PDA

View Full Version : Kathy Lynch attacks BWiese & CGF


hoffmang
07-30-2009, 8:15 PM
Kathy Lynch (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Lobbying/Lobbyists/Detail.aspx?id=1148067&session=2007) of Lynch & Associates (http://www.lynchassoc.com/) sent this pre litigation demand letter (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/lynch/Lynch-Demand-2009-07-06.pdf) to The Calguns Foundation and Bill Wiese accusing various entities and individuals of libel and slander. It appears that Ms. Lynch was complaining about this post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1396528&postcount=32), but it is not clear. Ms. Lynch lobbys on behalf of California Association of Firearms Retailers (http://www.nafr.org/Partners/index.cfm) SAAMI (http://www.saami.org/), and NSSF (http://www.nssf.org/), amongst others.

We are posting her letter and the response letters of The Calguns Foundation (letter from Davis & Associates) (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/lynch/CGF-Lynch-Response-Ltr-20090709.pdf) and Bill Wiese (letter from Law Offices of Donald Kilmer) (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/lynch/BW-Lynch-Response-20090709170451.pdf) for two reasons. First, we think that it is important that California gun owners know that instead of working on Pena and Sykes for example, we were having to spend time and treasure responding to baseless claims from someone supposedly pro gun. Second, it has come to our attention that Ms. Lynch sent copies of her letter to at least two other outdoor, hunting, and firearms organizations in California that we're aware of and we thus suspect it was distributed even wider than that. That activity may in fact actually be libeling Mr. Wiese. However, as you'll see in our letter, we feel that the best way to handle speech one doesn't like or agree with is always more speech - hence this post.

We've invited Ms. Lynch to become a posting members of Calguns.net, just like everyone else here, and correct anything that she feels is in error.

If you as a CGF donor would prefer to not have those who represent the firearms industry directly threatening baseless litigation against the organization you support you should consider getting in touch with the representatives (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Lobbying/Employers/Detail.aspx?id=1257658&session=2009) of those organizations (http://www.nafr.org/Partners/index.cfm). As always, a polite and professional inquiry is best.

-Gene

ke6guj
07-30-2009, 8:18 PM
:popcorn:

ChrisSig
07-30-2009, 8:27 PM
Wow...

:rolleyes:

nick
07-30-2009, 8:28 PM
Oh joy. She was less than useful before, and she continues to be a liability. Time to write the letters.

AJAX22
07-30-2009, 8:32 PM
It ain't libel if its true.

And I've never seen people get their knickers in a twist over something that didn't strike a very very raw nerve.

berto
07-30-2009, 8:37 PM
Can I get a personal apology for having my 2A rights compromised by a less than stellar lobbyist? (Please don't sue me - a yes or no will suffice.)

ke6guj
07-30-2009, 8:38 PM
Oops, I guess they didn't do their proper research if they thought that CGF ran the CGN weblog forum.

kperry
07-30-2009, 8:41 PM
I will gladly contact all of the related organizations, plus the CRPA board in regards to this matter.

ChibiPaw
07-30-2009, 8:43 PM
THAT, my friends, is IRL butthurt at a supreme level.
Her waaaambulance had arrived!
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/3/3c/Ambulance2.jpg

FreedomIsNotFree
07-30-2009, 8:43 PM
Taking a look at Lynch's demands tells me this is going to be a fight. Is she under the impression that CGF owns and operates Calguns.net? Apparently so.

And her contentions are quite a reach. First, that Bill's comments at issue were anything other than his personal opinion, protected by the 1st Amendment....second, that his comments were that of the Calguns Foundation. :shrug:

Don's response on behalf of Bill is absolutely classic...he basically dares Kathy to sue...while smiling...

Bill has my full and complete support. I believe I can speak for many of us...just let us know what you need us to do.

popeye4
07-30-2009, 8:43 PM
If I ever get in a jam, I want Don Kilmer on MY side.......

