PDA

View Full Version : If you need to prove Cali CCW is a mess, READ THIS!


1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 11:17 AM
This document is the single most damaging set of revelations on CCW malpractice ever. It's the 64-page delaration of a retired Sacramento County member of the *brass* - LT. Timothy Twomey.

We have NEVER seen anything like this.

Details on this level and with this level of credibility are why Gorski's pleading in his latest case runs 78 pages.

ORANGE COUNTY FOLKS: I'll be posting choice excerpts in this thread. This document is a very powerful testament to how bad a department can get on CCW, and why the OC Board of Supes needs to head this bull$hi+ off at the pass via an ordinance on "good cause".

ilbob
05-15-2009, 12:22 PM
filed in nov 2007?

what took so long for you to post it? just curious.

yellowfin
05-15-2009, 12:35 PM
filed in nov 2007?

what took so long for you to post it? just curious. It probably wasn't easy to find.

Roadrunner
05-15-2009, 12:48 PM
This document is the single most damaging set of revelations on CCW malpractice ever. It's the 64-page delaration of a retired Sacramento County member of the *brass* - LT. Timothy Twomey.

We have NEVER seen anything like this.

Details on this level and with this level of credibility are why Gorski's pleading in his latest case runs 78 pages.

ORANGE COUNTY FOLKS: I'll be posting choice excerpts in this thread. This document is a very powerful testament to how bad a department can get on CCW, and why the OC Board of Supes needs to head this bull$hi+ off at the pass via an ordinance on "good cause".

Jim, I think you're preaching to the choir. Just knowing that we can't get one is proof positive at how bad it is.

1923mack
05-15-2009, 1:11 PM
Interesting reading. Confirms what many of us assume. Orange County probably had similar with the deposed Sheriff.

ke6guj
05-15-2009, 1:23 PM
filed in nov 2007?

what took so long for you to post it? just curious.maybe because it appears that Gorski has been holding his cards close to his vest, and the deposition wasn't widely known.

oaklander
05-15-2009, 1:26 PM
Jim,

Can you explain, in plain English, how this document helps us? Gorski's writing is almost impenetrable.

This line from the complaint (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/gorski2amended.pdf) is also a joke:

19. Both Plaintiffs were emotionally upset about the violations of their constitutional rights in the CCW application process.

After seeing Gorski's email to Gene - I'm inclined to think that most of what he writes is crap.

GuyW
05-15-2009, 1:28 PM
Gorski's writing is almost impenetrable.


It IS purportedly the expert's words....
.

oaklander
05-15-2009, 1:31 PM
LOL - Declarations, meh!

:)


It IS purportedly the expert's words....
.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 1:43 PM
Lt. Twomey wrote it. This isn't Gorski's writing style.

It looks "impenetrable" because Twomey knows he's talking about outright criminal activity by, among others, the current sheriff. So he's crossing every "t" and dotting every "i".

I'd seen references to this by Gorski about three or four days ago. I got the document itself this morning.

I'll post key snippets in a bit. But meanwhile, understand: NOBODY this high up in a department has ever talked about CCW misconduct before. Ever.

oaklander
05-15-2009, 1:47 PM
But Jim,

You didn't answer my question - how exactly is this helpful to us???

And why are you posting it now?

EDIT: I went and reread it (or as much as I could stomach). It's exactly Gorski's writing style. It's obtuse, rambling, and contains way too many irrelevant facts. I could have said the same thing in 5 pages, and not pissed off the poor judge who has to read this crap.

Lt. Twomey wrote it. This isn't Gorski's writing style.

It looks "impenetrable" because Twomey knows he's talking about outright criminal activity by, among others, the current sheriff. So he's crossing every "t" and dotting every "i".

I'd seen references to this by Gorski about three or four days ago. I got the document itself this morning.

I'll post key snippets in a bit. But meanwhile, understand: NOBODY this high up in a department has ever talked about CCW misconduct before. Ever.

7x57
05-15-2009, 1:54 PM
But Jim,

You didn't answer my question - how exactly is this helpful to us???

And why are you posting it now?

I assume Jim wishes to show that Gorski's litigation strategy is viable, perhaps that it is superior to Gura's but at least that there is an avenue to litigate the current CCW system beyond the "right people's" case. That seems to be what he said in the other thread, and posting evidence that a corruption-based strategy is workable seems like a reasonable line of argument.

7x57

demnogis
05-15-2009, 1:55 PM
This same expert witness can provide his experience on the force for the CC lawsuits. He already has done so, once, according to the statement.

ke6guj
05-15-2009, 1:59 PM
I assume Jim wishes to show that Gorski's litigation strategy is viable, perhaps that it is superior to Gura's but at least that there is an avenue to litigate the current CCW system beyond the "right people's" case. That seems to be what he said in the other thread, and posting evidence that a corruption-based strategy is workable seems like a reasonable line of argument.

7x57

In Jim's defense on this, it does not appear that this deposition was posted merely because of the Gorski email. Jim did refer to it earlier this week about some stuff that was incoming, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2466256#post2466256 , which was before the Gorski email.

yellowfin
05-15-2009, 2:00 PM
I assume Jim wishes to show that Gorski's litigation strategy is viable, perhaps that it is superior to Gura's but at least that there is an avenue to litigate the current CCW system beyond the "right people's" case. That seems to be what he said in the other thread, and posting evidence that a corruption-based strategy is workable seems like a reasonable line of argument.

7x57Precisely. And the question, and the doubt raised by our "right people", is whether or not the judges want to hear it. This is like turkey hunting: it's gotta not only be the right technique, but the right amount of calling, not too much of it, and not one the turkey's already heard and gotten spooked by previously.

oaklander
05-15-2009, 2:01 PM
Hmm. . .

Maybe Gorski himself should come on Calguns, and try and explain things. Neither he or Jim are getting much traction, as it stands. . .

I assume Jim wishes to show that Gorski's litigation strategy is viable, perhaps that it is superior to Gura's but at least that there is an avenue to litigate the current CCW system beyond the "right people's" case. That seems to be what he said in the other thread, and posting evidence that a corruption-based strategy is workable seems like a reasonable line of argument.

7x57

joe_sun
05-15-2009, 2:05 PM
Living in Sac County all my life and knowing a few of the "contributors" with ccws, even if in passing, I've known as do most who are into firearms in Sac County that you need to pay to play with CCW,and it's been like that since I was a kid.

It's nice to see it in the open. I wonder how I can join the Sac SSD Aero Squad?

Heatseeker
05-15-2009, 2:13 PM
After plodding through 30+ plus pages of this document, I've come to the conclusion that I need to start making some serious campaign contributions!

Unreal. I guess this is really just confirmation of what was already widely believed/known.

truthseeker
05-15-2009, 2:21 PM
As I was reading that PDF, I am having this weird "déjà vu" feeling like I have read it before.

Has this ever been posted before or is it on the interwebs someplace else besides here?

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 2:22 PM
Unreal. I guess this is really just confirmation of what was already widely believed/known.

Sure. But look at this part:

109. The information contained in this exhibit conclusively demonstrates that preceding
each election year, there is a marked increase in the number of CCWs being issued in
Sacramento County. However, particularly noticeable is that immediately before Defendant
Blanas’ first run for Sheriff in 1998, there was approximately a three-fold increase in the number
of CCWs being issued. Though it may be true, that at this time, other intra-county jurisdictions
could have been issuing CCWs, this marked increase during the election cycles every four years,
taken with all of the other factors, shows that there is a problem of CCWs being issued for
political gain.

:chris:

Dirk Tungsten
05-15-2009, 2:22 PM
Wasn't the pay-to-play scheme investigated by the feds a year or two ago? IIRC nothing came of it unfortunately.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 2:25 PM
After describing the CCW laws:

116. Defendants somehow attempt to equate this as giving them the authority to issue
temporary 90 day licenses for “emergency” purposes. The above section pertaining to the 90
day “provisional” license relates solely to the location of the applicant, and not the underlying
facts for issuance. In addition, the statute DOES NOT allow a license to be issued without all
the applicable pre-requisites of CCW issuance being first met. A good example of this abuse is
noted below with regard to the CCW application and approval of Ed Gerber below.
117. This section of the law is violated many times by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s
Department, in that CCWs were issued to out-of-county residents. (For example, at D-2520,
2594, 2671, 2826, 2485, 2854, and 2887.) This fact is important regarding the blatant abuse of
discretion in handing out CCWs, and indicative of the flagrantly subjective reasoning which was
used to determine who was issued or denied CCWs in Sacramento County. However, it was not
necessary to rely upon this fact for the ultimate conclusions I render herein. Again, it was just
another red-flag for me that there is an obvious systemic problem.

We're not EVEN in the meat of this thing yet - this is still just introductory notes warning the reader as to how bad it's gonna get.

