PDA

View Full Version : Gorksi: Rothery followup case - dismissed


hoffmang
07-24-2009, 5:42 PM
All,

Mr. Gorski's follow up case to Mehl, a case entitled Rothery, was dismissed with prejudice on July 15 and the transcript and order (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/rothery_order_of_dimissal.pdf) were filed today.

This is generally how not to bring a Second Amendment challenge. My personal opinion is that only very small amounts of damage were done to the Sykes case.

-Gene

gucci pilot
07-24-2009, 5:54 PM
Gene, were you guys waiting for this case outcome before you go forward with Sykes? I'm curious about the latest maneuvers.

elenius
07-24-2009, 5:56 PM
Isn't this the same thing that happened to Mehl, and then he appeled it? And if so, is Gorski not likely to appeal also this one?

Sobriquet
07-24-2009, 6:05 PM
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein.

Take the hint, Gary.

CHS
07-24-2009, 7:03 PM
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein.

Take the hint, Gary.

+ 1 billion.

Someone, please just drop him off in the middle of Siberia where he can stop damaging our cause.

berto
07-24-2009, 7:23 PM
That was a painful read.

rob
07-24-2009, 7:31 PM
Wow, that is how I would picture a law professor grading a first year students paper.

berto
07-24-2009, 7:34 PM
Wow, that is how I would picture a law professor grading a first year students paper.

It was worse. Most 1Ls have a basic grasp of the subject.

Hopi
07-24-2009, 7:42 PM
That was a painful read.

I would lol if he wasn't trying to fight for something so important to me.

Exhibits A and B

A. There is no legal basis for the Plaintiffs' claims, and even if given the opportunity to amend, Plaintiffs would be unable to plead a legally cognizable complaint. The Court finds this lawsuit to be almost frivolous, if not frivolous. There is no support in the law for this lawsuit.



B. Plaintiffs' failure to confront Silveira is even more egregious when the court considers that Mehl was a plaintiff in Silveira, and Gary Gorski, plaintiffs' current counsel, represented the plaintiffs in Silveira.

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 8:41 PM
Gene, were you guys waiting for this case outcome before you go forward with Sykes? I'm curious about the latest maneuvers.

It actually cuts the other way in that it makes us move along.

-Gene

7x57
07-24-2009, 8:55 PM
So, will be be hearing some gracious apologies from Gary Gorski and his supporters to the people who tried to warn them, or will it be treated as though nothing happened after all those brave words?

7x57

gucci pilot
07-24-2009, 8:59 PM
It actually cuts the other way in that it makes us move along.

-Gene

Crap.

1JimMarch
07-24-2009, 9:23 PM
Plaintiffs' failure to confront Silveira is even more egregious when the court considers that Mehl was a plaintiff in Silveira, and Gary Gorski, plaintiffs' current counsel, represented the plaintiffs in Silveira.

Wait, WHAT?

Silveira got tossed on history's ash-heap in Heller.

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 9:37 PM
Wait, WHAT?

Silveira got tossed on history's ash-heap in Heller.

Yes. I wish Mr. Gorski had, you know, pointed that out?

-Gene

HondaMasterTech
07-24-2009, 9:47 PM
I want him to post here.

Hopi
07-24-2009, 9:51 PM
I want him to post here.

I'd like him to read and take counsel here.

trashman
07-24-2009, 9:53 PM
Wait, WHAT?


Yeah, that was my reaction.

I'm not gonna lie -- the last couple of weeks it seems like I've been surfing a Mirror Universe version of Calguns.

--Neill

HondaMasterTech
07-24-2009, 9:54 PM
I'd like him to read and take counsel here.

But, since we obviously can't have that, I'll settle for a simple post.

Hopi
07-24-2009, 10:00 PM
But, since we obviously can't have that, I'll settle for a simple post.

