PDA

View Full Version : What can we do about Gorski?


CCWFacts
05-17-2009, 7:00 PM
I'm starting a new thread. The other thread has gotten long and is now a pointless debate about the merits of a guy who is incoherent and foolish and delusional and, yes, evil.

Here's the situation from what I can tell:

Gorski has had this lawsuit festering for the past two years, and, bad luck for us, it's about to come up for a hearing now, and it could result in Gorski being the guy who makes the case for "bear" in the 9th circuit. If this happens it will be a disaster for us; that guy is delusional and incompetent at the same time.

The first step to winning is to understand the adversary's mental state, to "step into his shoes" as it were. Here's my perception of Gorski's state of mind at this point:


The 2A is an absolute right, beyond all regulation. The 2A means that the entire US "is" Vermont-carry
Gura and the NRA are in a conspiracy with the government to deny us our rights. It's a sneaky conspiracy: Gura is going to defeat our absolute right by arguing for a non-absolute right
Because the right is absolute, the proper remedy is to declare 12050 itself unconstitutional, not just to issue a CCW to his plaintiff
Gorski is the lone hero who is going to single-handedly defeat this conspiracy of the government and Gura / NRA
Gorski is right, and that's enough for him to win


That's what it seems like is in his mental state.

(I'll parenthetically note that the major flaw here is that there are no absolute rights in our system. Some here may disagree or wish it weren't so, but within our legal system, and under the Heller ruling, the 2A is not absolute, and non-burdensome shall-issue systems and registration systems will be found to be constitutional. Like it or not, that is the reality in the United States and it won't change.)

Gura or any NRA rep attempting to meet Gorski and talk with him will fail. They're the enemy, trying to trick him and take away our rights. You can see very clearly in his message that a "let's be reasonable" approach is a non-starter.

So what else?

I am not a lawyer so this is armchair "Internet commando" style speculation, but here goes:


His plaintiffs probably don't have the level of insane egotism that Mr. Gorski displays. One of them is a disgraced former FBI agent. The other is a rugby buddy. I'm pretty sure the disgraced agent is not a well-off person. I would imagine that anyone in Gorski's circle of buddies (who he plays rugby with) is probably also not a person of great means. I assume that both of these plaintiffs are at risk of being hit up for substantial legal fees when they lose? I would think this would have major impacts on both of their lives. Maybe they need to be made aware of the grave personal risks they are running, and of Gorski's unblemished record of failure?
His plaintiffs probably have more of a "sure why not" mindset than a hero-complex ego-driven mindset. Maybe a "let's be reasonable" approach would be viable with them? Maybe someone could explain to them the consequences of what they are doing, and how much they will be hated in this state if they persist?
His plaintiffs are probably not wealthy people. Maybe a "we'll pay you to drop the case" approach would work if all else fails? Could they somehow agree to suspend it for a couple of years? There's no reason why they shouldn't pursue such a suit a couple of years from now.
What else?


I posted a while ago, the main post-Nordyke risk is some insane plaintiff filing a suit, and I pointed out that Gorski was my main fear, and that's exactly what is happening. This sucks.

nicki
05-17-2009, 8:03 PM
Gorski can file lawsuits and we can't control him.

We can't get him disbarred or make arrangements for him to have a fatal accident, so we will have to deal with him.

What we need to understand is why he does what he does and the only way to actually find out is to go to Gorski and ask him.

In his mind, he views he is fighting for our gun rights.

We need to difuse the situation. If Gorski is going to move forward on a case, then we should help him so that his case does the least damage.

Gorski will not accept our help if he feels that our help is really interference.

Gorski is doing this from what I can see out of personal principle, not for the money.

For him, this is personal.



Nicki

G17GUY
05-17-2009, 8:13 PM
I wish him to read this.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4Yw8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=lawyer+obligation+non+case&source=bl&ots=jXdvocYLMx&sig=ZPeBGiTqhbCXiuPrlr4lqULwko4&hl=en&ei=Ud8QStSkHZmQswOIqbX3Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#PPP1,M1

383green
05-17-2009, 8:15 PM
Regarding legal fees for his plaintiffs, I think that depends entirely on the arrangement that he has made with them. If I'm not mistaken, they don't need to worry about the defendants going after them for legal fees if the case doesn't go their way.