Midian
05-15-2009, 2:28 PM
Don't have the time right now to go through the document. Who would like to bottom line this for the rest of us lazyasses?

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 2:30 PM
Last I heard the Fed investigation is still going on.

Remember: an FBI agent in San Joaquin County tried to arrest a crony of the sheriff there and got a CCW-permitted gun pulled on them for their trouble. Which wasn't all that long ago, and was out of the same Sacramento field office.

That's the sort of thing that pisses off the FBI something fierce. Tends to knock holes in that whole "blue wall" thing...

---

Another choice bit:

Therefore, the
Defendants’ policy was deficient from the start; as Amber Wong confirms, the practiced (i.e.
actual) policy was to not contact CCW applicants. Pl. Exh. “B”, Wong Depo . 17:12-19:11.
This failure to abide by even completely objective written instructions and guidance lends itself
to a conclusion that the entire CCW policy and practice was subject to the whims of the Sheriff
either directly or via his committee, and constitutes a clear failure and flaw in the CCW policy
from the start.

In other words, even though parts of the process ARE based on clear-cut rules, they couldn't even get that right.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 2:37 PM
How about this?

146. Anticipating that Defendants will argue that I “cherry picked” the most extreme
examples, I can show that these were exemplary applications and quite characteristic of the
approved applications. More importantly however, where the justification was very ‘weak’ the
applicant was invariably a campaign contributor or linked to a campaign contributor. To be fair,
there were instances where approval was for much more compelling reasons. However, I
focused my analysis on the minimum policy parameters for approval, and that is what is at issue.
Because campaign contributions and access to the Sheriff are so important to obtaining a CCW,
there are far, far more campaign contributors with approved applications based upon frivolous
justifications than applications that are compelling.

joe_sun
05-15-2009, 2:38 PM
Cliffnotes is. longtime cop does reseach to prove Sac SO issues CCW to those who give the Sheriff money and deny others with same or better just cause who did not give money.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 2:39 PM
So if that's how "cronies" are treated, how about normal folk?

148. In contrast, a vast number of CCW applicants were denied after using a much more
compelling justification, or the same, and admittedly weak verbiage in their justification; their
common denominator being that they had not made campaign contributions, nor did they know
or have access to the Sheriff. It is also noted that among those denied, the reviewing panel
sometimes required additional proof of a threat, or denied the applicant based upon the
applicant’s inability to articulate an immediate threat. This reason, a lack of “immediacy”
regarding danger written in various forms, in fact, being one of the most common reasons for
denial.

Midian
05-15-2009, 2:40 PM
Cliffnotes is. longtime cop does reseach to prove Sac SO issues CCW to those who give the Sheriff money and deny others with same or better just cause who did not give money.

Wow. Imagine that. Money talks.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 2:40 PM
Halfway through he now starts to get to the meat:

153. Based simply upon the applications, there was only one conclusion that can be
drawn from this lack of consistency; I can state to a degree of reasonable certainty that there is
no “good cause” policy or criteria for issuance or denial of a CCW application, and at a
minimum, it is simply arbitrary and capricious with absolutely no sense objectivity or baseline
criteria being used.
154. From this determination, I then attempted to figure out why CCW applications
were arbitrarily and capriciously being issued.

Again: that phrase "arbitrary and capricious" is critical: the courts have ruled against anything that even smells that way so many times it's not funny.

bulgron
05-15-2009, 2:41 PM
Don't have the time right now to go through the document. Who would like to bottom line this for the rest of us lazyasses?

A retired Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy with a fairly high rank (Lt.) and decades of experience with the policies and procedures in use by that department, testifies that:


People who kick in money to the Sacramento County sheriff's election campaign have a good chance of obtaining a CCW.
People who have personal ties with the Sacramento County Sheriff have a good chance of obtaining a CCW.
That people in groups 1 & 2 get a CCW based on thin or even arguably illegal Good Causes such as "Personal Self Defense" and "Defense of Property"
People who are not members of groups 1 and 2 have almost no chance of obtaining a CCW in Sacramento County
People in group 4 are denied their CCW because their Good Cause is not good enough, even though in many circumstances their Good Cause is much more compelling than the many examples set forth for people in groups 1 & 2.
People in Group 4 are subjected to rigorous examination by the Sheriff's department, while people in Groups 1 & 2 often are allowed to bypass the examination process via a personal interview with the Sheriff.
The Sheriff has testified that he has no direct involvement with the CCW process in that county, yet point 6 contradicts that testimony.


The whole thrust of the document is that ultimately, there is no CCW process in place in Sacramento, and what is in place is arbitrary and capricious and used to finance the Sacramento County Sheriff's Campaign.

The document was quite long and I didn't have time to read it in detail, so I probably missed a few points.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 2:43 PM
Here we go...direct cash corruption notes. Look at how carefully this guy is phrasing it:

161. Additionally, Sheriff’s Department affiliations such as “SSD Aero Squadron” and
“Sacramento Sheriff’s Posse” seemed to be buzz words or alerts to those evaluating the
applications. This is discussed below. Though in some cases there were applicants who entered
this information in vain and were denied CCW permits, more often than not, these words seemed
significant to a very weak application in alerting a reviewer that this was an applicant who might
be more deserving of approval or further review.

oaklander
05-15-2009, 2:45 PM
Thanks for taking one for the team!

:)

Maybe this is a simplistic question, but exactly how to we get from "Sacto CCW process is bad" to "shall issue CCW's for California."

???

A retired Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy with a fairly high rank (Lt.) and decades of experience with the policies and procedures in use by that department, testifies that:


People who kick in money to the Sacramento County sheriff's election campaign have a good chance of obtaining a CCW.
People who have personal ties with the Sacramento County Sheriff have a good chance of obtaining a CCW.
That people in groups 1 & 2 get a CCW based on thin or even arguably illegal Good Causes such as "Personal Self Defense" and "Defense of Property"
People who are not members of groups 1 and 2 have almost no chance of obtaining a CCW in Sacramento County
People in group 4 are denied their CCW because their Good Cause is not good enough, even though in many circumstances their Good Cause is much more compelling than the many examples set forth for people in groups 1 & 2.
People in Group 4 are subjected to rigorous examination by the Sheriff's department, while people in Groups 1 & 2 often are allowed to bypass the examination process via a personal interview with the Sheriff.
The Sheriff has testified that he has no direct involvement with the CCW process in that county, yet point 6 contradicts that testimony.


The whole thrust of the document is that ultimately, there is no CCW process in place in Sacramento, and what is in place is arbitrary and capricious and used to finance the Sacramento County Sheriff's Campaign.

The document was quite long and I didn't have time to read it in detail, so I probably missed a few points.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 2:47 PM
Pretty damn damning:

176. After a careful analysis of the data, it was very evident that there was a very strong
correlation in that campaign contributors and their relatives, family members, and business
associates indeed have a definitive advantage in obtaining a CCW. In fact, anyone who has
contributed over several thousand dollars is virtually guaranteed a CCW, if they apply. However,
it is rare that even those making smaller contributions are turned down for a CCW. When a
contributor was denied, it was most likely other disqualifying extenuating circumstances, such as
a lack of residence, criminal history, or a history of domestic violence which was the reason. At
the time I prepared my expert report, I did not have this database available, and now I realize
there are a few very minor campaign contributors who had not received a CCW, though they had
applied. However, with this caveat, my opinion remains the same.

(Note that the board software FORCES me to make some comment on each quoted part...)

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 2:52 PM
Quoting Oaklander:

Maybe this is a simplistic question, but exactly how to we get from "Sacto CCW process is bad" to "shall issue CCW's for California."

Well let's take one example: the Orange County Board of Supes is going to discuss CCW Tuesday.

So looking at this, we have proof that worst-case corruption CAN happen, and subject the county to major lawsuit loss, loss of credibility, etc.

In the case of Orange County, they have a screwball sheriff they already hate and seriously regret hiring not long ago to replace screwball Carona. They're at least pondering putting in a "good cause ordinance" that forces shall-issue. What this does is bolster the case for doing so: the county board of supes can say "we don't want to even risk a freakshow here like happened in Sacto, esp. since it appears former Sheriff Carona (now sentenced to prison) DID get this funky with CCW, and our current sheriff appears to be a lunatic".

In other words, this one document could tilt the balance in that county...which has a population bigger than some entire shall-issue states.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 2:59 PM
Obvious cronyism:

208. If the standard for approval is “a reasonable business precaution”, then most
business owners should be issued CCWs. However, the law is clear: one may have a firearm in
their place of business, thus a CCW is not needed. What was obvious to me immediately was that
Tom Sullivan of The Sullivan Group has a close line of communication with the Sheriff, and this
cannot be disputed for Sheriff McGinniss himself appeared frequently on Tom Sullivan’s
program before Sullivan left for the national spotlight. I have personal knowledge in that I know
Sheriff McGinniss, I recognize his voice, and I listened to Sheriff McGinnis personally speak
many times on Tom Sullivan’s program. The three panel committee was completely bypassed -
again, similar to Gerber and Koewler.

