMO Gorski is trying to take the "enemy" head on.
While that tactic may work in WAR when you have superior firepower, I like to think that the current legal system cannot be navigated in that way.

It seems to me that the tactic/strategy the lawyers on this board like to use is like a funnel.

Using this analogy you start at the farthest distance from the point you want to arrive at (filing multiple cases) and push the "enemy" (by winning cases) toward the small hole "point" where you want to end. Not too dissimilar from the AW flowchart.

CCWFacts
05-15-2009, 3:26 PM
IMO Gorski is trying to take the "enemy" head on.
While that tactic may work in WAR when you have superior firepower, I like to think that the current legal system cannot be navigated in that way.

Yeah, he's trying to go for "everything" in one big gulp. And he's incoherent in his writings. It is a recipe for disaster.

Even in war, going head on with massive firepower often fails because the attacking forces underestimate the enemy, are over-confident, and so on.

And in this case, Gorski's firepower is like a single-shot BB gun with a worn-out gasket.

7x57
05-15-2009, 3:28 PM
Can somebody PLEASE explain why Gorski should take a ration of cowpatties over that?

Because I'm puzzled.

And no, don't quote me the letter from the first post of this thread - yeah, it was ugly, but it was a RESPONSE to abuse, not the start of any abuse.

Let's clear up your puzzlement, because it seems to go to the heart of your difference with most on this thread. Now, I'm not reading everything with a fine-toothed comb, so perhaps I misunderstand, but this seems to be the situation:

(1) Gura filed a required document in which he had to give voice to some criticisms of Gorski's suit because they would be in the judge's mind after reading it, and it turns out that Gorski's suit could damage Gura's. I suspect Gura had an attorney-client obligation to protect *his* clients from damage from Gorski's suit, and he phrased things as politely as he could.

(2) Gorski blew up and responded in a manner unbecoming any professional, far over the top and far beyond any sane response to Gura's filing.

Beyond the legal issues involved, Gorski seems to just be a rotten human being, and deserves some cow patties for that for starters. While I'm interested in your discussion of the corruption angle, I don't for a second buy your defense of the indefensible.

7x57

stag1500
05-15-2009, 3:28 PM
After reading Judge England's decision, I have to agree that Lau and Mehl didn't have standing. That being the case, wouldn't the Ninth Circuit Court come to the same conclusion and dismiss the case without ruling one way or the other on whether the right to carry is protected by the 2nd Amendment? If that happens, then wouldn't that be a green light for Sykes and we're no worse off than before?

CaliforniaLiberal
05-15-2009, 3:28 PM
He's been up to his antics for quite some time, according to this article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/12/23/MN210896.DTL

Illuminating article. I like the quote from Gorski's wife.

"There is no gray area with Gary," said his wife, Caroline. "People think he's a Neanderthal or they love him."


Anybody with a picture of Jesse Ventura in his office can't be all bad.

CL

stag1500
05-15-2009, 3:32 PM
Oh, and just to play the devil's advocate... Gorski's claims that two of the plaintiff's in Sykes don't have standing. Does his arguement hold any water? Is there any possibility that the federal court might rule along those lines?

Davidwhitewolf
05-15-2009, 3:34 PM
I believe that this is the motion you're wondering about. The Related Case Motion (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/notice_related_case.pdf)

Thanks, CSDGuy! Yes, that's it; I'm just uncertain that there's a motion there, or if that's just a "notice" and there was a separate motion that was ruled on.

I'm assuming that Gene's summary means the judge reacted to that "notice/motion" by ruling that "no, they're not related" -- which is the good result Gene seems to refer to. I hope that's right.

Experimentalist
05-15-2009, 3:43 PM
So are you going to sit down with him over a pint per his offer?

-Jason

Perhaps Hemlock for Mr. Gorski.

AEC1
05-15-2009, 3:45 PM
Lets have a socal get together with him, maybe BBM? then a nice pint at the Eastlake Brewing CO...

CSDGuy
05-15-2009, 4:47 PM
Thanks, CSDGuy! Yes, that's it; I'm just uncertain that there's a motion there, or if that's just a "notice" and there was a separate motion that was ruled on.

I'm assuming that Gene's summary means the judge reacted to that "notice/motion" by ruling that "no, they're not related" -- which is the good result Gene seems to refer to. I hope that's right.
You're most welcome. I think that you're right... that filing was probably both a notice and an implied motion. Either way, the result (I'd imagine) is that the cases weren't combined.

hoffmang
05-15-2009, 5:13 PM
I'm assuming that Gene's summary means the judge reacted to that "notice/motion" by ruling that "no, they're not related" -- which is the good result Gene seems to refer to. I hope that's right.

Judge England did not relate Sykes to Mehl. Rothery could still be related (Judge Mendez I believe.) I think no one wants to see these consolidated.