Jpach
07-30-2009, 8:44 PM
She is quite the frustrated tumor if you ask me

technique
07-30-2009, 8:45 PM
a 2008 post? Thats some punk Shizzle.....



what ya gonna do Bill?

trashman
07-30-2009, 8:46 PM
Geezus...been a busy week for you guys..

--Neill

ETA - whoops, didn't see the dates...nvrmnd...

eaglemike
07-30-2009, 8:46 PM
I was also really puzzled by the references to the "weblog" forum, and the allegations that it's owned by CGF. Somewhere around one minute of web search would reveal the error there.......

I think this might call for a donation........ in honor of Kath - nope, I better not do it. Just a plain old donation, because I believe CGF really does have my 2A interests in mind.
all the best,
Mike
p.s. - should we take a collection for a cheese basket to go with?

AJAX22
07-30-2009, 8:49 PM
If I ever get in a jam, I want Don Kilmer on MY side.......

I kind of like Davis's letter better than Don's (stylistically)

that last paragraph.....

http://www.corporate-aliens.com/quotes/morpheus2.jpg

gregorylucas
07-30-2009, 8:52 PM
Looks like a sneak attack on the 1A.

Greg

Fjold
07-30-2009, 8:53 PM
Oops, I guess they didn't do their proper research if they thought that CGF ran the CGN weblog forum.

+1

When I read her lawyer's letter, the first thing that popped into my mind was that someone didn't do their homework. It's shows the caliber of the law firm that she hired when they miss a material fact like that.

trashman
07-30-2009, 8:55 PM
And I've never seen people get their knickers in a twist over something that didn't strike a very very raw nerve.


...or that didn't affect their business income...

--Neill

Timberwolf
07-30-2009, 8:58 PM
I notice the response letters were sent to her counsel right at 3 weeks ago . . . did they respond?

hawk1
07-30-2009, 8:58 PM
Bill should really watch what he posts.


He's about to be slapped......

































:D

Where's my popcorn...:popcorn:

technique
07-30-2009, 8:59 PM
your offer to have my client "cease and desist" exercising his first amendment rights....is rejected..


CLASSIC!

AJAX22
07-30-2009, 9:01 PM
Heh, well I guess she doesn't remember what happens on the playground when you get all butthurt about something the kids call you....

By the powers vested in me by virtue of the internet I hereby proclaim that henceforth Kathy Lynch shall be known as "The Grand *** Tumor" or "el tumor magnífico del culo"

(apologies for my horrible Spanish)

7x57
07-30-2009, 9:02 PM
Here is something I always find fascinating--that people somehow miss the fact that suing over alleged name-calling tends to spread the alleged nasty name far wider than it ever got on its own, and cements it in the public's mind forever. Surely she could have known that putting the bit about the "tumor" remark would only associate it with her forever. Isn't it her job to know how this sort of thing works?

7x57

AJAX22
07-30-2009, 9:05 PM
Here is something I always find fascinating--that people somehow miss the fact that suing over alleged name-calling tends to spread the alleged nasty name far wider than it ever got on its own, and cements it in the public's mind forever. Surely she could have known that putting the bit about the "tumor" remark would only associate it with her forever. Isn't it her job to know how this sort of thing works?

7x57

Well, her letter was rather benign.....

Roadrunner
07-30-2009, 9:05 PM
Okay so she's a professional lobbyist with no apparent experience with firearms, who is really a nurse and a professional handholder by trade. So what makes her think she can successfully and intelligently lobby for our gun rights?

hoffmang
07-30-2009, 9:05 PM
I notice the response letters were sent to her counsel right at 3 weeks ago . . . did they respond?

:gene:

-Gene

jkchan83
07-30-2009, 9:06 PM
:gene:

-Gene

Thought so.

hamster
07-30-2009, 9:08 PM
I hope you guys have an outrageous hourly rate to bill them when you win.

sorensen440
07-30-2009, 9:09 PM
This letter is proof who's side she is on

BroncoBob
07-30-2009, 9:10 PM
Sounds like someone ate sour grapes

Stealth
07-30-2009, 9:11 PM
People who try to pick a fight with people trained in firearms should consider that their target is probably well armed (with knowledge) and even better prepared to win that fight.