That last bit in bold is important: it's not just that different standards were applied, there were also different application procedures for "the elite".

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 2:59 PM
And this continues under the current sheriff:

Then, after McGinniss becomes Sheriff, you see the same pattern – the Sheriff
getting personally involved in the CCW approval process for select individuals.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 3:01 PM
I'll get back to this later, leaving off at page 43. We're about to get into the "aero squad" fiasco...good times!

bulgron
05-15-2009, 3:01 PM
Thanks for taking one for the team!

:)

Maybe this is a simplistic question, but exactly how to we get from "Sacto CCW process is bad" to "shall issue CCW's for California."

???

I thought the whole point of the process is to get judges to admit that the discretionary aspect of our CCW system is unconstitutional. If it happens at the 9th Circuit or higher, CCW permits become shall-issue for the entire state.

Once you remove all discretion, may issue becomes shall issue, right?

What makes me curious is I thought you're a lawyer. Surely I'm not telling you something you don't already know??

oaklander
05-15-2009, 3:14 PM
:)

Now read both Gura's complaint and Gorski's complaint, and tell me which one is more likely to do that.

I thought the whole point of the process is to get judges to admit that the discretionary aspect of our CCW system is unconstitutional. If it happens at the 9th Circuit or higher, CCW permits become shall-issue for the entire state.

Once you remove all discretion, may issue becomes shall issue, right?

What makes me curious is I thought you're a lawyer. Surely I'm not telling you something you don't already know??

RomanDad
05-15-2009, 3:16 PM
Interesting reading. Confirms what many of us assume. Orange County probably had similar with the deposed Sheriff.

You have no idea what youre talking about.

Thanks for taking one for the team!

:)

Maybe this is a simplistic question, but exactly how to we get from "Sacto CCW process is bad" to "shall issue CCW's for California."

???


From what Ive seen, I think thats been a major misunderstanding for the last few days.... EXCEPT (and its a pretty big "except" that poses a bit of danger, just in terms of the TIME allowed to argue it) for the fact that Groskis complaint alleges violations of the Second Amendment (along with the 4th 5th 9th 10th 14th and a few others I didnt know had passed yet) Its not a second amendment case at all....

Its a CCW= CORRUPTION case.

Not too dissimilar than the stuff Guillory has been doing for years. The interesting thing is.... This level of corruption is not at all isolated to Sacramento County.

I dont think it has much chance at all to do anything for CCW outside of Sacramento, but Im not sure how that's Gorski's problem. He has clients. Those clients have hired him to take a case. Hes taken it. From what I can see, hes worked his *** off on it. And now hes supposed to DROP THE CASE CONTRARY TO HIS CLIENTS INTEREST because CALGUNS SAYS SO? You took the MPRE? Im pretty sure "Drop the case" is the disbarrable response.


Now I agree, the letter he sent is ridiculous, and leaves me a lot of of concern about his temperament, but there isnt much we can do about that now. And you and I both know, Groski isnt the first attorney to be a complete *******. The bar is filled with bombastic, bull in a china shop *****s like this, and some of them do quite well when they dont believe their own schtick and remember its about the client, not themselves...

M. D. Van Norman
05-15-2009, 3:20 PM
ORANGE COUNTY FOLKS: … This document is a very powerful testament to how bad a department can get on CCW, and why the OC Board of Supes needs to head this … off at the pass via an ordinance on “good cause”.

Don’t forget that Sheriff Hutchens was “cleaning up corruption” by revoking concealed-carry licenses.

bulgron
05-15-2009, 3:21 PM
:)

Now read both Gura's complaint and Gorski's complaint, and tell me which one is more likely to do that.

Not being a lawyer, I'm not qualified to make that determination. However, just based purely on track record, I prefer to back Gura who has won more 2A cases than has Gorski. Plus, Gura has way more resources at his disposal than does Gorski, who is by all accounts playing the Lone Wolf.

edwardm
05-15-2009, 3:31 PM
Only most?

Interesting how one of the things the bar harps on now is 'civility' among counsel. Gorski apparently didn't get that memo. I was going to say "If I had been in his shoes....", but that would necessitate that I was a complete numbnut of an attorney, which I'm not (attorney, yes, numbnut, only when the skilsaw kicks me in the groin, thank you very much).

The document itself is interesting reading, to a point, purely for entertainment purposes. I love the tortured language and verbosity. This is the kind of crap the legal writing instructors held up when they wanted to make the point about "How to piss people off and make lots of enemies." It looks like an attempt to sidestep a "Class of 1" EP issue (though the Kilmer/Gura case won't face that issue.)


Jim,

Can you explain, in plain English, how this document helps us? Gorski's writing is almost impenetrable.

This line from the complaint (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/gorski2amended.pdf) is also a joke:



After seeing Gorski's email to Gene - I'm inclined to think that most of what he writes is crap.

gunsmith
05-15-2009, 3:34 PM
thanks for posting this stuff Jim, glad to have you here on calguns.

383green
05-15-2009, 3:38 PM
I read the whole Twomey Declaration, and I think that it's pretty stunning. My Cliff's Notes version would be:

Campaign contributors were almost guaranteed CCW issuance despite weak or no good cause. Non-campaign contributors rarely got CCW, despite real good cause and evidence of immediate danger. Blanas has been intimately and personally involved in this corruption.

The summary really doesn't do justice to the level of filth and stink described in the Declaration. I think it's well worth a complete reading, particularly by our more in-the-loop Calgunners. It's hard to get started, as Twomey spends a good number of pages outlining his credentials, analytical approaches, etc., but this all appears to my engineer eyes (untrained in law) to be necessary dotting I's, crossing T's, and supporting of methodologies used.

Disclaimers: I haven't read the Gorski complaints. I have read his letter to Gene and others in that other thread, and my opinion of Mr. Gorski is very low at this time. I'm not at all convinced that Gorski's approach is good (or even non-dangerous), and I do not know whether the Twomey Declaration is directly useful in the pro-CCW approach that the so-called "Right People" are taking. I share others' apprehension about having a group of so-called Right People in the first place, but I'm standing behind those people right now because I think that their track record has been good, and their approach seems sound and results-oriented to me.

With all of that being said, I think that the Twomey Declaration is worth a thorough reading, regardless of anybody's opinions about Mr. Gorski and/or the merits of his arguments. Maybe that's damning Gorski with faint praise, maybe it's praising him with faint damns, but it's the conclusion that I've reached after viewing this unfolding drama as an outsider and trying to be rational and detached about the whole thing.

vrand
05-15-2009, 4:17 PM
Only most?

Interesting how one of the things the bar harps on now is 'civility' among counsel. Gorski apparently didn't get that memo. I was going to say "If I had been in his shoes....", but that would necessitate that I was a complete numbnut of an attorney, which I'm not (attorney, yes, numbnut, only when the skilsaw kicks me in the groin, thank you very much).

The document itself is interesting reading, to a point, purely for entertainment purposes. I love the tortured language and verbosity. This is the kind of crap the legal writing instructors held up when they wanted to make the point about "How to piss people off and make lots of enemies." It looks like an attempt to sidestep a "Class of 1" EP issue (though the Kilmer/Gura case won't face that issue.)

:43:

Aegis
05-15-2009, 7:57 PM
Has someone forwarded this document to the California AG? I remember reading threads about how pro 2A he is, but his silence since incorporation is saying the opposite.

yellowfin
05-15-2009, 8:07 PM
It seems the biggest obstacle to making a case out of corruption scandals is that in this state nobody in power really seems to care so long as it isn't about to bring them down and the people, even us, are so accustomed to it going unpunished and the people who would do the punishing are too used to doing nothing and/or being told not to. If Carona hadn't been on our side as far as CCW issuance goes, my guess is nothing would have ever happened to him. There are all kinds of corrupt slimeballs in office in this state and so very VERY few of them have ANYTHING happen to them.

More corruption? Who cares.

CSDGuy
05-15-2009, 8:11 PM
To my non-lawyer eyes, it is obvious that Gorski's case is a corruption case that happens to involve CCW. The fact that there's Discretionary Issue is what allows the corruption stuff to flourish. It's the corruption itself that should be attacked... and let the CCW stuff be. Taking down a Sheriff for this kind of activity... would be a HUGE wake up call to other Sheriffs that engage in corruption and use CCW as the reward.

383green
05-15-2009, 10:07 PM
Has someone forwarded this document to the California AG? I remember reading threads about how pro 2A he is, but his silence since incorporation is saying the opposite.

I think that forwarding it to the state DOJ might be a moot point now that it's evidence in a federal court trial. Comments from the more lawyerly among us?