-Gene

Mute
05-15-2009, 6:36 PM
It's rather funny that the only one boasting of Gorski's legal acumen and skill is.....himself. I suppose he's the only one expert enough to handle these lawsuits. :rolleyes: The problem is this fool is going to shoot all of us in the foot.

I also don't buy his supposed care about all things 2nd Amendment. It's quite clear from all his communications that the only thing he really cares about is his fifteen minutes of fame as the great "savior" for CA gunowners. This guy better be prepared to be hoisted on his own petard, because I for one will be out for a piece of his butt if he winds up screwing our chances for real reform.

Aegis
05-15-2009, 6:49 PM
It is clear there are strong feelings on this matter. I don't know the entire background, but I plan to read up on it. From my perspective, I want a CCW permit or LOC. I know Calguns and the others involved in Nordyke and Heller have worked very hard on this issue and it is greatly appreciated. It seems that with Heller and incorporation, the chances of success are greater for all of these cases and I hope for the best outcome.

From reading the threads, it appears Gorski's case(s) will be proceeding soon. If his case(s) is/are first, it is what it is and I guess we will have to live with that. I just hope that the good work that has been done so far is not erased.

With that said, what is the timeline and when can we expect to have a ruling?

bussda
05-15-2009, 6:59 PM
...I also don't buy his supposed care about all things 2nd Amendment. It's quite clear from all his communications that the only thing he really cares about is his fifteen minutes of fame as the great "savior" for CA gunowners. This guy better be prepared to be hoisted on his own petard, because I for one will be out for a piece of his butt if he winds up screwing our chances for real reform.

It can be worse then that. While he might see himself as a savior, did you not a couple of other points in his email and the filing. He got fees in Silviera. He is pursuing a class action.

Yes, being lawyer is a business and you need to make money at it. But, which is more important, getting the law right or getting paid? Currently I can only judge on his past actions and statements.

And yes, this is inflammatory. But this is not an accusation of all lawyers either.

DDT
05-15-2009, 7:04 PM
Guys, corruption in business permits, zoning, environmental impact report signoffs, land appraisals, taxi and tow truck licenses and all sorts of other stuff happens all the time. And people sue over it. There's a massive body of case law on the process, and Gorski is NOT doing anything radical in such matters.

If anything, it's Gura's approach that's sorta radical and could only work where an individual right is at stake. Which, thank the deity of your choice, is the case. But many, actually MOST of these other prior corruption cases also involve personal rights: property rights, the right to work, right to engage in commerce, right to a fair contract.

So, you are asking if we want our second amendment rights treated like other civil rights or like zoning ordinances? I would think the answer to this is obvious. Perhaps not to all.


And no, don't quote me the letter from the first post of this thread - yeah, it was ugly, but it was a RESPONSE to abuse, not the start of any abuse.

Please stop saying this. Mr. Gura's filing while possibly an attack of another attorneys professional standards is not abuse. The ABUSE was started one place and one place only.

DDT
05-15-2009, 7:10 PM
You don't. What you can see are a) there IS a list of BCC recipients and b) that someone who wasn't on the original TO or CC lists does a "reply all", implying that they were in a BCC list.


I have never in nearly 20 years of working in IT seen a Bcc: line passed from an MTA to a mail client. To the best of my knowledge none of the MTAs pass the Bcc: header much less any form of information on how many or if any Bcc recipients are included. I didn't bother posting this in response to Jim's posting because I have no expectation of non-IT folks to know this.

Even those on the Bcc: list do not know that they were specifically on the Bcc list except that they rec'd the email but aren't on the To: or Cc: headers. The client passes each recipient to the MTA via the To: Cc: and Bcc: headers but the MTA id's the person receiving the message using a Recipient: header so that you know which email account it was originally sent to if you have multiple addresses delivered to the same inbox.

ke6guj
05-15-2009, 7:28 PM
I have never in nearly 20 years of working in IT seen a.....
<snip>.

http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu212/ke6guj/nerds.jpg

:D

obeygiant
05-15-2009, 7:40 PM
I have never in nearly 20 years of working in IT seen a Bcc: line passed from an MTA to a mail client. To the best of my knowledge none of the MTAs pass the Bcc: header much less any form of information on how many or if any Bcc recipients are included. I didn't bother posting this in response to Jim's posting because I have no expectation of non-IT folks to know this.

Even those on the Bcc: list do not know that they were specifically on the Bcc list except that they rec'd the email but aren't on the To: or Cc: headers. The client passes each recipient to the MTA via the To: Cc: and Bcc: headers but the MTA id's the person receiving the message using a Recipient: header so that you know which email account it was originally sent to if you have multiple addresses delivered to the same inbox.

DDT is right, they would have to have been listed in the To: or Cc: in order to be seen.

http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu212/ke6guj/nerds.jpg

:D

ke6guj is also right but what about the "legal nerds"? :p

Gryff
05-15-2009, 7:53 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/12/23/MN210896.DTL

He's not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, is he?

obeygiant
05-15-2009, 7:58 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/12/23/MN210896.DTL

He's not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, is he?