He's a member here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=34137), and has posted.....he was last on this morning, I'm sure looking to see what we had to say on his most recent failure.

or by simple post, do you mean in this specific thread?

trashman
07-24-2009, 10:04 PM
So, will be be hearing some gracious apologies from Gary Gorski and his supporters to the people who tried to warn them, or will it be treated as though nothing happened after all those brave words?


It'll be just like the UOC discussions. They can't do anything wrong.

Or at least they won't sign up to a rationale for their actions that's not a panacea.

I heard a comment recently that "there's nothing so authoritarian as a liberal housing association in berkeley" --- and heaven knows that's SO true.

Thing is, there is a conservative corollary -- there's nothing so authoritarian as a conservative bent on burning himself (and others) at the stake to prove a point. Gorski and the recent UOC discussion both fit that model pretty well.

--Neill

KylaGWolf
07-24-2009, 10:05 PM
Honda trust me no you don't want him to post here.

Gene interesting reading. Although looking at page 23 line 8-19 I understand he was using the Ninth Amendment argument but if I am reading it right they are still saying we don't have the right as a whole or just specifically regarding this case?

HondaMasterTech
07-24-2009, 10:06 PM
Honda trust me no you don't want him to post here.

Gene interesting reading. Although looking at page 23 line 8-19 I understand he was using the Ninth Amendment argument but if I am reading it right they are still saying we don't have the right as a whole or just specifically regarding this case?

I want to see what he has to say after so many people tried to give helpful advice.

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 10:08 PM
Although looking at page 23 line 8-19 I understand he was using the Ninth Amendment argument but if I am reading it right they are still saying we don't have the right as a whole or just specifically regarding this case?

All the court was saying is that we don't have a right to arms hidden in the 9th amendment. Since the right to arms is actually an enumerated right, I tend to agree with the court there.

Also note that:
1. The court was not very pleased with Mr. Gorski and realized that it had to be a bit deferential to the unfortunate fellow who actually showed up in Mr. Gorski's stead.

2. The court was very precise in certain important places in it's colloquy.

-Gene

KylaGWolf
07-24-2009, 10:24 PM
Gene thanks. As to them not being pleased with Gorski I sort of figured that out. Yeah I sort of felt sorry for the one that came in his place.

wildhawker
07-24-2009, 10:25 PM
So, will be be hearing some gracious apologies from Gary Gorski and his supporters to the people who tried to warn them, or will it be treated as though nothing happened after all those brave words?

7x57

I'm of the mind that Gary Gorski should be the sole counsel to the UOC community, if it woudn't destroy all the hard-earned progress by others...

KylaGWolf
07-24-2009, 10:27 PM
Wildhawker thanks but no thanks. I wouldnt have him defend me out of a wet paper sack.

oaklander
07-24-2009, 10:30 PM
:cool2:

I'm of the mind that Gary Gorski should be the sole counsel to the UOC community, if it woudn't destroy all the hard-earned progress by others...

7x57
07-24-2009, 10:31 PM
I'm of the mind that Gary Gorski should be the sole counsel to the UOC community, if it woudn't destroy all the hard-earned progress by others...

:smilielol5:

That would be...interesting. :willy_nilly:

7x57

7x57
07-24-2009, 10:35 PM
Wait, WHAT?

Silveira got tossed on history's ash-heap in Heller.

Maybe execution matters even when you have a point.

What sort of gives me the step-on-your-grave feeling about this is that we've already had a case where there were important points not made by the defense, though in that case it was more of a non-defense. And the fact that those points were NOT made was an albatross around our neck....

7x57

Technical Ted
07-24-2009, 10:48 PM
ROFL

Maestro Pistolero
07-25-2009, 3:03 AM
Well you know what they say . . . the client that represents himself has Gorski for a lawyer. Hopefully, this will end his stint as a firearms attorney. Based on his hideous, wandering writing ability and personal lack of tact and decorum, I wouldn't let him defend a speeding ticket.

sharpie613
07-25-2009, 3:13 AM
The fact that he is an imprecise, haphazard litigator, totally convinced of the lack of odor regarding his own personal feces, worked against him in this situation but didn't work against us.