To my non-lawyer eyes, it is obvious that Gorski's case is a corruption case that happens to involve CCW. The fact that there's Discretionary Issue is what allows the corruption stuff to flourish. It's the corruption itself that should be attacked... and let the CCW stuff be. Taking down a Sheriff for this kind of activity... would be a HUGE wake up call to other Sheriffs that engage in corruption and use CCW as the reward.

Hmm, interesting angle. So the Gorski cases are corruption cases that involve CCW, while the Gura case is a CCW case that involves corruption. If they turn out that way in practice, then that might not be too bad. On the other hand, if the cases get related, or if Gorski pulls the wrong panel and makes bad case law in the CCW area, etc., I think there's still room for his ego-driven approach to do some harm.

I'm crossing my fingers that this all turns out right...

CSDGuy
05-15-2009, 10:24 PM
I think that forwarding it to the state DOJ might be a moot point now that it's evidence in a federal court trial. Comments from the more lawyerly among us?




Hmm, interesting angle. So the Gorski cases are corruption cases that involve CCW, while the Gura case is a CCW case that involves corruption. If they turn out that way in practice, then that might not be too bad. On the other hand, if the cases get related, or if Gorski pulls the wrong panel and makes bad case law in the CCW area, etc., I think there's still room for his ego-driven approach to do some harm.

I'm crossing my fingers that this all turns out right...
Gura's case seems to be basically about the law itself, and uses corruption to point out the inconsistencies in it. Gorski's cases seem to be basically about corruption that happens to involve CCW. At least that's how I see it. It's not that I don't think that Gorski has a bad case... it's that it should be better timed so that you have Heller, Nordyke, and Gura's case (if it's decided the way "we" want) as an anvil... and Gorski's corruption case as a hammer with corrupt Sheriffs between them.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 11:06 PM
There are near-endless discussions of the statuses of individual cronies. This bit seems worth quoting because it shows the patterns across multiple cronies:

226. However, the application of Roman Thorntona is really interesting as he is the
personal assistant for Ron Sellers. Twomey Exhibit “D”, Page: 68. Thorntona requested a CCW
to guard Sellers, but Seller’s can guard himself since he too has a CCW. Again, not only does the
proprietor of a business who contributes heavily to the Sheriff obtain a CCW upon application,
but those closely associated with this contributor are approved as well (i.e. Halami with Fite; Hill
with Frink; Gilmore and Merri with Anderson; Koewler with Kimmel; and now Thorntona with
Sellers, not to mention the other two Sellers as well; then there are the two Raptakis; and
Halverstadt with Sullivan/McGinniss).
227. From there, it just goes on. Dave Baker, carpet business, contributed to Defendant
Blanas's campaign, and received a CCW, and his application was "approved Chief Dan Lewis",
and bypassing the so-called committee altogether with undocumented threats.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 11:09 PM
Or this neat pile of cronies:

230. John Christie employs Nanette Blanas (a woman whom I know to be Defendant
Blanas’ wife), and both of these individuals also work in the same office as Angelo Tsakopoulos
(i.e. AKT Development) whose name and company contributes heavily to Defendant Blanas. See
Twomey Exhibit “I”, Page: 1-3. For example Twomey Exhibit “J”, Page: 17, $25,000.00
“forgiven loan” with the same business address, and this pattern is repeated throughout Defendant
Blanas’ campaign records. John Christie had his CCW approved in October of 1998, and the
$25,000.00 loan was forgiven by 1/11/99. No other information is provided on Twomey Exhibit
“D”, Page: 84. However, at Twomey Exhibit “D”, Page: 85, John Christie describes his place of
employment as “Sunrise Liquors” on Greenback Lane, but his real estate license has him listed at
7700 College Town Drive, Suite 101, the same identical address and suite as Angelo
Tsakopoulos.

231. On the face of the application, and the only basis for approval is “carry large
amounts of cash to the bank three to four times a week. Also work at the above business often
times late.” Twomey Exhibit “D”, Page: 85. It is also noted that 10 years prior, in “1988", he
was denied a CCW, which also happens to be 10 years after he incorporated “Sunrise Liquors,
Inc.” on 4/7/1978. Twomey Exhibit “N”. Likewise, John Christie’s wife also applied for, and
received a CCW for the same purported reason.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 11:12 PM
And it all seems to work in reverse too:

237. Kermit Schayltz, owner of Lucky Derby Casino, was issued a CCW in 1996 for “course of business - to and from bank.” with only two members present on the three member review panel. Interestingly, a person who has had a CCW since 1996, is suddenly denied in 2007 by McGinniss [ed: newest sheriff], apparently because Schayltz did not contribute to McGinniss’ campaign.

238. The important point is that this individual has been operating the same business for years, and is eventually denied a CCW for the same reason one was approved. At a minimum, this shows an arbitrary and capricious policy with absolutely no standard for the reviewing committee members to abide by.

yellowfin
05-15-2009, 11:15 PM
If Gorski wanted to pursue a corruption case, then why sue rather than press charges?

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 11:16 PM
Yet again:

257. My attention was also directed to Defendant Blanas being deliberately evasive in
responding to questions regarding who he issued a CCW and Honorary Badges to and who
contributed to his campaigns, with coaching by his attorney. Pl. Exh. "A", Blanas Depo.
23:15-25:24, 29:13-30:21, In fact, at one point, Defendant Blanas deliberately lied about his
ownership of a million dollar vacation home in Reno with CCW and campaign contributor Edwin
Gerber, then he changed his mind on the subject. Pl. Exh. "A", Blanas Depo. 46:7-16,
47:9-48:12.

258. Moreover, take Twomey Exhibit “J”, Page: 115, this is a list of outstanding loans to
Defendant Blanas in the year 2001, and out of nine loans, two of which are by the same individual
under different companies (i.e. Manikas with Color Core and Five Star Services), so there are
only eight individuals. Of these eight, five have CCWs (Beneto, Brannigan, Manikas, Cummings,
and Frink), one indirectly employs Defendant Blanas’ wife (Angelo Tsakoploulos through
Christie), and one sold a house to Defendant Blanas and Gerber, who is a Co-owner and also just
happens to have a CCW. This is just an example of what the volumes of documents show.

259. In fact, it is more likely than not that on every page one will find at least one CCW
permit holder who has contributed to Defendant Blanas’ campaign.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 11:20 PM
If Gorski wanted to pursue a corruption case, then why sue rather than press charges?

Are you suggesting he's a prosecutor? Because I assure you, he isn't.

All he CAN do is sue on equal protection grounds.

Look...as most of you know, I'm in AZ now. One of THE most corrupt sheriffs in the US is Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County (where Phoenix is). Maricopa is a BIG county, with 56% of the total population of AZ.

If the county DA in Maricopa ever loses an election, Joe Arpaio will have to immediately move to Costa Rica with as much of his ill-gotten gains as possible. Because the current DA is Arpaio's puppet in every way imaginable.

Likewise, sheriffs in Sacramento have long had cozy relationships with the county DA there. I don't know the current status but I doubt it's changed.

A bad DA is how you GET a bad sheriff. They often go hand in hand. And together they can really stink up the place while making piles of money on the side.

Kestryll
05-15-2009, 11:39 PM
And now hes supposed to DROP THE CASE CONTRARY TO HIS CLIENTS INTEREST because CALGUNS SAYS SO? You took the MPRE? Im pretty sure "Drop the case" is the disbarrable response.


Go back and reread it.

No one said drop his case, they are trying to keep the two SEPARATE since it is felt that Gorski's is detrimental to Gura's.

Not 'Drop it BECAUSE CALGUNS SAYS SO'.

Kestryll
05-15-2009, 11:40 PM
Yet again:

Instead of continually posting quotes from this try linking to the entire thing in one post.

Thanks.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 11:50 PM
Go back and reread it.

No one said drop his case, they are trying to keep the two SEPARATE since it is felt that Gorski's is detrimental to Gura's.

Not 'Drop it BECAUSE CALGUNS SAYS SO'.

Ummm...sorry, but you're exactly wrong here.

About eight days or so ago I was approached by a person from these forums about talking to Gary Gorski and arranging a meeting to involve Gene Hoffman, Gura, Kilmer and possibly others. Gene Hoffman was then brought on the line in a three-way conference call. Hoffman stressed to me that they were going to ask Gorski to drop his case before it got to a three-judge panel of the ninth circus. Period, full stop, that was their plan.

I expressed skepticism but agreed that having Gura, Kilmer and Gorski talk couldn't hurt.

What I didn't know is that Gura had a day or two earlier filed the motion against conjoined cases of 5/5 in which he slapped Gorski around, precluding any friendly meeting of the minds.

Regardless, I'll tell you for a certainty: the plan WAS to get Gorski to back out.

1JimMarch
05-16-2009, 12:00 AM
Instead of continually posting quotes from this try linking to the entire thing in one post.