From the linked article:
"No one is backing me on this," Gorski said the other day, about a week after the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled against him.

you'd think he would be getting used to this by now.

edit* sorry, I couldn't resist this.

http://www.tvweek.com/2008/08/15/JesseVentura1.jpghttp://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2002/12/23/mn_gorski2.jpg

Also from the same article

So now Gorski is hunkering down again, this time in a cost-cutting home office. He calls it the War Room: a spare bedroom equipped with his Dell computer, a phone, a few law books and a cherished autographed picture of his hero, pro wrestler-turned-politician Jesse Ventura, Minnesota's governor.

More than one person has pointed out the resemblance: similar hairdo, or lack of it, similar buffed muscles and, Gorski's favorite, similar independent streak. If the gun groups won't support him, so be it, he said.

Ten Rounder
05-15-2009, 8:05 PM
The address of 8459 nephi way, fair oaks, ca, which he calls OLD TOWN is nothing more than a residence. I grew up in Fair Oaks and there are not any commercial properties there. Fun place to have a paper route, would love to go heave a few sunday bundles and miss the porch. Sorry, Mister Wilson.

I guess I don't type fast enough to that in the above

Bruce
05-15-2009, 8:12 PM
In reading post #110, It would seem Gorski is more upset that NRA didn't finance him with Silveira and therefore are on his sh*t list too.
I know some retired cops who'd like to show their "appreciation" to Gorski for his "victory" in Silveira.

Roadrunner
05-15-2009, 8:13 PM
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2002/12/23/mn_gorski2.jpg

Okay, so by this picture, and Gorski's bad attitude, we're dealing with a cowboy who will potentially screw up the hard groundwork that has already been layed, and feel good about himself while doing it. Maybe Gorski should change his name to Murphy.

Bruce
05-15-2009, 8:14 PM
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2002/12/23/mn_gorski2.jpg

[B]Also from the same article


Gorski doesn't have the correct sling on his Scout rifle either.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 9:40 PM
With that said, what is the timeline and when can we expect to have a ruling?

Well that's a fair question :).

OK, in one month Gorski has oral arguments in the "Gorski1" case before a 3-judge panel of the 9th. No clue who yet.

At issue is the fact that the Gorski1 plaintiffs were declared to be "without standing" by the lower (district) court judge. The judge ruled that Mehl hadn't fully applied yet and that Lau wasn't a credible plaintiff. Lau is indeed problematic (see my first post in this thread) but I think Mehl is in better shape.

The 3-judge panel can do any of several things:

1) Decide Mehl and Lau do not have standing simply because THEY are bad plaintiffs, which wouldn't affect the Gura/Kilmer case at all (well...OK, not yet! See my comments on "en banc" below.)

2) Decide nobody has standing in such a case because the Nordyke decision either doesn't apply or was itself a bad decision. Technically, one three-judge panel isn't supposed to be able to overturn a previous three-judge panel UNLESS the underlying constitutional grounds change. The Nordyke panel recently overturned previous three-judge panels (Hickman, Fresno Rifle) because the USSC in Heller re-wrote the rulebook on the 2nd Amendment.

3) Decide that either Lau or Mehl (or both) are good plaintiffs, allowing Gorski to go back to the lower court to do...well, any of several things: try for more discovery or depositions, or go to trial and try to prove corruption in Sac County Sheriff's office, unconstitutionality of CCW as practiced in Sac, unconstitutionality of discriminatory CCW, etc. (If only one plaintiff is left in the game, I predict Gorski will go forward with the one surviving plaintiff rather than appeal the dismissal of the other. Esp. if (as seems likely) the surviving plaintiff is Mehl. Mehl is a GOOD plaintiff in all respects except that SacSheriff got funky with the application process on him.)

Now those are the three most likely possibilities.

In situation #1, Gorski will at least consider trying for "en banc review", to get an 11-judge panel to overturn the three-judge. If he goes for it, Gura, Kilmer, Gene Hoffman, Chuck Michel, Don Kates and likely most of this forum will promptly freak out even worse than now. Because once it goes to an 11-judge panel, *everything* is theoretically up for grabs: an 11-judge panel can do whatever the hell they want, including overturn the recent Nordyke decision.

And yeah, I'll say it right now: that scares ME TOO. Ghaaa.

What I'd do at that point is urge Gorski to drop the Mehl/Lau case, roll plaintiff Mehl into the "Gorski2" case which has really impeccable plaintiffs and is unlikely to face this same round of problems as the Gorski1 Mehl/Lau case, and go forward with Gorski2.

If the court picks door number two (NOBODY has standing), it hoses the Gura/Kilmer case, so we'll HAVE to go en banc. At which point I would desperately hope everybody can kiss and make up, and Gura/Kilmer/others? help Gorski deal with the en banc panel. Because we'll *have* to go there. In "Sun Tzu terms", we'll be on "death ground" in which we have no choice but to fight.