Nice reply letters. It was like reading College essays reponding to something a 5th grader slapped together between math and world history.

Darklyte27
07-30-2009, 9:12 PM
So is this where the fourm becomes a public place and freedom of speech or a private place where only members can see posts?

popeye4
07-30-2009, 9:13 PM
I kind of like Davis's letter better than Don's (stylistically)

that last paragraph.....

http://www.corporate-aliens.com/quotes/morpheus2.jpg

Yes, but reading Kilmer's letter just made me flash back to the old SNL skit with Jane Curtain and Dan Aykroyd..... "Jane, you ignorant slut." Then he'd go off......

7x57
07-30-2009, 9:16 PM
I kind of like Davis's letter better than Don's (stylistically)

that last paragraph.....


I think I have to disagree. Yes, the last paragraph is nice and ominous:


Considering your assertion that litigation will follow should your demands be denied, please take all reasonably prudent steps to preserve all potential discovery materials, including but not limited to all writings as defined in Evidence Code section 250, which includes e-mails, text messages, chat logs, hard-disk root directory data, meta-data, phone logs, and regulatory filings.


However, for my money it doesn't hold a candle to this:


I am sure that the discovery phase of any ensuing litigation, including the production of all Ms. Lynch's client files, along with third-party deposition subpoenas issued to her clients, testimonial depositions of legislative aides and her competitor lobbyists will fill in the details nicely.


That, of course, goes much further than the attorney's fees Don brought up. Do you realize he just threatened to prove in court that she's been horse-trading her clients' interests behind their backs? If in fact she has, how is that going to affect her future relationship with her clients? He's telling her that she not only has not one, not two, but *three* attorney's fees at stake (if she actually sues CGF), but quite possibly annoyed clients as well. And even supposing he doesn't prove that, how happy do you think they will be with her to find themselves subpoenaed over her lawsuit? :43:

One thing I've learned from listening to people with far, far more litigation experience than me--discovery can be a nasty, nasty thing. If you have some secrets, worse than the actual lawsuit.

7x57

FreedomIsNotFree
07-30-2009, 9:16 PM
So is this where the fourm becomes a public place and freedom of speech or a private place where only members can see posts?

Take a look at both responses linked in the initial post. Clearly, this forum is protected by well established case law...as is CGF...as is Bill.

FreedomIsNotFree
07-30-2009, 9:25 PM
Couple quotes I liked from Kilmer...

In other words, your client can pay you, and pay me, to find out if Mr. Wiese's statements are protected by the First Amendment.

and another...

In other words, the litigation will be time consuming, costly and unlikely to yield a result that would be cost effective for your client.

6172crew
07-30-2009, 9:25 PM
Meh, Bill is an easy target. He doesnt hold back when somethings bothering him. If she came after Calguns then Id say she is completely off her rocker.:chris:

No more latte's on our dime girl, go find some other group to leach on..how about American Hunters and Shooters?;)

G17GUY
07-30-2009, 9:32 PM
Wait shouldn't we have had a poll before you guys just went off and invited her here to the forum?

pnkssbtz
07-30-2009, 9:33 PM
Here is something I always find fascinating--that people somehow miss the fact that suing over alleged name-calling tends to spread the alleged nasty name far wider than it ever got on its own, and cements it in the public's mind forever. Surely she could have known that putting the bit about the "tumor" remark would only associate it with her forever. Isn't it her job to know how this sort of thing works?

7x57I'm hoping the Streisand Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) kicks in.

Irrational Voice
07-30-2009, 9:43 PM
Oops, I guess they didn't do their proper research if they thought that CGF ran the CGN weblog forum.

While her suit is completely baseless it is not hard to imagine the belief that CGN and CGF are one and the same entity. CGN and CGF share most of their names, CGN is the primary communication tool for CGF, was largely where CGF was formed AND CalGuns.net is privately registered with the only contact listed being a CGF board member. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

Seesm
07-30-2009, 9:43 PM
I will go to wherever Bill needs us to support him...