I don't know all of the details, but my impression right now is that I'd be happy if Gorski just pushed the corruption issue without getting the 2nd Amendment tied up in it. That Twomey declaration appears well-written and thoroughly damning to me, and I'd be happy to see a corrupt sheriff end up on the other side of the bars. My only concern with Gorski is that he's getting the 2nd Amendment tangled up in this, he doesn't appear to have either a winning track record or a winning strategy on 2nd Amendment grounds, and in this particular situation trying and failing can have far worse consequences than not trying at all.

TonyM
05-17-2009, 9:44 PM
lioneaglegriffin (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=17016): I don't think you even want to joke about that on a public forum that gets google cached.

383green
05-17-2009, 9:46 PM
{uncool quote deleted}

Not cool, man. We're the good guys. We don't play that way. Shouldn't even be joking about that, especially in a public forum.

lioneaglegriffin
05-17-2009, 9:53 PM
ok ok, im sorry. DELETE

im have a bad sense of humor like that.

383green
05-17-2009, 9:59 PM
ok ok, im sorry. DELETE

The cosmic coolness balance has been restored. :thumbsup:

im have a bad sense of humor like that.

Hey, lots of us think it. Just don't say it. Unless your Matt Stone or Trey Parker. They can get away with that stuff. ;)

bussda
05-17-2009, 10:24 PM
Do Nothing. Wait for his panel of judges to be selected.

Any interference at this point will prejudice the Sykes suit due to interference.

OK to complain, but any other action will be even worse.

KWA-S
05-17-2009, 10:32 PM
lioneaglegriffin (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=17016): I don't think you even want to joke about that on a public forum that gets google cached.

And on a public forum that has been confirmed to have been read by antis.

lioneaglegriffin
05-17-2009, 10:42 PM
Hey, lots of us think it. Just don't say it. ;)

Understood, and duly noted

Dr. Peter Venkman
05-17-2009, 11:00 PM
What about his clients firing him?

CCWFacts
05-17-2009, 11:17 PM
What about his clients firing him?

That was my suggestion, in the post that started this thread. His clients have good reasons to not go forward in this, namely, when the defendants win, the defendants could come after Gorski's clients for their attorney fees, which could be substantial. At least that's my understanding of what would happen.

7x57
05-17-2009, 11:26 PM
What can we do? Basically nothing.

7x57

yellowfin
05-17-2009, 11:42 PM
Is a strategically beneficial postponement possible, in the event they'd be willing to do so?

CCWFacts
05-17-2009, 11:46 PM
Gorski can file lawsuits and we can't control him.

No but we may be able to show his plaintiffs in this particular case that they are making a big mistake in being involved with it. If he files a later case with other plaintiffs it won't matter; Sykes will be done by then.

We can't get him disbarred or make arrangements for him to have a fatal accident, so we will have to deal with him.

No we can't do any of those thing, but I don't think we can deal with him.

What we need to understand is why he does what he does and the only way to actually find out is to go to Gorski and ask him.

I outlined my guess of his mental state in my first post. Quick summary: he "knows" that the 2A is an absolute right and that's what he's going to defend. Gura and the NRA are his enemy because they accept that it's not an absolute right.

We need to difuse the situation. If Gorski is going to move forward on a case, then we should help him so that his case does the least damage.

There's no way to defuse the situation or to participate with him in the case. His whole idea is that it's an absolute right, and he will never accept any other view of it, and his view will never be accepted by any court, ever.

Gorski is doing this from what I can see out of personal principle, not for the money.

He's doing it out of ego, delusion, and a disregard for the real lives of real Californians.

ilbob
05-18-2009, 5:46 AM
I think it is a right that is far broader that most of you do, if not quite absolute. I realize that no court is going to accept that interpretation right this second.

My guess is we may well end up with a right that far exceeds what most of you guys are willing to settle for.

In any case it is going to come in little bits and pieces.