It's linked right at the beginning.

OK, I'm done posting snippets. The final snippet is about the persecution of Deputy Aaron McAtee, punished brutally for over a decade for daring to write down what arrestee (and crony) James Colafrancesco said:

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/colafrancescopapers.pdf

But that's a relatively complex issue. The snippets I've cited are among the easiest to understand pieces of what Lt. Twomey is talking about.

Now picture the OC Board of Supes meeting Tuesday. Imagine a string of people doing nothing but reading these snippets, all with the same comment at the end: are you willing to bet Sheriff Hutchens isn't going to be tempted to do the same idiotic stuff? Are you willing to bet the county's money in a loser of a lawsuit, after Carona is alleged *by the FBI* to have done this stuff?

Or are you going to prevent this for all time, with a local ordinance?

And just keep slamming these snippets home like repeated howitzer hits.

Now look, the OC activists are running that show, not me. I'm just making a suggestion here and making sure they have ammo if they want to use it. I'm not dictating any one gameplan.

But damn, folks, this is a good one as gameplans go.

383green
05-16-2009, 12:06 AM
Instead of continually posting quotes from this try linking to the entire thing in one post.

Actually, he did link to the entire thing (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2483465) in post #1 prior to posting any quotes. I've read the whole thing... that took a while, as it's 64 pages of legal-speak, and the (rotting, noisome) meaty stuff is well into the document.

Kestryll
05-16-2009, 12:14 AM
Ummm...sorry, but you're exactly wrong here.

About eight days or so ago I was approached by a person from these forums about talking to Gary Gorski and arranging a meeting to involve Gene Hoffman, Gura, Kilmer and possibly others. Gene Hoffman was then brought on the line in a three-way conference call. Hoffman stressed to me that they were going to ask Gorski to drop his case before it got to a three-judge panel of the ninth circus. Period, full stop, that was their plan.

I expressed skepticism but agreed that having Gura, Kilmer and Gorski talk couldn't hurt.

What I didn't know is that Gura had a day or two earlier filed the motion against conjoined cases of 5/5 in which he slapped Gorski around, precluding any friendly meeting of the minds.

Regardless, I'll tell you for a certainty: the plan WAS to get Gorski to back out.

My reference was to what was being posted not to what Gura, CGF and Co. were discussing.
That's not exactly 'Because Calguns said so' is it?


Frankly, given the choice between Gura and Gorski I'll go with the one with actual victories under his belt.

No offense but I don't consider 'We've taken this away from retired cops' to be a victory unless you're working with the Brady Campaign.


Personally I wouldn't care what Gorski does if it wasn't for the fact that his arrogance and 'all or nothing' crap could very likely cost us everything we've gained in California since Heller and even before that.

Tell me how ERASING the gains made and sabatoging future gains is considered 'helping'?

When Gorski loses, ends up in an en banc appeal and cost the western third of the United States the Incorporation of Heller and the Constitutional protection of the Second Amendment will that be a 'victory' too?

How well do you think Gorski will be received by gun owners after that?
Will he still consider himself our 'shing champion' that no one asked for?
How many years back will we be thrown?
Will it have been worth it??

Kestryll
05-16-2009, 12:15 AM
Actually, he did link to the entire thing (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2483465) in post #1 prior to posting any quotes.

I know, which is why the question of why quote the whole thing piecemeal if it's already been linked?

1JimMarch
05-16-2009, 12:30 AM
I know, which is why the question of why quote the whole thing piecemeal if it's already been linked?

Because it IS a big dense monster and not everybody will read it.

And it's too valuable to ignore completely. Hence "snippets".

My reference was to what was being posted not to what Gura, CGF and Co. were discussing.
That's not exactly 'Because Calguns said so' is it?

Well, Gene Hoffman asking Gorski to quit is pretty close to "because Calguns says so", given Gene's role in Calguns.

Let's be clear: I'm not saying Gene Hoffman's attempt was ill-advised. He had a perfect right to ask, and a case can be made that Gorski ought to back out. The stakes at the poker table are getting somewhat scary, and will get moreso if there's a chance it could go en banc.

But once the Gura motion of 5/5 hit...ummm...yeah, a "pleasant solution" was no longer in the cards.

Frankly, given the choice between Gura and Gorski I'll go with the one with actual victories under his belt.

And that's not unreasonable.

No offense but I don't consider 'We've taken this away from retired cops' to be a victory unless you're working with the Brady Campaign.

Well...waitasec. Equal protection got applied to a gun law. Not in a way we liked, but it DID get applied as a concept. That's...well, something anyhow.

Personally I wouldn't care what Gorski does if it wasn't for the fact that his arrogance and 'all or nothing' crap could very likely cost us everything we've gained in California since Heller and even before that.

I don't see his cases as "all or nothing". As I keep saying, his gameplan and that of Gura/Kilmer are actually very similar.

Tell me how ERASING the gains made and sabatoging future gains is considered 'helping'?

Now wait. This is a risky game for anybody, Gura/Kilmer included. If we remain too afraid to lose, we can't possibly win.

Look at what happened to the gays. About, what, 15 or so years ago they went to the USSC and got their butts handed to 'em (pardon the really bad pun) with a ruling that state-level anti-sodomy laws were constitutional. They played for all the marbles (oww, pun again) and lost as big as you can lose.

And then came back 13 years later and won.

Do we have that level of guts, both to take the big risks and then overcome losses as needed?

When Gorski loses, ends up in an en banc appeal and cost the western third of the United States the Incorporation of Heller and the Constitutional protection of the Second Amendment will that be a 'victory' too?

"When" he loses? I think you're jumping the gun. Again: he may not be the world's best writer but his background research is solid and he's made ALL the right claims: a right to self defense (now recognized via Heller/Nordyke), a right to administrative processes free of "arbitrary and capricious" crap (identical language as the Gura/Kilmer filing).

I'm telling you, he's learned from Silveira.

Unfortunately, one lesson he learned from Silveira is "don't even try and play well with others because they'll publicly slap you around in every possible forum, from court filings to the pages of Shotgun News".

:(

How well do you think Gorski will be received by gun owners after that?
Will he still consider himself our 'shing champion' that no one asked for?
How many years back will we be thrown?
Will it have been worth it??

Yeah, well, three or four months and we'll know. Unless some whack job is considering solving this issue via assassination I hope to God not...

sierratangofoxtrotunion
05-16-2009, 12:37 AM
I know, which is why the question of why quote the whole thing piecemeal if it's already been linked?

Few will read the dozens of pages. Everybody who reads the thread will pick up the excerpts.

DDT
05-16-2009, 1:28 AM
it's rather like reading a description of each turd floating in a cesspool.

Thanks for posting this Jim. I'm sure there are few here who are surprised by the fact that Sac County CCW is corrupt but I'm sure the details will surprise some.

Maestro Pistolero
05-16-2009, 2:40 AM
Why wouldn't the court take this overwhelming focus on corruption, and wearily decide that the personnel administering the law are flawed rather than the law?

It's a lot of noise not directly related to the issues. Look at how clean the writing of Gura is. It's uncluttered and directly to the heart of the matter. Gura leaves nothing on the table but the fact that are necessary to arrive at the only possible conclusion.

BigDogatPlay
05-16-2009, 8:04 AM
Unless some whack job is considering solving this issue via assassination I hope to God not...

This was an interesting discussion and contrast of attorney styles right up until this.

:rolleyes:

RomanDad
05-16-2009, 8:04 AM
Go back and reread it.

No one said drop his case, they are trying to keep the two SEPARATE since it is felt that Gorski's is detrimental to Gura's.

Not 'Drop it BECAUSE CALGUNS SAYS SO'.

Thats not whats going on....

DDT
05-16-2009, 8:05 AM
This was an interesting discussion and contrast of attorney styles right up until this.

:rolleyes:

Well they are "gun people" after all. We all know that guns only lead to violence.

hoffmang
05-16-2009, 8:31 AM
About eight days or so ago I was approached by a person from these forums about talking to Gary Gorski and arranging a meeting to involve Gene Hoffman, Gura, Kilmer and possibly others. Gene Hoffman was then brought on the line in a three-way conference call. Hoffman stressed to me that they were going to ask Gorski to drop his case before it got to a three-judge panel of the ninth circus. Period, full stop, that was their plan.


No Jim.

I did ask you to put me in touch. There were lots of possible outcomes of my conversation with Gary Gorski. My main goal was to try to make sure that he didn't lose his appeal in a way that hurts us all. It's really too bad that Gary Gorski started off any conversation I would have had with him with an email that shows he doesn't even understand basic facts (like who won Heller.) Jim, you do not understand how the law works. I'd point out my explaining to you why certain equal protections claims were not viable about 9 months ago.