Soooo can she sue him if he speaks the truth? I thought not... :P

DRM6000
07-30-2009, 9:43 PM
kilmer's letter is hilarious. i wish i could have seen lynch's face when she read it. does anybody think she's foolish enough to follow through?

vrand
07-30-2009, 9:47 PM
I think I have to disagree. Yes, the last paragraph is nice and ominous:



However, for my money it doesn't hold a candle to this:



That, of course, goes much further than the attorney's fees Don brought up. Do you realize he just threatened to prove in court that she's been horse-trading her clients' interests behind their backs? If in fact she has, how is that going to affect her future relationship with her clients? He's telling her that she not only has not one, not two, but *three* attorney's fees at stake (if she actually sues CGF), but quite possibly annoyed clients as well. And even supposing he doesn't prove that, how happy do you think they will be with her to find themselves subpoenaed over her lawsuit? :43:

One thing I've learned from listening to people with far, far more litigation experience than me--discovery can be a nasty, nasty thing. If you have some secrets, worse than the actual lawsuit.

7x57

ouch

pnkssbtz
07-30-2009, 10:00 PM
While her suit is completely baseless it is not hard to imagine the belief that CGN and CGF are one and the same entity. CGN and CGF share most of their names, CGN is the primary communication tool for CGF, was largely where CGF was formed AND CalGuns.net is privately registered with the only contact listed being a CGF board member. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch.Any attorney worth the carbon in which their body is composed of would immediately realize that any legal foundation would have isolated themselves from a public discussion forum.

oaklander
07-30-2009, 10:01 PM
Oh, I wish I could comment on this!!!!

gunsmith
07-30-2009, 10:03 PM
I have not been able to spend much time on here lately but generally I presume everything Bill says is true unless it disagrees with something I'm ranting about.
;-)

7x57
07-30-2009, 10:05 PM
Any attorney worth the carbon in which their body is composed of would immediately realize that any legal foundation would have isolated themselves from a public discussion forum.

Do I understand you to mean that lawyers are carbon-based lifeforms? Preposterous! Next you'll claim they're warm-blooded.

7x57

obeygiant
07-30-2009, 10:20 PM
Heh, well I guess she doesn't remember what happens on the playground when you get all butthurt about something the kids call you....

By the powers vested in me by virtue of the internet I hereby proclaim that henceforth Kathy Lynch shall be known as "The Grand *** Tumor" or "el tumor magnífico del culo"

(apologies for my horrible Spanish)

:rofl2: I see this as sig material if it hasn't been done already.

Irrational Voice
07-30-2009, 10:23 PM
Any attorney worth the carbon in which their body is composed of would immediately realize that any legal foundation would have isolated themselves from a public discussion forum.

um. yeah.

ke6guj
07-30-2009, 10:39 PM
One reason would be that it does tie up resources fighting an action that you allowed to fester, by not cutting it off at the knees at the beginning, that could possibly go sideways at some point and cost you money.

sorensen440
07-30-2009, 10:40 PM
So, why send her two letters trying to reign her in and beat some sense into her? Wouldn't it be better to goad her along, tease her or ignore her (whatever works better), and hope that in a fit of senseless rage she actually files a libel suit? From this point of view, the two response letters are actually counterproductive.
I suspect the letters are an effort to make her realize how futile such a lawsuit is

oaklander
07-30-2009, 10:42 PM
I can say that we have better things to do. . .

Experimentalist
07-30-2009, 10:44 PM
A sincere thanks to Mr. Davis and Mr. Kilmer, for being such able defenders of what is good and right.

hoffmang
07-30-2009, 10:45 PM
I can say that we have better things to do. . .

Let me echo this. We could spend time dealing with something that borders on the irrational or we could be turning another draft of an MSJ in one of our cases. I'm confident that the donors to CGF would rather us spend our CGF voluntary time and attorney fee $ on expanding the rights of gunowners instead of embarrassing detrimental lobbyists further than they did on their own.

