PDA

View Full Version : Santa Clara County CCW's


Glock22Fan
07-16-2009, 12:00 PM
Billy Jack's latest blog (http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/index.php) following his recent visit to Santa Clara.

Billy Jack has been in the Belly of the Beast that is the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department and I am here to tell you about it.

Billy Jack and staff have completed preliminary inspection of some CCW files of Sheriff Smith. Poor record keeping and sheer volume of the files prevented us from reviewing all files. We did approximately 5%. The remainder will be inspected later under 'different circumstances'. I was appalled at what I saw. For those that are serious CCW watchers, think Sacramento Sheriff County Blanas and Orange County Sheriff Corona.

Same situations but far worse than I had expected based on the information I had received from others indicated. Two things come to mind and then I am going silent. RICO, and are there any good Criminal Defense Attorneys in Santa Clara County?

Sincerely,

Billy Jack
Patriot & Son of Liberty

thempopresense
07-16-2009, 12:35 PM
What he is doing may or may not help, but it's hard to take him serious when he refers to himself in third person.

jello2594
07-16-2009, 12:38 PM
What he is doing may or may not help, but it's hard to take him serious when he refers to himself in third person.

I agree that it may or may not help, but how could it possibly hurt, right? Maybe it'll be difficult to get CCWs??? ha.

yellowfin
07-16-2009, 12:45 PM
"Welcome to the party, pal!" - John McLane, Die Hard

bulgron
07-16-2009, 12:57 PM
Well, now you know why more of us don't bother to apply in this county.

bodger
07-16-2009, 1:04 PM
What he is doing may or may not help, but it's hard to take him serious when he refers to himself in third person.

"Jimmy likes Elaine..... Jimmy likes Kramer's jump shot basketball shoes too."

Glock22Fan
07-16-2009, 1:06 PM
What he is doing may or may not help, but it's hard to take him serious when he refers to himself in third person.

Billy Jack has enough confidence in what he's doing that he doesn't much care if you take him seriously or not.

He does it, and I pass it on for those of you who do appreciate it.

bwiese
07-16-2009, 1:44 PM
Billy Jack has enough confidence in what he's doing that he doesn't much care if you take him seriously or not.

He does it, and I pass it on for those of you who do appreciate it.

If TBJ is looking for a crim lawyer in Santa Clara County, and with a gunlaw background, perhaps he can chat up Don Kilmer? He's easy to find in the usual listings...

tango-52
07-16-2009, 1:49 PM
If TBJ is looking for a crim lawyer in Santa Clara County, and with a gunlaw background, perhaps he can chat up Don Kilmer? He's easy to find in the usual listings...

Actually, I think the innuendo was that the Sheriff will need a good criminal defense attorney because he will face RICO charges. But that is only my take on the smoke signals from Chief Black Hat. :rolleyes:

Glock22Fan
07-16-2009, 1:50 PM
If TBJ is looking for a crim lawyer in Santa Clara County, and with a gunlaw background, perhaps he can chat up Don Kilmer? He's easy to find in the usual listings...


Bill, pm sent (before Tango's observations).

Tango, you could be reading the smoke signals correctly, except that the sheriff is a she.

John

Knauga
07-17-2009, 10:04 AM
Thanks for the update John

Paladin
07-17-2009, 10:19 PM
Thanks John, this is great news!

If TBJ nails Sheriff Lori Smith, that would be a big trophy for them and a great win for all of us. Not only is Lori a sheriff, but she's sheriff of one of the most populous counties in this state, plus it is a county in the SF Bay Area -- a virtual den of anti-CLEOs! If she falls, they'll be shaking in their boots. :43:

Let's see what's in play now: there's Sheriff Blanas up north in Sacto; Sheriff Lori in Santa Clara; and Sheriff Hutchens down south in OC. Then there's Nordyke leading the Heller cavalry over the hills w/UOC irregular troops right on their heels.

And that's not even counting the CGF battleships just off the coast aiming their big guns at key targets.

One way or another, within five years we ARE going to win this state for "Shall Issue."

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning . . . "

:lurk5: :43:

stuckinhippytown
07-17-2009, 11:08 PM
Start OCing they will get tired of responding that they will start issuing

N6ATF
07-17-2009, 11:18 PM
Or push the legislature to expand the GFSZ to 2,000 feet, all the while turning off OCers' recorders, running serial numbers illegally, and false arresting for no Penal Codes at all.

thatrogue
07-18-2009, 12:20 AM
Sac County is Sheriff Mcginness, and his forehead already has beads of shall issue gathering thanks to Gura, SAF, and CGF

Paladin
07-18-2009, 4:31 AM
Let's see what's in play now: there's Sheriff Blanas up north in Sacto . . . .