Jim: Answer me this question without relying upon the unconstitutionality of discretionary issuance. What law did the sheriff break by considering political contributions in the issuance process? Doesn't the sheriff have FULL DISCRETION on whether to issue? Maybe the sheriff's actual pattern or practice is to say that campaign contributions are "good moral character?"

Proving that the process is corrupt does nothing to the process. You at best have a weak equal protections claim. However, political donors are apparently all treated equally. Isn't the problem the law, and not the implementation of the law in what actually might be a legal manner? You, Jim, are stuck in a pre-Nordyke/Heller mind set. It's dangerous. Is it simply because Gary Gorski is bringing a case you've always wanted to see brought that you have some personal investment in this now very poor theory? Before Nordyke, it might have been a way to get a sheriff's office under an order but the likely outcome of that order would have been less CCW issuance overall. Have you ever really gamed out the outcomes of these sorts of cases absent the constitutional arguments?

RomanDad: A key assumption to your supposed support of Mr. Gorski's "clients" is that they are arms length. I think you're wildly wrong there.

I can't be plainer than this. Gorski is not judge friendly. The ones in black are the ones you have to impress. This sort of filing makes a judge not take him seriously. If the panel is anti-gun, it gives the panel a springboard to go leaping off into eviscerating our rights. Everyone can try to claim that this is a good idea, but ask yourself if this is a guy you'd hire with your dollars to defend your rights.

Because it's civil rights, you've got him whether you like it or not.

-Gene

ilbob
05-16-2009, 8:36 AM
My personal opinion is Gorski's case only shows that the current system is being used for personal gain by at least one sheriff.

Even if he wins, I don't see how that can end up with something like shall issue. It could just as easily end up with something like no issue as long as it is equally applied.

And what possible remedy is there? The court cannot throw the sheriff in jail for corruption.

Its certainly unfair, but official corruption is pretty rampant in other areas. I just don't see the federal courts wanting to get involved in dealing with low level criminal activity of local elected officials in a civil suit.

ilbob
05-16-2009, 8:41 AM
it's rather like reading a description of each turd floating in a cesspool.

Thanks for posting this Jim. I'm sure there are few here who are surprised by the fact that Sac County CCW is corrupt but I'm sure the details will surprise some.

I live in Illinois. No amount of official corruption surprises me in the least.

dustoff31
05-16-2009, 8:53 AM
I live in Illinois. No amount of official corruption surprises me in the least.

Yes. While I'm not legally educated enough to take sides here. It seems to me that Gorski's case and the document that Jim March posted relies far too much on the belief that the courts will find something objectionable about corruption, bribery, and cronyism.

RomanDad
05-16-2009, 8:57 AM
RomanDad: A key assumption to your supposed support of Mr. Gorski's "clients" is that they are arms length. I think you're wildly wrong there.



That might make a difference. (It might not). I know Gorski's Plaintiffs in Sylveria have been characterized as his "Rugby buddies". Just from their descriptions, that certainly doesn't "sound like" the plaintiffs in these cases. Regardless of where his plaintiff pool comes from, one must recognize a great deal of WORK has gone into these cases, and when someones work is attacked or threatened, they tend to lash out.

I tend to agree with Jim on this one. The established nexus between Campaign contributions and CCWs seems so beyond the objective preponderance of the evidence, that any finder of fact will have a difficult time NOT ruling that the Sacramento County Sheriff's were SELLING CCWs.

If it weren't for the fact that he casually argues a 2nd amendment claim (which is unnecessary to his case in my opinion) I don't see the problem. And being that the 2nd is so unnecessary to reach the underlying RICO/ EP claims I don't expect either a lot of questions on it during Oral, or for it to be a determining factor in their opinion. My guess (and hope) is, this is much ado about nothing.

As for Gorski's attitude and abilities. If Guys like him were so anathema to judges, the Plaintiffs PI bar would have been culled a long time ago. Unfortunately, in my experience, guys like him are the RULE, not the exception.

Regardless of what the plan was, it certainly backfired right from the get-go. Clearly the Notice of Related Case was worded (unnecessarily so in my opinion) in such a way as to undermine ("attack" is another word I might use) Groski and his case. Obviously a guy like THAT, is going to react LIKE THAT, to an overt threat of that sort. I think all of this might have been handled a better way. Maybe its not too late.

oaklander
05-16-2009, 11:15 AM
That might make a difference. (It might not). I know Gorski's Plaintiffs in Sylveria have been characterized as his "Rugby buddies". Just from their descriptions, that certainly doesn't "sound like" the plaintiffs in these cases. Regardless of where his plaintiff pool comes from, one must recognize a great deal of WORK has gone into these cases, and when someones work is attacked or threatened, they tend to lash out.

"Lashing out" is one thing. What Gorski did was beyond the pale. You should know that it is common for lawyers to attack the pleadings of other lawyers.

I tend to agree with Jim on this one. The established nexus between Campaign contributions and CCWs seems so beyond the objective preponderance of the evidence, that any finder of fact will have a difficult time NOT ruling that the Sacramento County Sheriff's were SELLING CCWs.

Even if that were true, I do not see how this will help anyone except the plaintiffs in Gorki's case. This was the wrong angle to take.

If it weren't for the fact that he casually argues a 2nd amendment claim (which is unnecessary to his case in my opinion) I don't see the problem. And being that the 2nd is so unnecessary to reach the underlying RICO/ EP claims I don't expect either a lot of questions on it during Oral, or for it to be a determining factor in their opinion. My guess (and hope) is, this is much ado about nothing.

Wrong, he is opening himself up for a defeat on 2A grounds. This will hurt all of us.

As for Gorski's attitude and abilities. If Guys like him were so anathema to judges, the Plaintiffs PI bar would have been culled a long time ago. Unfortunately, in my experience, guys like him are the RULE, not the exception.

I have been a member of the Plaintiff's Bar for 12 years (my day job). I can assure you that Gorki's conduct is not something that "even" PI lawyers would condone.

Regardless of what the plan was, it certainly backfired right from the get-go. Clearly the Notice of Related Case was worded (unnecessarily so in my opinion) in such a way as to undermine ("attack" is another word I might use) Groski and his case. Obviously a guy like THAT, is going to react LIKE THAT, to an overt threat of that sort. I think all of this might have been handled a better way. Maybe its not too late.

Gura wasn't making an over threat. He was pointing out the obvious. What is it that makes you the only person on Calguns (other than Jim) who thinks that Gorski has a snowball's chance in hell?

Gorski has a losing track record. Gura has a winning track record. Gorski screwed the pooch for us before. Gura helped us gain 2A rights. Are you just rooting for the "underdog" here?

It does not make sense.

There's things that reasonable people can differ about. This is not one of them.

GSequoia
05-16-2009, 11:30 AM
C'mon Oak, quit *****footing around, tell us how you really feel.

383green
05-16-2009, 11:50 AM
are you willing to bet Sheriff Hutchens isn't going to be tempted to do the same idiotic stuff? [...] Or are you going to prevent this for all time, with a local ordinance?

Speaking hypothetically, if the OC BOS was sufficiently swayed by evidence of corruption in another far-away county with no link to Hutchens other than the nebulous argument that "maybe she could decide to be a crook, too" (which sounds awfully close to the anti-gun concept that if a person is allowed to buy a gun, maybe they'll decide to be a murderer, too), and then the BOS decided to pass a local ordinance that defined what "good cause" shall be in OC, why wouldn't that local ordinance be knocked down in court as being preempted by state law?

I think I'm just as shocked by the plain evidence of outright corruption in the Twomey declaration as you are, but I don't share your optimism of its usefulness in the OC BOS meeting. I can easily imagine the BOS stating something to the effect of "unless you have some evidence to present about corruption HERE by Hutchens, cut the crap and get back on topic". Even if the BOS was swayed by it, I would think that any gun-related ordinance that they might pass would be challengeable in court on grounds of being preempted by state law.

I would expect that (as was suggested above), Hutchens would simply state that she's revoking CCW licenses to undo the effects of corruption by the previous sheriff. Then she'd follow up with an assertion that she's exercising her discretion as required by law, and applying a uniform definition of good cause (even though it's far more stringent than we would like). Then she'd state that any ordinance that the BOS might pass would be preempted by state law, so she would simply ignore it during the ensuing court battle. Then she'd close with "pound sand".

I just don't see how the OC CCW situation can be improved much without either 1) somebody other than Hutchens winning the next election for sheriff, or 2) new law being pushed down from state level involving enforcing a definition of good cause that includes unspecified self-defense, or shall-issue, or loaded open carry, etc. Absent evidence of corruption in her own office and under her own command, I don't see how Hutchens needs to be afraid of anything but the next election, and statistically, she's on good ground there as the incumbent.