Option two however is the least likely. A three-judge panel would have to very deliberately piss all over the circuit's own rulebook on this stuff. Granted, Reinhardt *did* just that to Gorski but it bit him (Reinhardt) on the butt BAD. Reinhardt had to come up with a whole new structure for gun-grabbing and it looked sickly as soon as he penned it (due to reliance on Michael Bellesials) and is now absolutely dead and buried by Scalia in Heller.

So...I don't see another three-judge panel dancing down THAT path again.

Truth be told, I think option three (Gorski keeps one or both plaintiffs in the fight) is the most likely unless he draws a REALLY bad panel. Granted, the survivor might be Lau (ug) but that still leaves Gorski with a vehicle to prove SacCounty is totally bughouse nuts. Lau would probably lose in the end but then the Gorski1 case just ends up paving the way for either Gorski2 or the Gura/Kilmer case...

Remember: Gorski CAN prove the SacCounty CCW process is flatly insane. He's gone and done a killer job allowing Lt. Twomey to build the data.

A moderately bad panel might put some snide comments in dicta about the quality of Gorski's case or pro-RKBA arguments in general, but...that shouldn't do TOO much damage. Everybody already knows there's a bunch of gun-hating judges in the 9th Circus...

And look on the bright side. He might draw Judge Kozinski or the other pro-RKBA judges in the 9th...

DDT
05-15-2009, 9:48 PM
http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu212/ke6guj/nerds.jpg

:D

Damn Skippy! :rofl2:

FS00008
05-15-2009, 9:57 PM
I don't care whether or not he has a good case. Gorski screwed us once... why the hell is he being allowed to do this again!? Why are we not doing something to try to get him out!? Or convince him that he's WRONG. I think some lead pipe about the head or a call from Jessie Ventura would convince him of the error of his ways..

Ventura is pro-2A/RKBA isn't he?

Anyone have his number!?


And on second thought... I doubt he'd notice the lead pipe...

Sobriquet
05-15-2009, 10:00 PM
As an attorney, I must say I am completely shocked by Mr. Gorski's complete lack of decorum towards fellow professionals. I have never seen someone send out professional correspondence with "BTW," "FYI," and grammatical errors.

If Mr. Gorski is a true believer in the cause and has half a brain in his head, he'd get on board with "The Program" knowing that it has the best chance for obtaining a positive result for his client. If he's just in it for a paycheck and his 15 minutes...

A J.D. via Widener University School of Law and a strip club, huh? I'm ashamed he's a member of the Bar.

DDT
05-15-2009, 10:13 PM
If he's just in it for a paycheck and his 15 minutes...

I doubt he's in it for the paycheck.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 10:35 PM
Uh huh. Y'all don't know what "nerds" means.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=23356&stc=1&d=1242455485

That's my desktop, running Linux, "spinning the cube" between two of the four "virtual desktops" I generally run. On one face of the cube I've got Windows XP running as a Virtual Machine task *underneath* Linux, with Linux surrounding and protecting Windows against malware.

If the Windows virtual machine is ever damaged, no sweat, the whole thing lives on a single file within the Linux disk structure - and I do backups. If I did get a virus (unlikely as I do all general Internet stuff in Linux where I'm *immune*), I just reload all of Windows with a single file copy (drag and drop).

Heh. Yeah. Let's talk geek cred :thumbsup:.

jdberger
05-15-2009, 10:43 PM
While what I have read so far makes me believe that Mr. Gorski deserves the cow patties (and worse) which are being figuratively flung in his direction, I have to agree that the Twomey Declaration looks pretty stunning to me, and I hope that some real good can come from it. I just read the whole thing, and... wow! It's like lifting up the carpet, and the cockroaches don't even bother scampering away. It appears to be well-written to me, with one exception being the consistent use of the word "bate" where I believe the word "date" should have been used (i.e., "bate stamp").

I think that's a standard term either within law enforcement in Cali(?) or the Sacto Sheriff specifically. Not sure yet, I intend to find out. Could be a weird spellcheck thing.

"Bates stamp" is a term of art.

It designates unique numbers applied to the pages of doccuments produced to parties in litigation. "Bates" is a proper noun.

For instance, if I was suing Mr. March, he might number the documents he produces to me in litigation as "JMARCH 00001 through....???".

Non-knowledge of this concerns me.

I see that Oak already explained this....

383green
05-15-2009, 10:52 PM
Non-knowledge of this concerns me.

Since I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, you don't need to get too concerned about my non-knowedge of this particular legal term of art. ;)

I'll see if I can go back and redact my original comment about the Bates stamp... done.

7x57
05-15-2009, 11:15 PM
That's my desktop, running Linux, "spinning the cube" between two of the four "virtual desktops" I generally run. On one face of the cube I've got Windows XP running as a Virtual Machine task *underneath* Linux, with Linux surrounding and protecting Windows against malware.


Boring. Any luser can run stuff. Which boutique kernel are you running, and have you stripped out all the unnecessary generic fat?