-Gene

dexter9659
07-30-2009, 10:45 PM
I think she may have forgotten to read the release statement on ALL of Bill's posts:

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

I read everything as 1st Amendment opinions unless otherwise stated.

gotgunz
07-30-2009, 10:48 PM
I absolutely loved Kilmers' reference to Hustler vs. Falwell.

Larry Flynt to the rescue!


p.s. BW's post was a year ago. It took her this long to complain?

FreedomIsNotFree
07-30-2009, 10:56 PM
Threats of lawsuits are the ultimate form of flattery.

cassius
07-30-2009, 10:59 PM
lawyers.

/newman

bwiese
07-30-2009, 10:59 PM
Drama, schrama. And thanks all for the kind words.

I will keep my response largely aligned to matters referred to in the attorneys' reply letters.

I do note that Ms Lynch had to use a law firm not affiliated with gunrights; their specialty seems to be homeowner's association matters and construction defects.

My commentary over the past has wholly been about Ms Lynch's gun politics-related matters. Lynch is a registered lobbyist dealing in fundamental public policy matters with legislators and public officials. For her to insist she is a "nonpublic" entity at the same time is ludicrous; furthermore note that I have made no commetary about her behaviors outside the world of guns & gun politics except where certain distinct aspects significantly cross into that (her relationship with the former CRPA legislative liaison, Gerry Upholt, and resultant entanglements) - which are 'gun politics' too.

It's kinda strange that a woman whose occupational description is supposedly the proverbial "steely-toothed advocate fighting a pit of alligators" finds herself so nonplussed by comments in a public forum. If she folds under heat under public forum comments, how the heck can she stand up against the entrenched antis in the Capitol?

Gene & I have had friendly chats with leaders of other progun/prohunting groups like COHA and CRPA. In fact, their reaction to the letter was one of bemused puzzlement: "Hey, this is off the wall, why did we get this?"

You'll also note I really have not commented in the past about CAFR (Calif. Assn of Firearms Retailers), whom Ms Lynch represents. I'm simply trying not to hold Ms Lynch against them: I believe Mark Halcon's organization could, if properly represented, grow to several hundred active FFLs from the few that populate it now. I'd like to see that happen and would be most glad to assist: CA FFLs do need their own voice in Sacramento, working in coordination with other gun & outdoors groups. I believe over the last coupla years the CA FFL community has become much more close to CA gunnies, since we're both in 'occupied territory' and one group can't exist without the other. The way dealers and customers pulled together during the OLL revolution proves retail vs. shooting interests aren't separated, especially with the upcoming ammo fights affecting us all.

Thanks to Don Kilmer & Jason Davis for their able support in this matter. I'm really hoping this drama dies now, so Don & others can burrow down prep for Nordyke en banc.

And thanks to Larry Flynt.

truthseeker
07-30-2009, 11:06 PM
Man, after reading some of these posts, I see some people like to "stir the pot".

I also, see that I need to add one of these 2 sigs to my own:

"No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer."

"Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization."

Mstrty
07-30-2009, 11:13 PM
I'm confident that the donors to CGF would rather us spend our CGF voluntary time and attorney fee $ on expanding the rights of gunowners instead of embarrassing detrimental lobbyists further than they did on their own.

-Gene

Gene, this is the part I (we) appriciate the most.
Those of us that are unable to speak lawyer-eze appriciate what you guys do.

Scarecrow Repair
07-30-2009, 11:13 PM
She is quite the frustrated tumor if you ask me

Hee hee ... he said tumor ... heh heh

Maybe we can boost "tumor" in the google rankings ...

Tumor!

Scarecrow Repair
07-30-2009, 11:25 PM
And thanks to Larry Flynt.

Damme! Some of those magazine subscriptions on yee olde shippe actually contributed to something worthwhile!

Her and/or her lawyer's confusing CGF and CGN surprised me mostly because I would assume that both are by now so well known in gun circles that she herself should have known the two are entirely separate. It speaks volumes that she didn't know that or is pretending to not know that. I wonder if her lawyers are in on this hands-over-eyes approach, and if not, how much they appreciate being kept in the darkness by their client, intentionally or not.