I still don't understand why this is a 2A case at all. It seems to me to be solely a case of gross lack of due process in dealing with one group of people versus another similar group. Trying to drag the 2A into it seems to me to be a poor choice of legal strategy.

I think the same thing about Gura's CC case. It seems like a well thought out 14A case that attempts to pull the 2a in as an afterthought.

I don't see the courts accepting the 2A argument in either of them.

I do think a case that focuses on corruption is unlikely to win any friends in federal court. They have no more of a solution to local corruption than anyone else and may just say so.

Gura's case has the advantage that they can ignore the selling of CC permits in favor of pretending it is just a lack of due process in the granting of CC permits. I fear the remedy may not be what you are hoping for though. The court might just order the state to come up with a set of guidelines all the sheriffs have to follow. That could be a mess for the less restrictive counties.

bruss01
05-18-2009, 6:31 AM
I think that he might be reachable by someone he admires, such as Jesse Ventura or some other noted non-mainstream liberty advocate such as Ron Paul, Ted Nugent, or yes even Chuck Norris. They might be able to persuade him to delay or drop his case until after the Gura suit goes through. Gura, with his high profile after the Heller case, could probably persuade one or more of these personages to contact Gorski with a friendly message of, "Hey, we're all in this together, and here's what we think is the best course of action..."

elenius
05-18-2009, 6:46 AM
Lots of unethical suggestions here. I'm guessing that any communication with Gorski's clients that can be in any way traced to Gura is going to land Gura in serious trouble. The Gorskis of the world are an unfortunate but inevitable fact in a legal system that relies heavily on case law. You gotta take the good (e.g. Gura winning Heller) with the bad (e.g. Gorski cases).

A better point of discussion would be: Would it make sense to file amicus briefs in the Gorski case?

bulgron
05-18-2009, 6:57 AM
There's nothing we can do about Gorski, and stay within the boundaries of both ethics and the law. He isn't going to listen to anything we have to say, so at this point we're screwed.

Our only hope is for a semi-friendly panel out of the 9th circuit. Hey, it could happen.

hoffmang
05-18-2009, 7:11 AM
That Twomey declaration appears well-written and thoroughly damning to me, and I'd be happy to see a corrupt sheriff end up on the other side of the bars.

Unfortunately, that document isn't very well written. It's not up to the quality level necessary to impeach the assumption that judges have that sheriffs are not corrupt.

Also, it's not actually clear that what the sheriff was doing there is a crime. There are really only two corruption crimes one can allege about CCW issuance. One is "official extortion" and the other is a violation of equal protections.

"Official extortion" as a part of the Hobbs Act requires proof of a quid-pro-quo in the Ninth Circuit. The problem will be that there is no smoking gun showing a quid-pro-quo because even though campaign contributors did get special treatment, some non contributors got special treatment, and some contributors didn't get CCW licenses. When you have absolute discretion in a license, it's actually not illegal to be easier to deal with for your friends.

The equal protection argument is equally difficult. Ignoring the 2A/14A for a moment, you have to show that you were denied a permit if you were also a campaign contributor to actually be of the same class. Otherwise you weren't similarly situated. You have no right to a CCW under 2A before Nordyke and you may still not have a right to a CCW. However, you probably have a right to a carry permit if LOC is barred.

Notice how the equal protections claim is more about the state of the law, and not the facts of how CCW licenses are issued?

Civil rights litigation is an art that, when performed poorly, can kill people.

-Gene

ilbob
05-18-2009, 8:26 AM
However, you probably have a right to a carry permit if LOC is barred.


I don't recall seeing that argument made anywhere in the legal documents.

elenius
05-18-2009, 8:30 AM
Strategy question:

It has been said that Gorski might get an en banc hearing that reverses the incorporation holding in Nordyke. Given this, would it make sense for the Nordykes to request en banc first in order to pre-empt Gorski's potential en banc panel? Or could *their* en banc hearing also result in a reversal of the incorporation holding?