He was offered help, asked politely to back off, ignoring all pleas, and now has clearly done what everyone reading that thread knew he would do. If he had been a better lawyer, he may have managed to do permanent damage. Offering to punch out other lawyers just sounds unprofessional to me.

Dr. Peter Venkman
07-25-2009, 3:24 AM
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d123/WiseBobo/motivatorb27b360e823bed6c711b0c52fd.jpg

glbtrottr
07-25-2009, 4:56 AM
That's really too bad. I learned a little about me through this thread - I actually supported Gorski for a second, hoping he might have an underdog chance and succeed inspite of his personality odds against himself. Yup, for a second, I rooted for him...hoping still he would see the light of day, as an underdog.

I truly wonder where his head is at this point in time...

(crickets)....

aplinker
07-25-2009, 5:52 AM
I don't want to sound condescending or glib, but do you really think, for one second, that if he were in the tiniest way contributing to the fight that we'd all be the first ones to support him?

He has two things working against him, though: self-importance and incompetence.

You can't put yourself ahead of the cause.

It's not as if we wanted to see it go down in flames. If it had a fraction of a sliver of a sprig of working, we all would have been backing him up. The problem is that, instead of listening to wise counsel, he barreled forward like a blind Pamplona bull.



That's really too bad. I learned a little about me through this thread - I actually supported Gorski for a second, hoping he might have an underdog chance and succeed inspite of his personality odds against himself. Yup, for a second, I rooted for him...hoping still he would see the light of day, as an underdog.

I truly wonder where his head is at this point in time...

(crickets)....

Paladin
07-25-2009, 7:10 AM
It'll be just like the UOC discussions. They can't do anything wrong.

Or at least they won't sign up to a rationale for their actions that's not a panacea.

I heard a comment recently that "there's nothing so authoritarian as a liberal housing association in berkeley" --- and heaven knows that's SO true.

Thing is, there is a conservative corollary -- there's nothing so authoritarian as a conservative bent on burning himself (and others) at the stake to prove a point. Gorski and the recent UOC discussion fit that model pretty well.

--NeillNeill, you can shut down your CGN account now. Go and commit suicide for you have achieved perfection with this post and there is nothing left for you to do on this earth. LOL!

Re. the case: well, I'm sure Mr. Gorski's pooch, er, I mean his client, isn't too happy ;), but at least the damage to our cause is minimal. Time for the adults at CGN to get back to the real work of fighting for our 2nd A RKBA in the PRK.

RomanDad
07-25-2009, 7:17 AM
A couple of points....


I think a lot of people in this thread are confusing this case with the one we were all discussing a few months back that is currently before the 9th circuit court of appeals.

THIS IS NOT THAT CASE. The opinion in the 9th circuit case is still pending, so whatever concerns people had about it, remain.

This is a district court (trial) judge ruling on summary judgment in a new case. I would suggest that if this particular judge heard Sykes, the outcome would not be any different and we would all be screaming about how he is a liberal gungrabber with his head shoved up his ***** (which given his comments re: Heller and Nordyke bring me to that conclusion).

Not that losing at the district Court is a particularly BAD thing. IN FACT, strategically, ANY case brought for the expansion of second amendment rights statewide, basically HAS TO LOSE at the trial level, in order for the plaintiff to file an appeal to the Court of Appeals, where the Judges have the power to bind more than the just the parties before them. If Gorski, or Sykes or anybody else WINS at the trial level, then the State's strategy (one they have used in the past with regard to CCW) is to just let the loss stand, thus effecting JUST those plaintiffs, and JUST that county.

Which brings us to the point we're at (AGAIN).