Sac County is Sheriff Mcginness, and his forehead already has beads of shall issue gathering thanks to Gura, SAF, and CGF

Last time I checked, wasn't Gorski going after Blanas?

Aaah, I did a search that refreshed my memory:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=193223
The Right People are actually hoping the Blanas case just fades away. . . .

Frankly, with all that is going on it is sometimes hard to keep things straight. Too bad there wasn't some way for CGN to post a locked thread w/a timeline for all the CGF and other things (judicial (state & federal), legislative; good and bad) that are going on in this state.

rp55
07-18-2009, 11:38 AM
Thanks John, this is great news!

If TBJ nails Sheriff Lori Smith, that would be a big trophy for them and a great win for all of us.

I suspect he was referring to the old Sheriff, Gillingham. Laurie Smith is allegedly a Republican (or what passes for a Republican in the Bay Area) and is just pure anti-gun. When I lived there in the early 1990's it was an open secret that a sizable political donation, funneled through the right person, could result in CCW issuance. The same is true for Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. I expect they will do some correlation between the lists of CCW holders and political donors that will prove damning.

Sutcliffe
07-18-2009, 6:23 PM
That was the perception in the public at large and most law enforcement rank and file never denied that being the SOP. It was my impression that the esteemed Lori Smith revoked all CCW's across the board and even donations to her re-election campaign didn't change her policy. Is there any evidence that, despite her official stance, certain persons obtained CCW's from her office?
That would be sweet if it is the case.

Glock22Fan
07-18-2009, 8:54 PM
That was the perception in the public at large and most law enforcement rank and file never denied that being the SOP. It was my impression that the esteemed Lori Smith revoked all CCW's across the board and even donations to her re-election campaign didn't change her policy. Is there any evidence that, despite her official stance, certain persons obtained CCW's from her office?
That would be sweet if it is the case.

There are currently several dozen issued CCW's, I think it is 63 (I'm not in the front line for this, so that's my memory talking).

Seems as if most of them are issued to the usual suspects. I won't go into more detail until I'm told I can, but your impression is, I think, way off beam.

MP301
07-18-2009, 10:05 PM
Actually, I think the innuendo was that the Sheriff will need a good criminal defense attorney because he will face RICO charges. But that is only my take on the smoke signals from Chief Black Hat. :rolleyes:

:rofl2:
He said....Chief Black Hat! Now, thats funny!

MP301
07-18-2009, 10:07 PM
Start OCing they will get tired of responding that they will start issuing

No, they will just extend the "unarmed victim" zones er, i mean schools zones...oh wait, I think they are trying to do that right now....

Fjold
07-19-2009, 8:05 AM
One question;

I see from the posts that TBJ sues Sherrifs and counties over CCW issues. Has he ever won a suit and changed the CCW policies in any county that resulted in any increase of permits issued to the general public or have they just got one or two people a CCW?

Glock22Fan
07-19-2009, 9:30 AM
One question;

I see from the posts that TBJ sues Sherrifs and counties over CCW issues. Has he ever won a suit and changed the CCW policies in any county that resulted in any increase of permits issued to the general public or have they just got one or two people a CCW?

I don't respond in detail to this sort of question any more. It's all been answered before.

Yes, sheriff's policies are being changed by TBJ's activities. So far, as far as I know, no sheriff has "seen the light" and gone "shall issue." So far, it's been more the case that the sheriff's cronies no longer get exempted from the need to get training, need to qualify, need to have a Good Cause etc. TBJ is making sheriffs obey their own policy and not make exceptions. If they want to issue to their friends, they must also consider issuing to strangers who also fit the bill. Getting the playing field level is a start.

May I point out also, that to the best of my knowledge, none of these high profile cases has resulted in an increase of permits issued to the general public? These are all chipping away at the problem. As soon as we chip away enough, walls will fall, whether it is Heller, Sykes or TBJ that's doing the chipping.

Having said that, I'm not adding more. If you don't believe in TBJ, that's up to you. Just ignore TBJ posts. We will still continue doing what we believe is right. One day you might realize this.

chuckles48
07-19-2009, 9:43 AM
[quote=Fjold]One question;

I see from the posts that TBJ sues Sherrifs and counties over CCW issues. Has he ever won a suit and changed the CCW policies in any county that resulted in any increase of permits issued to the general public or have they just got one or two people a CCW?[\quote]
I don't respond in detail to this sort of question any more. It's all been answered before.