B.D.Dubloon
07-30-2009, 11:25 PM
Those were some nice response letters. I don't think too much more will be heard of this. Please post Yake's reply when you receive it.

artherd
07-30-2009, 11:29 PM
We all have clear disclaimers in our sigs for a reason.

I'm just glad Don & Jason are on our side!

Kathy is a bump on our road, we don't want or need to spend time on her. That she stuck her head up and forced us to render her irrelevant is upon her. NEXT!

oaklander
07-30-2009, 11:43 PM
LOL - I'm the only one who doesn't have one - and I'm one of the lawyers!!!

EDIT - oh crap - I do have one!

I can't even read my own fine print. . .

We all have clear disclaimers in our sigs for a reason.

I'm just glad Don & Jason are on our side!

Kathy is a bump on our road, we don't want or need to spend time on her. That she stuck her head up and forced us to render her irrelevant is upon her. NEXT!

yellowfin
07-30-2009, 11:54 PM
Okay so she's a professional lobbyist with no apparent experience with firearms, who is really a nurse and a professional handholder by trade. So what makes her think she can successfully and intelligently lobby for our gun rights?If you assume that's the goal...:TFH:

jdberger
07-31-2009, 12:27 AM
Anyway, great letter by Mr. Davis. Better one by Mr. Kilmer.

The same thing I always counsel clients, "this is going to be expensive. Are you sure?".

TheBundo
07-31-2009, 12:32 AM
I'm pretty sure all she's really mad about, deep down, is the reference to her weighing 150 lbs. You should have said 110 lbs., Bill

Gunaria
07-31-2009, 1:09 AM
I'd like to know how Gerry & Kathy and their efforts are not separable - given they seem to sleep together, and share coffee pots, staplers and file cabinets.

I think this is the statement that sent her in an uproar. I know Bill puts in a lot of work trying to help us further the cause but some of his post here and there lately have not been of the best mindset. I know some of my post are fairly dumb in the OT but I don't go around liabling other's. Being a board member of the CGF, I believe Bill really has to watch what he says and types before he hits the submit reply button.

I know you meant nothing bad about the above statement but I think that was the last straw for her when you typed that IMHO.

artherd
07-31-2009, 1:18 AM
^^ not libel if it's true!

Futurecollector
07-31-2009, 1:47 AM
I'd like to know how Gerry & Kathy and their efforts are not separable - given they seem to sleep together, and share coffee pots, staplers and file cabinets.



I think this is the statement that sent her in an uproar. I know Bill puts in a lot of work trying to help us further the cause but some of his post here and there lately have not been of the best mindset. I know some of my post are fairly dumb in the OT but I don't go around liabling other's. Being a board member of the CGF, I believe Bill really has to watch what he says and types before he hits the submit reply button.

I know you meant nothing bad about the above statement but I think that was the last straw for her when you typed that IMHO.


^^ not libel if it's true!

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:

Futurecollector
07-31-2009, 1:50 AM
I no realize I need a disclaimer!

so do I have to pay a lawyer to right me one up or what???

also thanks to you lawyers for all that you do for us simple folk in Cali!

cousinkix1953
07-31-2009, 3:51 AM
Is this frivilous lawsuit really just about two lobbyists shacking up in Sacramento? Bill is only guilty of pointing out that there might be some conflicts of interest in certain cases. Honest lawyers avoid such messes at all costs. You don't sue somebody for mentioning the name of a bed mate...

edwardm
07-31-2009, 4:23 AM
Interesting.

Anti-SLAPP motions and proceedings, including claims for fees, are one of the first things I ever worked on as an attorney.

Snowballs in hell are laughing at Ms. Lynch right now.

Irrational Voice
07-31-2009, 6:57 AM
My commentary over the past has wholly been about Ms Lynch's gun politics-related matters. ... furthermore note that I have made no commetary about her behaviors outside the world of guns & gun politics except where certain distinct aspects significantly cross into that (her relationship with the former CRPA legislative liaison, Gerry Upholt, and resultant entanglements) - which are 'gun politics' too.