Heh. Yeah. Let's talk geek cred :thumbsup:.

OK. When's the last time Linus flamed your code on LKML?

7x57

Kestryll
05-15-2009, 11:18 PM
GEEK FIGHT!!!!!


Somebody is going to lose a pocket protector.....

wildhawker
05-15-2009, 11:22 PM
My money is on the physicist ;)

nick
05-15-2009, 11:26 PM
If I did get a virus (unlikely as I do all general Internet stuff in Linux where I'm *immune*)


Rootkits come from the UNIX world, you know.

rob
05-15-2009, 11:29 PM
It is never a good idea to compete in a "who is the biggest nerd" contest on a forum. it never ends well for anyone involved. It kinda reminds you of that that special olympics picture....

383green
05-15-2009, 11:31 PM
Boring. Any luser can run stuff. Which boutique kernel are you running, and have you stripped out all the unnecessary generic fat?

I used to do all that stuff... then I decided to quit being a full-time system administrator, and bought a Mac. :rolleyes:

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 11:34 PM
:inquis:

7x57
05-15-2009, 11:36 PM
:inquis:

Wait, maybe this is it. Can we put Gorski in the Comfy Chair until he agrees to drop his suits?

7x57

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 11:36 PM
Rootkits come from the UNIX world, you know.

OK, *relatively* immune :).

Sheesh :).

nick
05-15-2009, 11:38 PM
It is never a good idea to compete in a "who is the biggest nerd" contest on a forum. it never ends well for anyone involved. It kinda reminds you of that that special olympics picture....

:rofl2:

nick
05-15-2009, 11:40 PM
OK, *relatively* immune :).

Sheesh :).

You think this is a tough crowd? I listened to the radio on the way from work today, and a guy called in from Anchorage, AK to correct the guest on that show and inform him that B-29 had 18-cylinder engines. I loved it! :D

nick
05-15-2009, 11:41 PM
Wait, maybe this is it. Can we put Gorski in the Comfy Chair until he agrees to drop his suits?

7x57

A little preparation on the grill, then Iron Lady, the grill again. Give a day to recuperate, then repeat as needed. Amateurs... :43:

obeygiant
05-15-2009, 11:42 PM
Boring. Any luser can run stuff. Which boutique kernel are you running, and have you stripped out all the unnecessary generic fat?



OK. When's the last time Linus flamed your code on LKML?

7x57
ouch! 7x57 takes the lead....

obeygiant
05-15-2009, 11:48 PM
It is never a good idea to compete in a "who is the biggest nerd" contest on a forum. it never ends well for anyone involved. It kinda reminds you of that that special olympics picture....

[URL="link removed"[/URL]

that is classic.

my apologies. not looking to offend anyone. that pic has been floating around the internet and emails for quite some time. As wrong as it is....it still makes me smile.

383green
05-15-2009, 11:52 PM
that is classic.

Am I in before the lock? :hide:

obeygiant
05-16-2009, 12:01 AM
this is very unfair to disabled folks, I find it offensive and insensitive

edited the post, my apologies.

383green
05-16-2009, 12:01 AM
Ok, I can't hold back any longer. Back in the day, I used to trim the generic fat out of the SunOS kernel on my 3/60. Before there was any such thing as Linux. While we didn't have source, we did have the object code and could re-link the kernel to add/remove drivers and change some configuration parameters.

Then, there was the time I had to rebuild X11R6 (or was it R5?) on that same system to add cg12 framebuffer support after I popped in the accelerated video card from some rackmounted system, which happened to use the same P4 (?) bus connector that the 3/60 had, and was supported in the very last BIOS release for the 3/60. Which I had to acquire by questionable means and then burn into an EPROM.

:p

oaklander
05-16-2009, 12:03 AM
Holy crap! I thought I was a geek for learning computing on a DEC PDP8!

I worship the ground you walk on!!!!

:thumbsup:

Ok, I can't hold back any longer. Back in the day, I used to trim the generic fat out of the SunOS kernel on my 3/60. Before there was any such thing as Linux. While we didn't have source, we did have the object code and could re-link the kernel to add/remove drivers and change some configuration parameters.

Then, there was the time I had to rebuild X11R6 (or was it R5?) on that same system to add cg12 framebuffer support after I popped in the accelerated video card from some rackmounted system, which happened to use the same P4 (?) bus connector that the 3/60 had, and was supported in the very last BIOS release for the 3/60. Which I had to acquire by questionable means and then burn into an EPROM.

:p

383green
05-16-2009, 12:13 AM
Holy crap! I thought I was a geek for learning computing on a DEC PDP8!

Actually, I think you might have me beat there. Especially if you had to toggle in a bootstrap loader prior to reading a paper tape...

:King:

CSDGuy
05-16-2009, 12:15 AM
Great... we've gone from Gorski to Geek... all in one thread.