Aegis
05-18-2009, 8:35 AM
If there is a way to solve this, I am confident that Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Gura and the rest of the Calguns and NRA team will do it. I do not know any of them personally, but I am impressed with their track record and their efforts to further the 2A in California.

I hope Mr. Gorski understands that he will have more success working in conjunction with the people listed above instead of going it alone. If he does go it alone, we can only hope that he gets the right judges for the case and he is successful. The 2A rights of millions of people may be riding on his case.

CCWFacts
05-18-2009, 10:23 AM
Lots of unethical suggestions here. I'm guessing that any communication with Gorski's clients that can be in any way traced to Gura is going to land Gura in serious trouble.

Certainly, Gura or anyone connected to the case can't be involved in anything like that. However, there are plenty of people in this forum who are not involved and have free speech rights and could contact the plaintiffs. There's nothing unethical about a non-involved person contacting Mehl or Rothery and informing them that:


They are following someone who has lost every gun case he has ever been involved in that we are aware of
The sheriff is going to be very angry about this case, and when the plaintiffs lose, the sheriff is going to channel his anger into seeking legal fees
Many Californians are going to be very angry at Mr. Mehls and Mr. Rothery when they are responsible for loss of our 2A rights in this state.


In fact we can contact them by putting together an informational website, addressed to them, explaining why they should withdraw from this case. I would be happy to help set that up and make sure it is visible enough that they will see it.

A better point of discussion would be: Would it make sense to file amicus briefs in the Gorski case?

I was also wondering that.

aileron
05-18-2009, 11:29 AM
Lots of unethical suggestions here. I'm guessing that any communication with Gorski's clients that can be in any way traced to Gura is going to land Gura in serious trouble.

Agreed, this is passing into unethical territory.

ilbob
05-18-2009, 12:15 PM
The sheriff is going to be very angry about this case, and when the plaintiffs lose, the sheriff is going to channel his anger into seeking legal fees is that even a remote possibility? if it was, you would think all the crazy lawsuits would never have been filed in the first place.

scottj
05-18-2009, 12:17 PM
So what if someone that was not a party to Gura's case contacted Gorski's clients? Would that be unethical?

CCWFacts
05-18-2009, 1:15 PM
So what if someone that was not a party to Gura's case contacted Gorski's clients? Would that be unethical?

Yeah, there's nothing unethical, illegal or wrong with people who are not parties to the case contacting his clients. I have the feeling they are "in the dark" about what's going on and what the consequences to them will be (having to pay the sheriff's legal bills, destroying the 2A in California, and becoming permanently hated by California's gun owners).

However, we should not harass them. Them getting a barrage of calls / letters / emails would be counter-productive. Somehow it would be best to find a civilized way to contact them and inform them of "the other side of the story" here. I'm sure these guys are not ego-motivated like Mr. Gorski himself is, and I'm sure they would not be willing to risk the tremendous legal bills they are risking now.

grywlfbg
05-18-2009, 1:48 PM
Strategy question:

It has been said that Gorski might get an en banc hearing that reverses the incorporation holding in Nordyke. Given this, would it make sense for the Nordykes to request en banc first in order to pre-empt Gorski's potential en banc panel? Or could *their* en banc hearing also result in a reversal of the incorporation holding?
IANAL but I don't think they can request en banc on the incorporation issue because they "won" that part. Only the party who "lost" can appeal for en banc.

elenius
05-18-2009, 1:49 PM
IANAL but I don't think they can request en banc on the incorporation issue because they "won" that part. Only the party who "lost" can appeal for en banc.

I was wondering whether they could request en banc on the "sensitive places" issue and thereby somehow also cement the incorporation holding.

randy
05-18-2009, 1:54 PM
I just spent 4 minutes reading this I want them back. This thread is a bag of gas.

CaliforniaLiberal
05-18-2009, 2:42 PM
Why don't we just put a bell around Gorski's neck and then we can hear him when he's doing stuff and he can't sneak up on us.

:43:

CL

sorensen440
05-18-2009, 3:16 PM
Why don't we just put a bell around Gorski's neck and then we can hear him when he's doing stuff and he can't sneak up on us.

:43:

CL
dont need a bell
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=34137