Yes, sheriff's policies are being changed by TBJ's activities. So far, as far as I know, no sheriff has "seen the light" and gone "shall issue." So far, it's been more the case that the sheriff's cronies no longer get exempted from the need to get training, need to qualify, need to have a Good Cause etc. TBJ is making sheriffs obey their own policy and not make exceptions. If they want to issue to their friends, they must also consider issuing to strangers who also fit the bill. Getting the playing field level is a start.

Hmmm. I note that this doesn't actually answer the question, which was, has TBJ ever _won_ one of these cases. Changing policy =/= winning the case.

Which fits with what I saw looking around the TBJ website. Of the two cases publicized, one was lost at district and appelate level, and the other was settled out of court with a non-disclosure.

So I'd like to re-ask the question: Has TBJ ever actually _won_ one of these cases. Is there a documentable case where TBJ's involvement has gotten a CCW issued where it was previously denied, one that's on the public record?

And yes, it's a "chipping away, doing what you think is the right thing" approach. Knock yourself out.

CSDGuy
07-19-2009, 9:45 AM
I don't respond in detail to this sort of question any more. It's all been answered before.

Yes, sheriff's policies are being changed by TBJ's activities. So far, as far as I know, no sheriff has "seen the light" and gone "shall issue." So far, it's been more the case that the sheriff's cronies no longer get exempted from the need to get training, need to qualify, need to have a Good Cause etc. TBJ is making sheriffs obey their own policy and not make exceptions. If they want to issue to their friends, they must also consider issuing to strangers who also fit the bill. Getting the playing field level is a start.

May I point out also, that to the best of my knowledge, none of these high profile cases has resulted in an increase of permits issued to the general public? These are all chipping away at the problem. As soon as we chip away enough, walls will fall, whether it is Heller, Sykes or TBJ that's doing the chipping.

Having said that, I'm not adding more. If you don't believe in TBJ, that's up to you. Just ignore TBJ posts. We will still continue doing what we believe is right. One day you might realize this.
And I've heard locally that TBJ's activities have caused some Sheriffs to actually tighten their effectively near-Shall Issue Policies to be very much more in line with their published policy, with the net effect of restricting CCW license issuance and renewal.

If this is actually true, Good work TBJ...:rolleyes:

bwiese
07-19-2009, 10:10 AM
[quote=Glock22Fan;2793592]

Hmmm. I note that this doesn't actually answer the question, which was, has TBJ ever _won_ one of these cases. Changing policy =/= winning the case.

No, TBJ generally represents and thus works for *individual clients*.
Winning = solving the problem of the client.

Python2
07-19-2009, 10:15 AM
Unless you are hearing it directly from the lips of sheriffs, I am not buying.

Its just too bad some could not see the benefit to what TBJ's team are doing to the cause. I may not like the way he treat some of us but I do see some benefit.

hoffmang
07-19-2009, 10:52 AM
There is benefit here so if you live in Santa Clara County and have decent good cause you could reform that County.

-Gene

Fjold
07-19-2009, 11:36 AM
I don't respond in detail to this sort of question any more. It's all been answered before.

Yes, sheriff's policies are being changed by TBJ's activities. So far, as far as I know, no sheriff has "seen the light" and gone "shall issue." So far, it's been more the case that the sheriff's cronies no longer get exempted from the need to get training, need to qualify, need to have a Good Cause etc. TBJ is making sheriffs obey their own policy and not make exceptions. If they want to issue to their friends, they must also consider issuing to strangers who also fit the bill. Getting the playing field level is a start.

May I point out also, that to the best of my knowledge, none of these high profile cases has resulted in an increase of permits issued to the general public? These are all chipping away at the problem. As soon as we chip away enough, walls will fall, whether it is Heller, Sykes or TBJ that's doing the chipping.

Having said that, I'm not adding more. If you don't believe in TBJ, that's up to you. Just ignore TBJ posts. We will still continue doing what we believe is right. One day you might realize this.


This wasn't a dig at TBJ, it was an honest question.

I've seen a lot of posts from TBJ saying what they are doing and I think that the intent is admirable and making the system apply equally to all the people is an admirable result in itself but I just wanted to know what the total of the results are so far.

So from your response the net effect so far, is that some Sherrifs have changed their policies to be more fair and now issue fewer CCWs to their friends and political contributors without reducing their standards for the general public. Is that correct?