Aegis
05-16-2009, 12:48 PM
I am seriously concerned about our future 2A rights in this state. After Heller and incorporation it appeared that we were well on our way to enjoying the same 2A rights as people in other states. Now with all that has transpired, it appears that our 2A rights may be screwed if matters are not handled properly. I am sure this division is EXACTLY what the anti-2A groups want to see. I hope this disagreement between the camps does not destroy the 2A rights of myself and thousands if not millions of others. I am not a lawyer and I do not know who is right or wrong or who has the best case or who started what. All I know is that this is the time to unite and fight to win back our rights, not bash each other.

RomanDad
05-16-2009, 1:33 PM
"Lashing out" is one thing. What Gorski did was beyond the pale. You should know that it is common for lawyers to attack the pleadings of other lawyers.


Its not uncommon for the OPPOSING party to attack a pleading. Its quite a different thing to have it come from an uninvolved third party. And that Particular attack has bigger implications than a typical attack of the pleadings. And you understand that.



Even if that were true, I do not see how this will help anyone except the plaintiffs in Gorki's case. This was the wrong angle to take.



Again with the "helping people other than his clients" tact? Im sorry.... But I have yet to see where Gorski has said he has any intention of helping anybody BUT his clients, or where in the canons of ethics he has a HIGHER duty than to HIS CLIENTS. Like I said, I don't think this case has ANYTHING to do with CCW outside of Sacramento, because the case as plead and argued is SPECIFIC to the Sacramento County Sheriff's LACK of a good cause policy.



Wrong, he is opening himself up for a defeat on 2A grounds. This will hurt all of us.


I doubt either is true. But if that's your concern, you should be scrambling to Help him win, instead of hoping he loses.


I have been a member of the Plaintiff's Bar for 12 years (my day job). I can assure you that Gorki's conduct is not something that "even" PI lawyers would condone.
Maybe as a members of the PLAINTIFFS bar, you don't really get to see the BAD SIDE of your colleagues? Because his conduct is par for the course from where I sit.


Gura wasn't making an over threat. He was pointing out the obvious. What is it that makes you the only person on Calguns (other than Jim) who thinks that Gorski has a snowball's chance in hell?

I'm not "the only person on Calguns" who thinks Gorski has a chance to prevail. Im just the only one with balls enough to stick my neck out against the Pack Mentality that your very question demonstrates thrives here.



Gorski has a losing track record. Gura has a winning track record. Gorski screwed the pooch for us before. Gura helped us gain 2A rights. Are you just rooting for the "underdog" here?



Yeah.... But Gorski got to the courthouse first.... Which means he gets to have his case heard first.... Nobody has to like it... But that's the facts, which means we can all live in a land of "Woulda Coulda shoulda" or we can help him achieve the best outcome possible. Like it or not, he's before the 9th circuit next month, and Gura isn't.

I warned that something like this would happen 8 months ago. When some people were cautioning others to "Wait" for the "Right People" to bring the "Right Case". The notion that prevails around here is that a handful of people somehow magically control the Judicial system of the entire state of California when it comes to gun issues... Oh if that were true.... But it isnt. Outside of this insulated forum there are hundreds of thousands of lawyers, and millions of people who have never heard of Calguns, and don't ask them for permission to file a complaint. History is decided by those who show up... And Judicial history is decided by those who show up first.




It does not make sense.

There's things that reasonable people can differ about. This is not one of them.

You can call me unreasonable... I dont care. I'm not in this to get famous, or rich, or even to make friends. I WANT TO WIN. And right now that means forgetting about the personalities involved and fixing the situation. Now... You can continue to worry about who's right and who's wrong, but he way I see it, who's right and who's wrong doesn't matter at this point.

From where I stand there are two possible courses of action. Getting Gorski to drop his second amendment claim, or helping him win it. You cant FORCE him to drop it, that was already tried and we saw where that got us... (Maybe A more AMICABLE approach and apology might work? Or are the egos involved beyond eating a little crow for the cause?)

RomanDad
05-16-2009, 1:36 PM
I am seriously concerned about our future 2A rights in this state. After Heller and incorporation it appeared that we were well on our way to enjoying the same 2A rights as people in other states. Now with all that has transpired, it appears that our 2A rights may be screwed if matters are not handled properly. I am sure this division is EXACTLY what the anti-2A groups want to see. I hope this disagreement between the camps does not destroy the 2A rights of myself and thousands if not millions of others. I am not a lawyer and I do not know who is right or wrong or who has the best case or who started what. All I know is that this is the time to unite and fight to win back our rights, not bash each other.

AMEN!


Why is it, that every time SOMEBODY, ANYBODY brings a Second Amendment case in this Country, there are a line of other "Pro Gun" attorneys lined up a mile long trying to torpedo the case?

Does everybody forget that this very thing HAPPENED TO HELLER AS WELL?

jasilva
05-16-2009, 1:50 PM
Its not uncommon for the OPPOSING party to attack a pleading. Its quite a different thing to have it come from an uninvolved third party. And that Particular attack has bigger implications than a typical attack of the pleadings. And you understand that.



Again with the "helping people other than his clients" tact? Im sorry.... But I have yet to see where Gorski has said he has any intention of helping anybody BUT his clients, or where in the canons of ethics he has a HIGHER duty than to HIS CLIENTS. Like I said, I don't think this case has ANYTHING to do with CCW outside of Sacramento, because the case as plead and argued is SPECIFIC to the Sacramento County Sheriff's LACK of a good cause policy.


I doubt either is true. But if that's your concern, you should be scrambling to Help him win, instead of hoping he loses.

Maybe as a members of the PLAINTIFFS bar, you don't really get to see the BAD SIDE of your colleagues? Because his conduct is par for the course from where I sit.

I'm not "the only person on Calguns" who thinks Gorski has a chance to prevail. Im just the only one with balls enough to stick my neck out against the Pack Mentality that your very question demonstrates thrives here.



Yeah.... But Gorski got to the courthouse first.... Which means he gets to have his case heard first.... Nobody has to like it... But that's the facts, which means we can all live in a land of "Woulda Coulda shoulda" or we can help him achieve the best outcome possible. Like it or not, he's before the 9th circuit next month, and Gura isn't.

I warned that something like this would happen 8 months ago. When some people were cautioning others to "Wait" for the "Right People" to bring the "Right Case". The notion that prevails around here is that a handful of people somehow magically control the Judicial system of the entire state of California when it comes to gun issues... Oh if that were true.... But it isnt. Outside of this insulated forum there are hundreds of thousands of lawyers, and millions of people who have never heard of Calguns, and don't ask them for permission to file a complaint. History is decided by those who show up... And Judicial history is decided by those who show up first.



You can call me unreasonable... I dont care. I'm not in this to get famous, or rich, or even to make friends. I WANT TO WIN. And right now that means forgetting about the personalities involved and fixing the situation. Now... You can continue to worry about who's right and who's wrong, but he way I see it, who's right and who's wrong doesn't matter at this point.

From where I stand there are two possible courses of action. Getting Gorski to drop his second amendment claim, or helping him win it. You cant FORCE him to drop it, that was already tried and we saw where that got us... (Maybe A more AMICABLE approach and apology might work? Or are the egos involved beyond eating a little crow for the cause?)

+1
This is a very well considered opinion.
Gorski may be obscene in his speech but finding ways to help him makes more sense at this point than crying about what can happen.

eaglemike
05-16-2009, 5:31 PM
In my experience, some people can be difficult to help..... this might be the case here.......

7x57
05-16-2009, 7:44 PM
Clearly the Notice of Related Case was worded (unnecessarily so in my opinion) in such a way as to undermine ("attack" is another word I might use) Groski and his case.


What rot. Nothing of the sort is clear. Gura was trying to keep Gorski's abrasive incompetence from torpedoing Gura's suit.


Obviously a guy like THAT, is going to react LIKE THAT, to an overt threat of that sort. I think all of this might have been handled a better way. Maybe its not too late.

While armchair psychoanalysis is more or less pointless, "too late" probably came at some point when Gorski was still an adolescent.

7x57

G17GUY
05-16-2009, 8:39 PM
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/OthWr/Gorski.htm

Q. Hypothesizing that the Supreme Court does not grant cert., do you think that the Silveira litigation will have been helpful or harmful to Second Amendment rights?

"How can it hurt? California passes a new gun law each year — it’s just a matter of time before there is a complete ban. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If the Supreme Court denies cert. in the Silveira case, much work done in developing the case will be applied to and available for other cases. I am in the process of filing a companion case in California, which will utilize the same material, and be that much better. I will not stop until this issue is decided. Groundbreaking work not yet seen by the public -- some of which should have been done a long, long time ago -- would be used to help other Second Amendment cases. The Silveira case has already succeeded on Equal Protection grounds; retired law enforcement officers in California are no longer treated as superior to average citizens. For these reasons and several others, Silveira has been and will continue to be helpful in the ultimate restoration of our Second Amendment rights."

WTF?