And we end up with this -> :49:

DDT
05-16-2009, 12:32 AM
open source sure has mad sysadmin work easier. We had a couple machines at school that still have the bootloader toggles on the front, never tried to manually boot them though. Before I left most of their boards, including memory core boards, had become conference room art.

CCWFacts
05-16-2009, 12:53 AM
Back to the topic at hand...

I assume that these plaintiffs could be pursued for defendant's legal fees when they lose? And with the years that have gone into this, the defendant's bill could be very large already? And these plaintiffs seem like poor people (unstable guy kicked out of the FBI)?

Do they realize they could be financially ruined by this madness?

Do they realize that Gorski has an unblemished track record of failure in gun rights cases, because he's insane and he thinks that some court somewhere is going to agree with his insane idea that the 2A is above and beyond all regulation?

In his letter there, he's saying he wants to take on the ruling of Heller itself, and that CCW should not require a permit at all. Believe what you want but that perspective is not supported by the Heller ruling, not at all.

I think someone should point out to these plaintiffs that Gorski has lost every gun case he has ever tried, because his opinions are so far from legal reality, and these plaintiffs could end up financially ruined for having decided to participate in this folly.

I also think the NRA should talk to them and offer them incentives to quit if necessary.

This is just as I predicted: our biggest risk are idiots with barely-legal law degrees. One in particular, who is the subject of this thread. I just thought it would take longer, but then again, I shouldn't be surprised, because we haven't heard of any Gorski suits for a while, meaning he had some festering in secret.

Sobriquet
05-16-2009, 1:06 AM
Boring. Any luser can run stuff. Which boutique kernel are you running, and have you stripped out all the unnecessary generic fat?



OK. When's the last time Linus flamed your code on LKML?

7x57

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk131/Sobriquet47/james_t_kirk-1.jpg

7x57
05-16-2009, 5:57 AM
Actually, I think you might have me beat there. Especially if you had to toggle in a bootstrap loader prior to reading a paper tape...


Hmm. I was introduced to computers via zork (the pirated fortran implementation that went everywhere) and advent (the old colossal cave adventure on a system with six significant characters) using a glass teletype-style dumb terminal over a modem to my cousin's work mainframe. I believe the only thing available at home at that time was CP/M and homebrews--the eight-bit computers may not have hit the consumer market for a year or two at that point. I know it was several years before the original 8088-based PC because by the time that came out I was on my first or second 8-bit machine.

For my money the winner in this category is a friend I knew in grad school many years later. He had a VAX in the kitchen of his rented house, a bunk bed supported by two cabinets, a couple somewhere else, but his pride and joy was the PDP 11/70 in the living room. It was a glorious anachronism with iron core memory and front-panel switches. He had to shut off just about everything to keep the PDP from blowing the breakers when he turned it on. After grad school he turned his DEC obsession into a lucrative business taking care of old DEC stuff that businesses depended on but couldn't find maintenance for. What clinches it for me was that he was still using that stuff in the nineties for a handsome paycheck.

7x57

B Strong
05-16-2009, 6:18 AM
Boy, that Gorski is a class act all the way.

With "friends" like him, who needs enemies?

Not surprising he's Ventura fan:

http://www.cursor.org/stories/how_candid.htm

http://www.cursor.org/stories/seal_or_udt.htm

Read at your own risk if you believe anything that comes out of Ventura's mouth.

mofugly13
05-16-2009, 6:47 AM
Hmm. I was introduced to computers via zork (the pirated fortran implementation that went everywhere) and advent (the old colossal cave adventure on a system with six significant characters) using a glass teletype-style dumb terminal over a modem to my cousin's work mainframe. I believe the only thing available at home at that time was CP/M and homebrews--the eight-bit computers may not have hit the consumer market for a year or two at that point. I know it was several years before the original 8088-based PC because by the time that came out I was on my first or second 8-bit machine.

For my money the winner in this category is a friend I knew in grad school many years later. He had a VAX in the kitchen of his rented house, a bunk bed supported by two cabinets, a couple somewhere else, but his pride and joy was the PDP 11/70 in the living room. It was a glorious anachronism with iron core memory and front-panel switches. He had to shut off just about everything to keep the PDP from blowing the breakers when he turned it on. After grad school he turned his DEC obsession into a lucrative business taking care of old DEC stuff that businesses depended on but couldn't find maintenance for. What clinches it for me was that he was still using that stuff in the nineties for a handsome paycheck.

7x57

Booooooooriiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!;)

Not directed specifically at you 7x57.:)

Aegis
05-16-2009, 7:25 AM
I sure hope the NRA, Calguns and others find a legal or financial method to stop this guy.

ilbob
05-16-2009, 7:46 AM
I think that's a standard term either within law enforcement in Cali(?) or the Sacto Sheriff specifically. Not sure yet, I intend to find out. Could be a weird spellcheck thing.


bate stamp is the exhibit number on documents filed with the court.

ilbob
05-16-2009, 7:53 AM
As an attorney, I must say I am completely shocked by Mr. Gorski's complete lack of decorum towards fellow professionals. I have never seen someone send out professional correspondence with "BTW," "FYI," and grammatical errors.