GORSKI CAN APPEAL THIS TO THE 9th CIRCUIT. I believe he would STILL be ahead in line of Sykes with THIS CASE AS WELL. So if we are concerned about him doing so, PERHAPS PISSING ON HIS HEAD ISN'T THE BEST IDEA?

trashman
07-25-2009, 9:27 AM
Neill, you can shut down your CGN account now. Go and commit suicide for you have achieved perfection with this post and there is nothing left for you to do on this earth. LOL!


Hey no fair! How will I surf the WTS forums?!!?!

--Neill

tonelar
07-25-2009, 11:47 AM
Hey no fair! How will I surf the WTS forums?!!?!

--Neill

WTS Forums are open to the public. Neill, you have to recognize your post was perfection. I'm tempted to put you on ignore actually. But must hesitate in case you come up with more gems like that one.

hoffmang
07-25-2009, 12:04 PM
This is a district court (trial) judge ruling on summary judgment in a new case. I would suggest that if this particular judge heard Sykes, the outcome would not be any different and we would all be screaming about how he is a liberal gungrabber with his head shoved up his ***** (which given his comments re: Heller and Nordyke bring me to that conclusion).

This is a pretty unsubstantiated opinion. Mr. Gorski made exactly none of the meritorious arguments one needs to make on the Carry issue. Simply put, if you're bringing a case about CCW corruption, don't you think you should cite Guillory v. Gates somewhere? Angering a judge with the level of incompetence show here as this sort of case did quite obviously will often get a judge to go to the merits when he otherwise has no place or reasoning there. Don't assume that the same judge would have ruled the same way if he had a complaint that didn't need the first 800 pages struck. The judge's quote about Silveira is quite telling.

You are right about one thing though. Mr. Gorski can appeal and try to mess things up further. Luckily our case is about different issues.

-Gene

trashman
07-25-2009, 12:56 PM
Neill, you have to recognize your post was perfection. I'm tempted to put you on ignore actually.

But better to just tell me, right? :rolleyes:

OK, OK so I should not read the RKBA Politics Forum while drinking have made my post a little less 'perfect'. I am starting to reel a little bit from the amount of counterproductive energy around Gorski (and also around UOC), and how determined some folks are to "make a point" no matter what the longer-term risk to the rest of us.

--Neill

RomanDad
07-25-2009, 1:54 PM
This is a pretty unsubstantiated opinion. Mr. Gorski made exactly none of the meritorious arguments one needs to make on the Carry issue. Simply put, if you're bringing a case about CCW corruption, don't you think you should cite Guillory v. Gates somewhere? Angering a judge with the level of incompetence show here as this sort of case did quite obviously will often get a judge to go to the merits when he otherwise has no place or reasoning there. Don't assume that the same judge would have ruled the same way if he had a complaint that didn't need the first 800 pages struck. The judge's quote about Silveira is quite telling.

You are right about one thing though. Mr. Gorski can appeal and try to mess things up further. Luckily our case is about different issues.

-Gene

Gene, Its not unsubstantiated at all. I am referring specifically to pages 11, line 11 to the end of page 15. There the court dismisses, OUT OF HAND, ANY second amendment argument with regard to Concealed Weapons. And as a Second Amendment/expansion of Heller argument is the crux of ANY post Heller litigation, including Sykes.... Everything else the Judge says is pretty superfluous. If we lose that, it doesn't matter if the complaint is written by Oliver Wendel Holmes on gold leaf bond.... We lose the case. End of issue. I agree Gorski is his own worst enemy... But this Court wouldn't have entertained the issue regardless of who brought it or how it was presented. The Judge goes so far as to Site SYLVERIA to stand for the notion there is NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR FIREARMS and then half-assedly says "Admittedly, Heller has changed that somewhat." 'SOMEWHAT'? Yeah? YA THINK?

The fact is, the Judge was first appointed to the state bench by Grey Davis, and then nominated to the Federal bench by Bush and confirmed by the Seante in April of last year. What do we know about the Senate Judiciary committee since 2006??? It was chaired by Pat Leahy and dominated by such gun loving senators as Dianne Feinstein (who would have the most say as its her state hes being nominated to), Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Russ Feingold. I suspect Judge Mendez hopes to see them all again as soon as possible.