Q. Why did you not file a reply brief before the 3-judge panel in the 9th Circuit?

"Why should I, unless I was being paid and wanted to bill my clients for a useless filing. Filing a Reply brief before the 3-judge panel was not necessary as proven by the fact that I won the Equal Protection argument -- which CRPA/NRA's "vagueness challengers" said I didn't have a chance to win. The Second Amendment argument was already set by precedent which a three judge panel could not overrule. Only a full panel can overrule a three judge panel, which in which this case was the Hickman v. Block Chuck Michel failure."

Wulf
05-16-2009, 9:36 PM
I saw where he attacked the "imminent threat" on the basis of lots of people that couldn't prove it didn't get permits but lots most of the people that did get permits didn't have to show it, but did he attack it on the basis that the denials issued by the system place a high value on "imminent threat" but that the system is not accepting, reviewing, and ruling on CCW applications in the kind of timely fashion that would be consistent with that value.

How long does it take an abused wife to get a restraining order...48, 72 hours? The typical turn time of an application would substantially erode a claim of imminent threat as a basis for denial.

oaklander
05-16-2009, 10:29 PM
Its not uncommon for the OPPOSING party to attack a pleading. Its quite a different thing to have it come from an uninvolved third party. And that Particular attack has bigger implications than a typical attack of the pleadings. And you understand that.

You are wrong, once again. What kind of law do you practice? Does it even involve litigation? I can give you many examples. Does the word "interpleader" even ring a bell?

Again with the "helping people other than his clients" tact? Im sorry.... But I have yet to see where Gorski has said he has any intention of helping anybody BUT his clients, or where in the canons of ethics he has a HIGHER duty than to HIS CLIENTS. Like I said, I don't think this case has ANYTHING to do with CCW outside of Sacramento, because the case as plead and argued is SPECIFIC to the Sacramento County Sheriff's LACK of a good cause policy.

First, a loss on this case will hurt Gura's case. Second, Gorski should have never brought it. All attorneys have an ethical obligation not to take clearly losing cases. This is a clearly losing case. Third, civil rights litigation (and that's what this is) necessarily involves thinking about the outcome for people outside of one's own actual clients.

I doubt either is true. But if that's your concern, you should be scrambling to Help [sic] him win, instead of hoping he loses.

I don't hope he loses. I simply wish he never would have brought the case.

Maybe as a members of the PLAINTIFFS bar, you don't really get to see the BAD SIDE of your colleagues? Because his conduct is par for the course from where I sit.

Not really relevant to anything, but exactly where do you sit?

I'm not "the only person on Calguns" who thinks Gorski has a chance to prevail. Im just the only one with balls enough to stick my neck out against the Pack Mentality that your very question demonstrates thrives here.

What you call "pack mentality" is also known as teamwork. Like I've said before, we don't need lone swinging willies. We need people to work as a team. Gorski isn't doing this. Perhaps you aren't aware of all the good stuff we've been doing in the state, since we started working as a team? The successes we've had do not happen by accident, and they are not the result of someone just swinging their willie around. They are the result of (1) excellent strategy, devised with input from all stakeholders, and (2) superior tactics, as practiced by the best attorneys in the state.

Yeah.... But Gorski got to the courthouse first.... Which means he gets to have his case heard first.... Nobody has to like it... But that's the facts, which means we can all live in a land of "Woulda Coulda shoulda" or we can help him achieve the best outcome possible. Like it or not, he's before the 9th circuit next month, and Gura isn't.

Yup, and it sucks. This is like the drunk wedding guest who ruins your wedding by throwing up on the wedding cake.

I warned that something like this would happen 8 months ago. When some people were cautioning others to "Wait" for the "Right People" to bring the "Right Case". The notion that prevails around here is that a handful of people somehow magically control the Judicial system of the entire state of California when it comes to gun issues... Oh if that were true.... But it isnt [sic]. Outside of this insulated forum there are hundreds of thousands of lawyers, and millions of people who have never heard of Calguns, and don't ask them for permission to file a complaint. History is decided by those who show up... And Judicial history is decided by those who show up first.

There are only a handful of real 2A lawyers in the state. They/we all know each other, and generally work together. With one exception. It's not about asking permission. It's about being on the team. The winning team, and not the losing team.

You can call me unreasonable... I dont [sic] care. I'm not in this to get famous, or rich, or even to make friends. I WANT TO WIN. And right now that means forgetting about the personalities involved and fixing the situation. Now... You can continue to worry about who's right and who's wrong, but he way I see it, who's right and who's wrong doesn't matter at this point.

I'm not worrying about you at all. I'm just concerned that some of the newer members might be confused by what is happening, and I am trying to set the record straight for them.

From where I stand there are two possible courses of action. Getting Gorski to drop his second amendment claim, or helping him win it. You cant FORCE him to drop it, that was already tried and we saw where that got us... (Maybe A more AMICABLE approach and apology might work? Or are the egos involved beyond eating a little crow for the cause?)

I can't speak for Gura or Gorski. I do hope that they can work together. Based on Gorski's childish email, I doubt it.

KylaGWolf
05-16-2009, 10:31 PM
Has someone forwarded this document to the California AG? I remember reading threads about how pro 2A he is, but his silence since incorporation is saying the opposite.

Ex mayor moonbeam flip flops on 2A.

wildhawker
05-16-2009, 11:38 PM
Ex mayor moonbeam flip flops on 2A.

Sometimes the loudest political statement is the one never made.

aileron
05-18-2009, 6:38 AM
It's not that I don't think that Gorski has a bad case... it's that it should be better timed so that you have Heller, Nordyke, and Gura's case (if it's decided the way "we" want) as an anvil... and Gorski's corruption case as a hammer with corrupt Sheriffs between them.

I would bet something like that was on offer to Gorski from Gene. Alas, we will never get that opportunity now unless we can find someone to mend the fence so we can get Gorski to better time his case. (<----IANAL, can you time your case????)

Unless of course they wanted him to throw it out. Which I can understand would be upsetting to Gorski, and his clients.

And I'm upset about everybody's responses, because I would of expected people to try and figure out how to mend the fence instead of arguing over him. It appears he can not be left out of the game therefore he impacts our game plan forcing us to acknowledge a need to get him to the table. Or so I would think...

bulgron
05-18-2009, 7:28 AM
And I'm upset about everybody's responses, because I would of expected people to try and figure out how to mend the fence instead of arguing over him. It appears he can not be left out of the game therefore he impacts our game plan forcing us to acknowledge a need to get him to the table. Or so I would think...

He self-selected to be left out of our strategy, which is one of the biggest reason why people are upset with him.

aileron
05-18-2009, 8:06 AM
He self-selected to be left out of our strategy, which is one of the biggest reason why people are upset with him.

I know.... my statement is in regards to the situation after his letter. How do we mend the fence now? I think a real concerted effort needs to be made along those lines.

383green
05-18-2009, 10:26 AM
I know.... my statement is in regards to the situation after his letter. How do we mend the fence now? I think a real concerted effort needs to be made along those lines.

What would be the benefit of mending that fence, if he was already unapproachable (by his own choice and disposition) before it was broken? It would seem to me to be wasted effort.

Gura's entirely appropriate a professional filing may have been the thing that triggered Gorski's tirade, but I suspect that the tirade simply revealed things that Gorski already believed beforehand. Namely, that Gura, Kilmer, Michel, etc. are "hacks", Gorski is the only guy with the brains and balls to run a show like this, and if anybody else wants to ride his coattails they need to take their proper position in the group: under the desk, on their knees.

It's best when everybody gets along, talks and works together, but that ideal can only be met when everybody involved wants that same goal. If just one person doesn't share that ideal, then it all falls apart. Based on everything I've read in Gorski's own words, I don't believe that Gorski is interested or willing to participate in any collaboration where he's not running the whole show.

GuyW
05-18-2009, 5:58 PM
I can easily imagine the BOS stating something to the effect of "unless you have some evidence to present about corruption HERE by Hutchens, cut the crap and get back on topic".

What?

No, the BOS has to sit there and hear the public's comments. Whether the comments play well is an entirely different concept.
.

383green
05-18-2009, 6:23 PM
What?

No, the BOS has to sit there and hear the public's comments. Whether the comments play well is an entirely different concept.
.

Ok, let me re-phrase what I wrote before:

I can easily imagine the BOS members thinking something to the effect of "unless you have some evidence to present about corruption HERE by Hutchens, cut the crap and get back on topic", while zoning out and largely ignoring the comments.

I'm just skeptical that evidence of corruption elsewhere may not go over the way that some have suggested it should. I won't mind being proven wrong on this account, though.

I also don't see what options might be available to the BOS that would not be preempted by state law, since it's my understanding that state law is supposed to preempt local laws on firearms matters here in CA.

In case it's at all unclear, my criticisms are intended to be constructive, by the way.