Glock22Fan
07-19-2009, 2:08 PM
We know for a fact that some sheriffs/chiefs have revoked CCW's for people who, under their rules, shouldn't have had them anyway. People such as the Santa Maria CCW holder who didn't even live in the city. People who's good cause didn't pass the laughter test, people who didn't even take, let alone pass, the training and qualification. Billionaires that, supposedly, do their own debt collecting and evictions (yeah!)

Frankly, although this is a net loss of CCW's, perhaps, the people who have lost them are not the kind of people that frequent this board.

They are though, the kind of people that have the pressure to say "Now look Sheriff, do something that will allow you to issue me with a CCW again, or you will lose my support." The something is, of course, to issue more widely.

If you see this as negative, then I'm sorry. In our view it is pressure that will cause chiefs/sheriffs to issue to all on the same basis. If they want their friends to have CCW's, then they will have to issue to strangers as well.

It's early days as of now. We believe that if we force the authorities to issue to our clients, then there will be a spin off for others in the same circumstances.

To put this into perspective, how many CCW's have been issued to the general public as a result of pressure from any other legal team you can mention?

CSDGuy
07-19-2009, 3:06 PM
We know for a fact that some sheriffs/chiefs have revoked CCW's for people who, under their rules, shouldn't have had them anyway. People such as the Santa Maria CCW holder who didn't even live in the city. People who's good cause didn't pass the laughter test, people who didn't even take, let alone pass, the training and qualification. Billionaires that, supposedly, do their own debt collecting and evictions (yeah!)

Frankly, although this is a net loss of CCW's, perhaps, the people who have lost them are not the kind of people that frequent this board.

They are though, the kind of people that have the pressure to say "Now look Sheriff, do something that will allow you to issue me with a CCW again, or you will lose my support." The something is, of course, to issue more widely.

If you see this as negative, then I'm sorry. In our view it is pressure that will cause chiefs/sheriffs to issue to all on the same basis. If they want their friends to have CCW's, then they will have to issue to strangers as well.

It's early days as of now. We believe that if we force the authorities to issue to our clients, then there will be a spin off for others in the same circumstances.

To put this into perspective, how many CCW's have been issued to the general public as a result of pressure from any other legal team you can mention?
How many fairly issued CCW's were lost because of pressure from TBJ? What I mean is, lost from counties that were nearly Shall Issue and became more restrictive? I personally think that TBJ has caused a net LOSS of CCW Licenses... and I think most of those lost AREN'T "friends" of the Sheriff...

CSDGuy
07-19-2009, 3:15 PM
Oh, and don't take this wrong... I definitely support specifically targeted actions... but IMHO, the net effect shouldn't be to scare Shall Issue CLEOs into restricting their CCW issuance... it should be to force non/low issuance CLEOs to Shall Issue.

7x57
07-19-2009, 3:49 PM
Oh, and don't take this wrong... I definitely support specifically targeted actions... but IMHO, the net effect shouldn't be to scare Shall Issue CLEOs into restricting their CCW issuance... it should be to force non/low issuance CLEOs to Shall Issue.

Totally different issues. TBJ's strategy is designed for the Old Rules, where firearms are a privilege. It was the only legal strategy open. There is *no way* to "force" shall-issue under those rules except through the legislature, which is slightly less likely than all the molecules of air in this room jumping into one corner at the same time. Whether or not you happen to like what TBJ does, it is senseless to criticize them for not doing the impossible.

Under the New Rules, where firearms are a Right, though as yet ill-defined, you can challenge issuance policy--which in fact CGF is doing. A successful conclusion to Sykes will force issuance policy to change. But that's because we have Heller and Nordyke--TBJ's strategy long predates them and is not predicated on them.

7x57

gotgunz
07-19-2009, 4:30 PM
Start OCing they will get tired of responding that they will start issuing

Absolutely!

It has worked wonders elsewhere people are doing it (think San Diego) :rolleyes:

gotgunz
07-19-2009, 4:30 PM
Oh, and don't take this wrong... I definitely support specifically targeted actions... but IMHO, the net effect shouldn't be to scare Shall Issue CLEOs into restricting their CCW issuance... it should be to force non/low issuance CLEOs to Shall Issue.

Amen!

chuckles48
07-19-2009, 5:03 PM
No, TBJ generally represents and thus works for *individual clients*.
Winning = solving the problem of the client.

Well, that's why I asked if there was a publicly demonstrable case where they'd actually done that.

The only two reference cases TBJ has (at least on their website) are (a) lost, publicly, and (b) NDA'd out of court settlement, so no way to know.

How 'bout a reference case where they succeeded?