But more importantly for the future of this, I see you painting the Sykes case into a corner here on CG. YOU KNOW Sykes HAS TO LOSE at this same level for the case to have any meaning for the rest of us. (I guess you can say it has to lose, but it doesnt have to lose THAT BADLY... Fair enough.... When I read Courts making blanket proclamations that 'the 2nd amendment only kinda sorta protects an individual right' after Heller, I lose more respect for that judge than I do for the lawyer being lambasted by him.) So by piling on in this instance and screaming "Neener Neener" you then make it more difficult to explain how Gorski losing at trial is a bad thing, but SYKES losing at trial is a good (and ultimately NECESSARY) thing, when that very event inevitably happens down the road. This is just something in the spirit of fairness that you might want to consider pointing out.

I've never met Gorski or spoken with him, but I know the type. And threads like THESE are not going to cause a guy like HIM, to knock it off. And if thats the goal, there are better ways.

foxtrotuniformlima
07-25-2009, 2:08 PM
Wildhawker thanks but no thanks. I wouldnt have him defend me out of a wet paper sack.

I'm thinking that Wildhawker would like the UOC folks to go away and not muddy the 2A water.

wildhawker
07-25-2009, 2:42 PM
I'd prefer if we could work towards the U/OC folks joining our camp. Patience and calculated restraint is what I seek there. However, doing nothing is better than doing a negative something.

W/R/T Gorski, it's obvious that he shares the well-intentioned nature of the U/OC community, but lacks in other areas one would expect in a leader cognizant of the issues and overall strategy. That he continues to lose (in the manner he does, not the losses in and of themselves) and ignores the lessons found in them makes for a dangerous advocate.

I'm thinking that Wildhawker would like the UOC folks to go away and not muddy the 2A water.

hoffmang
07-25-2009, 3:06 PM
RomanDad,

Sykes may very well lose in the District court. I've said that before and happy to say it again. As to Mr. Gorski, there is losing and then there is losing this way. There is a difference and I'm sorry that you don't see that. Sykes will most certainly not lose this way.

There really is no hope of getting Mr. Gorski to first do no harm other than to get in front of the places where he can cause problems.

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
07-25-2009, 4:34 PM
And threads like THESE are not going to cause a guy like HIM, to knock it off. And if thats the goal, there are better ways. Do tell.

Maestro Pistolero
07-25-2009, 4:36 PM
I've said that before and happy to say it again. As to Mr. Gorski, there is losing and then there is losing this way. There is a difference and I'm sorry that you don't see that.


It seems like he does see that:

(I guess you can say it has to lose, but it doesnt have to lose THAT BADLY... Fair enough....

hoffmang
07-25-2009, 5:52 PM
It seems like he does see that:

Fair enough and I overlooked that statement.

RD: Part of the issue is this. Can you even state what the thesis of the Rothery litigation is? Keep in mind that a RICO violation needs a RICO predicate...

-Gene

sierratangofoxtrotunion
07-25-2009, 6:42 PM
Misunderstood genius: could he have intentionally botched the case badly so as to insure an initial loss and move his way up the ladder?

hoffmang
07-25-2009, 7:32 PM
Misunderstood genius: could he have intentionally botched the case badly so as to insure an initial loss and move his way up the ladder?

No.

-Gene

sierratangofoxtrotunion
07-25-2009, 8:43 PM
No.

-Gene

Hahahaha.

RomanDad
07-25-2009, 9:04 PM
Hi gene: please bear w/ me. On my bb now (soon to be vacationing)not sure how to quote text on this.

Im hesitant to comment on another attorney's "theory of the case"-I hope you can appreciate that? however as I understand the rico element the underlying pred. is mail fraud? (If I were forced to argue that element I might choose another angle, but that's neither here nor there ).