In fairness, an informal communication like the email Gorski sent is a lot different than a formal document. Its not uncommon to see that kind of thing these days. Very few people worry a whole lot about it anymore.

I can remember years ago when people used to say you should not use contractions in formal writing. Styles change.

The viciousness is not acceptable in my mind though, even if he felt he was wronged in some way.

Scarecrow Repair
05-16-2009, 8:18 AM
Leaving aside all the bad spelling, bad language, and bad vibes ... how much of Gorksi's loss in Silveira (sp?) was due to the luck of the draw in his judges? How much of the Nordyke win was due to Kilmer's luck of the draw in his judges?

Or to put it annother way, if the judges had been reversed, would Gorski have prevailed and now be the hero, and Kilmer lost and now be the chump?

I can't resist throwing in a bit of that off-topic topic ... one of my first computers used quibinary on a 50,000 digit drum which spun at 17,000 rpm and took 12 minutes for the power tubes to stablize and the drum to spin up. Cards were 90 column round holes. Tapes had write enable rings. I also made a CDC 6400 core dump with all memory and all registers zeroed and all three error flags set. So THERE!

jimh
05-16-2009, 8:22 AM
Sorry, Gura's filing speaks for itself. He not only slammed Gorski, he made a claim that Gorski was getting tossed on a rule 12 issue when in fact Gorski dealt with that via an amended complaint, supported by a judge's minute order.

Gorski will have to live with what he wrote, but so will Gura - and Gura drew and fired first.

to bad it wasn't a head shot...

Calguns2000
05-16-2009, 8:28 AM
Is there any way to have a group of attorneys talk some sense into this guy? Has he ever even read a brief drafted by Gura?

bruss01
05-16-2009, 8:57 AM
No, I just think he needs a heart to heart talk with CHUCK NORRIS who should be adequately able to 'splain things to him so well that even his dead ancestors will understand them.

BTW I had the same thought about the 'roid rage thing. That plus a bad case of testosterone poisoning.

Too bad we cannot get a conference call through to him with Jesse Ventura, Ron Paul, Glen Beck, Chuck Norris, and other celebrities he might have some token of respect for all pleading with him to bow out gracefully for the greater good.

bulgron
05-16-2009, 9:05 AM
At this point, my hopes are on a 9th Circuit Panel punting him on standing issues.

It's sad to be hoping that the 9th Circuit will do something to kill a gun rights case.

obeygiant
05-16-2009, 9:09 AM
Anyone have a line on getting a hold of Jesse? Maybe we could get him to give Gorski a personal call and put an end to this.

Jesse Ventura on Gun Control
Click here (http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Jesse_Ventura_Gun_Control.htm) for 4 full quotes on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.

* Gun responsibility goes with gun rights. (Jul 2000)
* Guns are designed to kill; respect them. (Jan 1999)
* If you’re going to own a gun, know what you’re doing. (Jan 1999)
* Concealed weapons OK if you can pass safety exam. (Nov 1998)

CALI-gula
05-16-2009, 9:10 AM
In fairness, an informal communication like the email Gorski sent is a lot different than a formal document. Its not uncommon to see that kind of thing these days. Very few people worry a whole lot about it anymore.

I can remember years ago when people used to say you should not use contractions in formal writing. Styles change.

The viciousness is not acceptable in my mind though, even if he felt he was wronged in some way.


I recall a time when kids said "Sir" and "Ma'am".

...And when attorneys did too; not just in court. ;)

.

Shane916
05-16-2009, 9:14 AM
Fascinating! I live less then a mile from Mr. Gorski :)

jdberger
05-16-2009, 12:28 PM
Since I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, you don't need to get too concerned about my non-knowedge of this particular legal term of art. ;)

I'll see if I can go back and redact my original comment about the Bates stamp... done.

Didn't mean you. Sorry if it seemed that way. Pinot can interfere with my wordsmith skills...

CaliforniaLiberal
05-16-2009, 12:35 PM
Your weakness for Pinot concerns me.


:43:

jdberger
05-16-2009, 12:35 PM
bate stamp is the exhibit number on documents filed with the court.

No it is not. Those are known as "Exhibit Numbers". :rolleyes:

And it is a proper noun, "Bates". Like the "Dewey" in Dewey decimal.

(legal geek cred....)

jdberger
05-16-2009, 12:38 PM
I assume that these plaintiffs could be pursued for defendant's legal fees when they lose?

That's the Brit system, not ours.

bussda
05-16-2009, 12:55 PM
Leaving aside all the bad spelling, bad language, and bad vibes ... how much of Gorksi's loss in Silveira (sp?) was due to the luck of the draw in his judges? How much of the Nordyke win was due to Kilmer's luck of the draw in his judges?

Or to put it annother way, if the judges had been reversed, would Gorski have prevailed and now be the hero, and Kilmer lost and now be the chump?