And note - I'm not trying to diss TBJ. Just at the "show me" stage of things. Since I live in Santa Clara county, their intervention here matters to me. I'd like to see success, at a level that is useful to ordinary joes like me.

bwiese
07-19-2009, 5:15 PM
Well, that's why I asked if there was a publicly demonstrable case where they'd actually done that.

I'd bet many/most such settlements where CCWs are issued would in fact have a gag contingency.

Why would you expect publicity on a controversial/embarrassing matter?

Fjold
07-19-2009, 5:46 PM
I'd bet many/most such settlements where CCWs are issued would in fact have a gag contingency.

Why would you expect publicity on a controversial/embarrassing matter?


Does it do anything positive for the public if TBJ agrees to a confidentiality agreement?

CSDGuy
07-19-2009, 5:58 PM
7x57 and others... that's exactly my point. TBJ works for individual clients. Given that, and that there's some NDA's in place, and that there's been a loss of CCW's because of what's TBJ's been doing for individuals... and that there are some new rules... while I support what TBJ does for individuals, their tactics should be refined so that it doesn't scare away Shall Issue CLEO's from being Shall Issue.

Personally, under the new rules, I think that "we" should get Shall Issue put through the courts and then turn TBJ loose on those that don't follow the new rules... That should be quite productive on an individual level...

vladbutsky
07-19-2009, 6:11 PM
Absolutely!

It has worked wonders elsewhere people are doing it (think San Diego) :rolleyes:

Did it really? :confused: (It is a question. I'm not sarcastic here)
I live in Santa Clara County (San Jose). Is it time to start OC? It seems like CGF is not advising to do it yet.

bwiese
07-19-2009, 6:11 PM
Does it do anything positive for the public if TBJ agrees to a confidentiality agreement?

Indirectly. The 'next guy' with a reasonbly valid good cause statement right after settlement of a prior claim may go thru with greater ease and fewer documentable roadblocks.

bodger
07-19-2009, 7:15 PM
Did it really? :confused: (It is a question. I'm not sarcastic here)
I live in Santa Clara County (San Jose). Is it time to start OC? It seems like CGF is not advising to do it yet.

It still seems to me like a good way to get arrested. I live in LA, right on the border with West Hollywood.

The only thing standing between me and a $40,000 legal bill is how the cops decide to react to my UOC?

Or worse yet, when they ask to do the (e) check, and I inquire as to whether they are requesting or demanding, as the San Diego guys did, I could envision the response being "STFU,....click...you're carrying with a loaded magazine so yeah, we're demanding."
It could happen.

N6ATF
07-19-2009, 7:55 PM
Absolutely!

It has worked wonders elsewhere people are doing it (think San Diego) :rolleyes:

LOL
:rolleyes:

bwiese
07-19-2009, 9:32 PM
Did it really? :confused: (It is a question. I'm not sarcastic here)

I live in Santa Clara County (San Jose). Is it time to start OC? It seems like CGF is not advising to do it yet.


No, please do not UOC.

There is heightened risk esp in Santa Clara County that someone could be shot - we keep hearing of a memo or instructions that OCers are to be treated in 'felony stop' manner.

SJPD has shot small asian women with harmless vegetable peelers before, so you do the math on being strapped.

The only OC benefit of even remotely conceivable use for "the cause" - [and this is in no way advice to do so!!! and after we are certain Nordyke doesn't go en banc!!] for a perfectly clean CCW applicant with fairly rational good cause, who has followed the full course of applications up to an ultimate denial (and any appeal), to then go UOC.

Manic Moran
07-19-2009, 11:54 PM
Talk to me again when I get back from Afghanistan. I think I'm about as good a candidate as you're going to find.

I do need to mail in my appeal letter, though, now I think of it. Which reminds me, I was looking in the PC for the provision which says I may submit a written appeal for a denial, but couldn't find it. Where is it?

NTM

gotgunz
07-20-2009, 1:25 AM
Did it really? :confused: (It is a question. I'm not sarcastic here)

No, I was being sarcastic.

bwiese
07-20-2009, 8:11 AM
Talk to me again when I get back from Afghanistan. I think I'm about as good a candidate as you're going to find.

I do need to mail in my appeal letter, though, now I think of it. Which reminds me, I was looking in the PC for the provision which says I may submit a written appeal for a denial, but couldn't find it. Where is it?

I'm not sure you must appeal denial or that even an appeals process exists outside lawsuits, but what I was really trying to say is, "you need to exhaustively complete whatever process(es) exist in your area so nothing is left undone".