RomanDad
07-25-2009, 9:10 PM
gene said "no"+1

hoffmang
07-25-2009, 9:16 PM
Im hesitant to comment on another attorney's "theory of the case"-I hope you can appreciate that? however as I understand the rico element the underlying pred. is mail fraud? (If I were forced to argue that element I might choose another angle, but that's neither here nor there ).

I'm really asking a simpler question. A complaint should state a thesis that even a layman can understand as to what the other party is doing "wrong." Playing favorites with CCW's isn't mail fraud unless you're misleading people into applying.

My fundamental problem with Mr. Gorski's arguments fall into three categories. Civil RICO claims drive suspicion from the bench. It's not clear to me that favoring campaign contributors for a CCW is illegal (in a pre Heller world which Mr. Gorski doesn't seem capable of breaking out of in his cases because he doesn't seem to know how to cite Heller to help himself) since there is evidence that people who didn't give contributions got permits. Finally, trying to play on the one trick pony of equal protection between police and civilians is not an argument that will get many sympathetic jurists. Reinhardt isn't your usual judge (and Reinhardt's position on some of the police issues is why I have respect for him - I mean the guy is married to the head of the ACLU in California after all.)

Mr. Gorski's legal work in these cases is sub par and that's being deferential.

-Gene

Sobriquet
07-25-2009, 10:26 PM
Mr. Gorski's legal work in these cases is sub par and that's being deferential.

-Gene

I think that is the understatement of the year. It's a bad sign when a judge tells you your work is an example of how NOT to do things.

7x57
07-25-2009, 10:38 PM
Mr. Gorski's legal work in these cases is sub par and that's being deferential.


Hmm. Is "sub-par" the new word for that? I can see lots of uses for it:

"There are radioactive cockroaches climbing up the table legs in that restaurant. Definitely a sub-par establishment."

"That agent shot his own leg while demonstrating firearms safety to schoolchildren. That's clearly a sub-par performance."

"The French knights simply charged the English archers, resulting in the decimation of an entire generation of French chivalry. A sub-par tactic, to be sure."

"The builders decided to coat the Hindenburg's fabric shell in what amounted to rocket fuel. An absolutely sub-par choice for a hydrogen-filled dirigible."

Yeah. Sub-par. I like it.

7x57

bulgron
07-26-2009, 1:51 AM
"The builders decided to coat the Hindenburg's fabric shell in what amounted to rocket fuel. An absolutely sub-par choice for a hydrogen-filled dirigible."


Myth Busters recreated the coating used on the Hindenburg in an effort to show that this is what caused the dirgible to burn like it did. Result: the stuff didn't burn nearly as well as everyone expected it to, and the scale model they built seemed to burn just as well (quickly) without the coating as with it.

In other words, in terms of examples of sub-par things, this example was sub-par.

:D

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I return you now to your regularly-scheduled Gorski bashing session.

7x57
07-26-2009, 8:58 PM
Myth Busters recreated the coating used on the Hindenburg in an effort to show that this is what caused the dirgible to burn like it did.

My trust in MythBusters is just about up there with my trust in Gary Gorski as an attorney. :p

OTOH, if all I really needed was to blow up weird stuff, they'd be first on my list to call. ;)

7x57

glbtrottr
07-27-2009, 4:21 AM
I don't know, 7X57.

Questioning the church of Mythbusters is a large concern.

Case in point: some had mentioned Mr. Gorski to a bull in the China Shop. The bulls took issue, and Mythbusters hosted an event to learn the truth.

Needless to say, even the Bulls protested the comparison - evidence is addemdum A, an encore for those of you who might have missed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk_zpMory-0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk_zpMory-0

(I think embedding was disabled by request)

All I'm saying is that Mr. Gorski is *not* a bull in the China Shop, the bulls took issue, and we get to enjoy the debate courtesy of Youtube.

Cheers!

sierratangofoxtrotunion
07-27-2009, 2:09 PM
Nk_zpMory-0


Ah, nevermind. Go to the link and watch it on youtube.