Keeping on topic... :43:

Gorski's loss in Silviera was attributed to 2 reasons. Reinhardt's desire to rebut Emerson, and a poorly crafted case (Used the shotgun approach, try everything and hope something works). But if the case had been better crafted, the 9th circuit probably still would shot him down. Gorski was warned he would lose, but went ahead anyway. Which is a big part of the angst here on the boards.

With Nordyke (which was a loss, except for incorporation), once they accepted arguments on the 2nd amendment basis, and with Heller, any other result would have probably brought an full circuit hearing, and full Supreme Court remand to do it over. And judges really hate that.

1859sharps
05-16-2009, 1:07 PM
So it appears that Gary Gorski isn't interested in incremental progress, he wants it all at once. I would also encourage everyone to write, as I was invited by him to respond back to him.

I will concede Gary one point out of the benefit of the doubt, as until the last couple days I had never heard of him. That being it appears his hart is in the right place. Over turn bad gun control laws.

I am not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV, but I have learned a thing or two about the legal system over the years. Particularly when it comes to Gun Law. The court system does not want to, and will try everything they can do to avoid an all in one case that resolves all 2nd amendment and Gun Control questions at one time.

The bold portion of my quote from RoadRunner summaries that Gary apparently does not get this. Trying to win it all in one big case is foolish and DANGEROUS.

Please, Please, if you support Gary, PLEASE give some serious thought asking him to back off. He clearly does not understand constitutional law and what it takes to make good, solid case law.

I wish him no harm or ill will, I only hope the he comes to the understanding he is over his head. Or that someone can get through to him and either get him on the team or to step aside and allow those who are better resourced to carry the ball for a while.

Paladin
05-16-2009, 8:08 PM
I only read Gorski's email and the first few pages of this thread. All I can say is that a licensed attny who would write an email like that to his natural allies really makes me question eliminating discretion and going for "Shall Issue." (half-joking)

"Please, Lord, have my alarm clock go off in five minutes so that I'll know this is just a bad dream." :( (shakes head)

This is a reminder that we should not put all our eggs in the Heller-Nordyke litigation basket. We need to do those CalNRA "One-Click" emails, help our So Cal friends in OC where we can w/their CCW fight, help TBJ where we can w/their 14th A Equal Protection violation CCW fights, organize for the 2010 sheriffs elections to keep pros in and to keep antis out and to tip the balance where we can, and to work w/the NRA to win back the US Senate (optimally) and the House too (ideally) as well as make some headway in CA senate and assembly races as well.

As a Marine officer in the Korean War once said, "The enemy is in front of us and behind us. They're to the left of us and to the right of us. They're not going get away this time!" :43:
:79:

leadchucker
05-16-2009, 11:11 PM
...he's insane and he thinks that some court somewhere is going to agree with his insane idea that the 2A is above and beyond all regulation?



:eek:

Oh, yeah? Just how much regulation is O.K.? This has been the ongoing debate that has torn our 2nd Amendment right to shreds. The writings of the Founding Fathers seems very clear to this reader that they never intended any regulation at all in the matter!

While I agree that a once-for-all approach may not be the wisest at this point, I highly doubt the Founding Fathers would be daintily tip-toeing around the circus we now have for a legal system. How sad that anyone claiming to be pro-2A feels "shall not be infringed" means that some infringement is acceptable. I suppose the Founding Fathers were insane? I thank God they were NOT!

Roadrunner
05-16-2009, 11:45 PM
:eek:

Oh, yeah? Just how much regulation is O.K.? This has been the ongoing debate that has torn our 2nd Amendment right to shreds. The writings of the Founding Fathers seems very clear to this reader that they never intended any regulation at all in the matter!

While I agree that a once-for-all approach may not be the wisest at this point, I highly doubt the Founding Fathers would be daintily tip-toeing around the circus we now have for a legal system. How sad that anyone claiming to be pro-2A feels "shall not be infringed" means that some infringement is acceptable. I suppose the Founding Fathers were insane? I thank God they were NOT!

Leadchucker I agree that any infringement of the second amendment is too much. However, even when the second amendment was considered an individual right in the early and mid 19th century, southern states were placing regulations on the carrying of weapons. For example, did you know that because of the reputation that the Bowie Knife had, some states considered it an offensive weapon and in fact the stigma that a person was thought to be looking for a fight was placed on a person who wore one.

In the south, because of those fighting Scots-Irish, concealed weapons were outlawed in an attempt to reduce violence. Because southerners migrated to California during the Gold Rush, they brought their concealed weapons laws with them. Interestingly, New York didn't have a concealed carry law in place until the 1920's.

The point I'm making is this, we didn't slide down the slippery slope of gun restrictions overnight. Our ancestors permitted it to happen incrementally because they were told that it would make everyone safer. So, now we are at that point of undoing what legislators were allowed to implement over a period of 150 years. Hopefully, it won't take that long to fully restore our rights.