Paladin
07-20-2009, 8:48 AM
The only OC benefit of even remotely conceivable use for "the cause" - [and this is in no way advice to do so!!! and after we are certain Nordyke doesn't go en banc!!] for a perfectly clean CCW applicant with fairly rational good cause, who has followed the full course of applications up to an ultimate denial (and any appeal), to then go UOC.Good grief! You mean I changed my avatar last year after Heller for nothing? We won't be marching under Gavin's, Fong's replacement's, Hennessey's noses? Man, you're a kill-joy! :mad: ;)

Oh, well. Back to eating popcorn while watching the wheels of justice turn and the wheat grow . . . .

Glock22Fan
07-20-2009, 8:56 AM
Let me say again. There are two sorts of CCW holders (or would-be CCW holders). There is John Doe, or Mike the Plumber. Ordinary people that have a need to carry (perhaps an abusive ex, perhaps some infirmity, perhaps they sometimes carry money.) Then there is Mr Big. Mr. Big is typically rich and has an "in" with the sheriff. Through him, perhaps his bodyguard also has an "in." He wants a CCW not because he needs it but because it is an additional badge certifying his exaltedness over the rest of us.

The kind of sheriff (and I include police chiefs here also) who issues to some John Does is typically not the kind of sheriff that TBJ persues. The type that TBJ targets are the type that bend the rules for Mr. Big and leave Mike the Plumber out in the cold.

So, let me repeat this once again, the only people likely to lose CCW's as a result of TBJ's actions are the people who got them by corruption and who shouldn't have them under the existing rules. Are some of you saying that corruption is fine as long as you get a CCW too?

I'm not going to, but I could name some of the Mr. Bigs. Could you name any John Doe that has suffered from TBJ's actions? A change of sheriff (see O.C.) has a much greater effect on ordinary people.

Glock22Fan
07-20-2009, 9:06 AM
Billy Jack has suggested I post the following:

Lots of responses to your calguns post. Pity these folks do not realize no almost 'shall issue' Sheriff has changed their policy as a result of our suits. Why on Earth would they? They are not breaking the law. Sheriff Smith is so dirty she will not have any choice but to loosen up her policy as a condition of settlement. If she were foolish enough to go to trial she would be given a brand new policy which our lawyers would write subject to court approval.

Nothing we do will ever cause 'shall issue' to break out as that is a legislative issue. The reason I no longer post is borne out by the tenor of the responses to a simple post about a pending suit against Sheriff Smith. The fact that people on calguns do not even know Sheriff Smith's gender speaks volumes about their knowledge base. For the record, she was the first female Sheriff in California followed by Sheriff Mims and Sheriff Hutchins.

Before these folks post from a position of ignorance they should do their homework.

Watch what we do, not what you think we do!

And with particular reference to Manic Moran:

Anyone that wants to pursue an appeal in state or federal court must file an appeal and have the appeal denied. It is called Collateral Estoppel and Rase Res Judicata. These Latin legal terms require a litigant to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. If this is not done then a defense Motion for Summary Judgment citing these must be granted by the court regardless of the merits of the suit.

And you guys thought Billy Jack was just another pretty face!

HowardW56
07-20-2009, 9:18 AM
That should be Res Judicata... meaning "a matter [already] judged"

Glock22Fan
07-20-2009, 10:19 AM
That should be Res Judicata... meaning "a matter [already] judged"

Thanks for correcting the typo. I'll change the post.

John

chuckles48
07-20-2009, 10:23 AM
I'd bet many/most such settlements where CCWs are issued would in fact have a gag contingency.

Why would you expect publicity on a controversial/embarrassing matter?

I can think of a number of reasons why a gag would be agreed to by both parties. Some of those reasons are rather cynical, and would not come from the county.

And I'm not expecting _publicity_. I'm simply asking for something verifiable. Not the same thing.

Oh, and yes, I think a gag contingency in these cases goes against the public policy interest.

chuckles48
07-20-2009, 10:25 AM
Billy Jack has suggested I post the following:

Watch what we do, not what you think we do!

Well, that was the point of the question. Can't do so, if we can't see, due to gag orders now, can we?

Glock22Fan
07-20-2009, 10:59 AM
I can think of a number of reasons why a gag would be agreed to by both parties. Some of those reasons are rather cynical, and would not come from the county.

And I'm not expecting _publicity_. I'm simply asking for something verifiable. Not the same thing.

Oh, and yes, I think a gag contingency in these cases goes against the public policy interest.

I don't want to be rude, but why do we have to satisfy your curiosity? Especially when we would be in breach of court ordered confidentiality? There is no evidence that TBJ is doing anything bad for you, or the cause you believe in. So why do we have to prove that we are doing good?

And confidentiality doesn't equate to nefarious goings on. It is normal and usual when two sides, to avoid further trial costs, agree on a compromise out of court. Without the confidentiality clause, people such as you might draw invalid conclusions about the merits or demerits of the case that really didn't enter into the decision.

A settlement might, in certain cases, mean that the sheriff has matters that he or she doesn't want discussed in open court. So, a settlement might not do as much for the general public as fighting it to the end. But TBJ's clients, as has been often said before, are individuals. In the court system, they do not represent the John Does of this world and nor does TBJ. A judge would think it odd, and might rule accordingly, if an individual insisted on persuing the case beyond the point where an individually equitable settlement is reached.

And once it has been demonstrated to the sheriff that he or she is open to attacks like this, they would be pretty damned stupid not to take it on board and mend their behavior.

Perhaps you would also like us to prove that we have stopped beating our wives, because that seems to fall into exactly the same category to me.

Glock22Fan
07-20-2009, 11:06 AM
SJPD has shot small asian women with harmless vegetable peelers before

I didn't know that SJPD carried vegetable peelers :D

HowardW56
07-20-2009, 11:09 AM
I didn't know that SJPD carried vegetable peelers :D


What caliber vegetable peelers? Are they single or double action?


Does Fobus make a holster for that?

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 11:17 AM
Well, that was the point of the question. Can't do so, if we can't see, due to gag orders now, can we?

This is why I don't understand the point of TBJ having PR and blog posts.

It's the equivalent of a business website saying "We do SOMETHING, and it's really good, trust us!" without specifying what that is.

:nono:

Fjold
07-20-2009, 11:35 AM
I don't want to be rude, but why do we have to satisfy your curiosity? Especially when we would be in breach of court ordered confidentiality? There is no evidence that TBJ is doing anything bad for you, or the cause you believe in. So why do we have to prove that we are doing good?

And confidentiality doesn't equate to nefarious goings on. It is normal and usual when two sides, to avoid further trial costs, agree on a compromise out of court. Without the confidentiality clause, people such as you might draw invalid conclusions about the merits or demerits of the case that really didn't enter into the decision.

A settlement might, in certain cases, mean that the sheriff has matters that he or she doesn't want discussed in open court. So, a settlement might not do as much for the general public as fighting it to the end. But TBJ's clients, as has been often said before, are individuals. In the court system, they do not represent the John Does of this world and nor does TBJ. A judge would think it odd, and might rule accordingly, if an individual insisted on persuing the case beyond the point where an individually equitable settlement is reached.

And once it has been demonstrated to the sheriff that he or she is open to attacks like this, they would be pretty damned stupid not to take it on board and mend their behavior.

Perhaps you would also like us to prove that we have stopped beating our wives, because that seems to fall into exactly the same category to me.


I think that the point of everyone asking what has TBJ done, is because you and others come on to here and say "Look at us! Look at Us! We are doing great work!"

When someone mentions the fact that all we see is someone saying "Look at us! Look at us!" and that we don't see any results. We get told that the information's been posted many times before and is not going to be covered again or that we're just haters and are ignorant.

If you're going to come on here to self congratulate yourself and advertise your services, that's fine but don't expect everyone else to join in if you're not going to tell us the results of all this work that you do.

Glock22Fan
07-20-2009, 11:37 AM
This is why I don't understand the point of TBJ having PR and blog posts.

It's the equivalent of a business website saying "We do SOMETHING, and it's really good, trust us!" without specifying what that is.

:nono:

Let me try in simple language.

TBJ will help you get your application ducks in a row and advise you whether you have a good case, or not, in the locality in which you reside.

TBJ will guide you through the application process and, if necessary, the appeal after denial.

TBJ will, if you wish, discuss the pros and cons of taking your application to Federal court.

So far, all of this without charge.

Should you decide to go to court, TBJ will use its resources, including attorneys and P.I.'s with this specific experience, to research the department's current policies and practice, perform PRAR's and analyse the results, prepare your case and do all the usual going to court stuff.

TBJ cannot rule out getting a judge prepared to stand the law on its head and make an illogical decision (in Santa Maria, he ruled, effectively, under the 14th that a Good Cause wasn't enough to give you standing, unless the chief had already issued to someone with exactly the same Good Cause). In Torrance, we settled out of court and are unable to explain why we had a big grin on our face. The next case is likely to be Santa Clara.


Now, is there really more than one person out there who didn't already know this?

yellowfin
07-20-2009, 11:46 AM
Does TBJ have an equivalent in NYS?

Glock22Fan
07-20-2009, 12:00 PM
Does TBJ have an equivalent in NYS?

Not something that I've thought about, I'm afraid, so probably not. I guess B.J. will advise me if he knows someone over there, but I see no reason why he should (know someone).

Irrational Voice
07-20-2009, 12:06 PM
There are two sorts of CCW holders (or would-be CCW holders). There is John Doe, or Mike the Plumber. Ordinary people that have a need to carry (perhaps an abusive ex, perhaps some infirmity, perhaps they sometimes carry money.) Then there is Mr Big. Mr. Big is typically rich and has an "in" with the sheriff. Or Mr. Big has the money and interest to hire an attorney and investigator to ram rod his application down the sheriff's throat.

As for those worried about the "gag order" issue the CCW issuance papers are public records. A quick PRA should answer the question of whether or not TBJ is successful in helping those who have the money to file suit.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 12:24 PM
Bahahaa!

Glock22Fan
07-20-2009, 12:37 PM
Or Mr. Big has the money and interest to hire an attorney and investigator to ram rod his application down the sheriff's throat.

As for those worried about the "gag order" issue the CCW issuance papers are public records. A quick PRA should answer the question of whether or not TBJ is successful in helping those who have the money to file suit.


a) From what we have seen, it is never necessary for a Mr. Big to do this. Only the little guys have the need. TBJ does its best to keep the cost down as much as possible.

b) Yes indeed. Go for it. For obvious reasons, we can't do it for you.

cousinkix1953
07-20-2009, 1:03 PM
Actually, I think the innuendo was that the Sheriff will need a good criminal defense attorney because he will face RICO charges. But that is only my take on the smoke signals from Chief Black Hat. :rolleyes:
Isn't SHE one of those rich liberals who really live in Lake Tahoe and commutes to work in a helicopter, just like the president does on his weekend trips to Camp David Md? How much do these needless chopper rides cost the taxpayers? Jerry Brown was right; when he suggested that Oakland police officers should live in that city or close to it in case of a major emergency. The same goes for any community.

At least the Governator owns his own plane and pays his bills...

Glock22Fan
07-20-2009, 1:10 PM
Isn't SHE one of those rich liberals who really like live in Lake Tahoe and commutes to work in a helicopter, just like the president does on his weekend trips to Camp David Md? How much do these needless chopper rides cost the taxpayers? Jerry Brown was right; when he suggested that Oakland police officers should live in that city or close to it in case of a major emergency. The same goes for any community.

At least the Governator owns his own plane and pays his bills...

The TBJ webmaster is sitting here with a big grin. Who can take this further?

wutzu
07-20-2009, 5:21 PM
TBJ, et. al, thanks for the work you're doing. One bite at a time...

bodger
07-20-2009, 6:09 PM
No, please do not UOC.

There is heightened risk esp in Santa Clara County that someone could be shot - we keep hearing of a memo or instructions that OCers are to be treated in 'felony stop' manner.

SJPD has shot small asian women with harmless vegetable peelers before, so you do the math on being strapped.

The only OC benefit of even remotely conceivable use for "the cause" - [and this is in no way advice to do so!!! and after we are certain Nordyke doesn't go en banc!!] for a perfectly clean CCW applicant with fairly rational good cause, who has followed the full course of applications up to an ultimate denial (and any appeal), to then go UOC.

Will that full course of applications and ultimate denial keep me from getting shot?

ryang
07-20-2009, 8:57 PM
SJPD has shot small asian women with harmless vegetable peelers before, so you do the math on being strapped.
I really hope you're being facetious. That "vietnamese vegetable peeler" is more commonly known as a 6" cleaver-shaped knife. Wielded by a mentally unstable person threatening you with it less than 20' away and size/race/gender has nothing to do with her getting shot.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 10:10 PM
I really hope you're being facetious. That "vietnamese vegetable peeler" is more commonly known as a 6" cleaver-shaped knife. Wielded by a mentally unstable person threatening you with it less than 20' away and size/race/gender has nothing to do with her getting shot.

What vietnamese vegetable peeler?

ryang
07-29-2009, 8:36 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/a/2003/10/30/sanjose1.DTL

Here's an article on dao bao:
http://vietworldkitchen.typepad.com/blog/2007/07/cabbage-slicers.html
The knifes are often labeled a vegetable peeler but can be used for peeling and slicing. The rustic version can be used to chop too, like a regular knife, though it's not as precise. It can be unscrewed and sharpened easily, though after washing, I found that the blade rusted easily.