Is that pertinent only in a strictly legal sense or are you now claiming that posting things such as home address, phone number and information about ones children is unacceptable?

rrr70
07-31-2009, 7:12 AM
If I was to write response leters the would be very short:

" F&*%k off.

Regards,

Me"

:)

mikeinrancho
07-31-2009, 7:27 AM
I'd like to know how Gerry & Kathy and their efforts are not separable - given they seem to sleep together, and share coffee pots, staplers and file cabinets.

I think this is the statement that sent her in an uproar.

[snip]



I'm not so sure about that. The last item in her complaint list reads:

8. That Ms. Lynch shares "coffee pots, staplers and file cabinets" with [former] CRPA lobbyist Gerry Upholt.

Seems she's not denying the sleeping part, she's angry that her actions did NOT get her the use of said "coffee pots, staplers and file cabinets".

PatriotnMore
07-31-2009, 7:50 AM
It's unfortunate that Ms Lynch has felt so wronged she needed to start, what I feel is a frivolous suit. I am sure she feels her reputation needs defending, but for such inconsequential posts/reasons, as the one(s) referred to, she must be feeling up against the ropes and desperate.

Furthermore, her divisiveness, by bringing suit against person(s) as she has, brings her entire career and motives into question.

Unfortunately, she does not realize she is probably suiciding any chance of representing the 2A community in the future, due this type of law suit, if she was intending to.

The one issue I am sure of in all this is, I know Mr. Wiese, Mr. Kilmer, and CGF are staunch 2A supporters and defenders. To attack them on such a frivoluos issue, is to undermine and distract their efforts which are desperately needed, shame on her.

WokMaster1
07-31-2009, 7:51 AM
I love Kilmer's last paragraph. To sum it up, DENIED!!!!!! FAIL!!!!!

:)

Fjold
07-31-2009, 7:57 AM
It's unfortunate that Ms Lynch has felt so wronged she needed to start, what I feel is a frivolous suit. I am sure she feels her reputation needs defending, but for such inconsequential posts/reasons, as the one(s) referred to, she must be feeling up against the ropes and desperate.

Furthermore, her divisiveness, by bringing suit against person(s) as she has, brings her entire career and motives into question.

Unfortunately, she does not realize she is probably suiciding any chance of representing the 2A community in the future, due this type of law suit, if she was intending to.

The one issue I am sure of in all this is, I know Mr. Wiese, Mr. Kilmer, and CGF are staunch 2A supporters and defenders. To attack them on such a frivoluos issue, is to undermine and distract their efforts which are desperately needed, shame on her.

It doesn't matter who she is suing. You have to understand that Ms Lynch is not a gun rights supporter, she is a lobbyist. She sells her services to the people who pay her and it doesn't matter what the cause is or if it conflicts with the beliefs of any other clients.

Lobbyists serve one master and the highest truth................ money.

RandyD
07-31-2009, 8:12 AM
I like the previous suggestion of asking her to participate in a forum, and openly stating what her grievances are and let Bill and Gene respond. Have an intellectual debate in lieu of filing a lawsuit. As an attorney, I can say that litigation is expensive, unproductive, time consuming, it is not an exchange of ideas and it does not smooth out ruffled feathers. Even the clients who I have obtained favorable judgments for complain that they hated the process.

1BigPea
07-31-2009, 8:32 AM
Wow...Kilmer's letter was a great read. So glad he's on our side!

hill billy
07-31-2009, 8:40 AM
Mr. Kilmer is an artist. I am glad he's on our side.

1064chubbs
07-31-2009, 8:52 AM
Heh, well I guess she doesn't remember what happens on the playground when you get all butthurt about something the kids call you....

By the powers vested in me by virtue of the internet I hereby proclaim that henceforth Kathy Lynch shall be known as "The Grand *** Tumor" or "el tumor magnífico del culo"

(apologies for my horrible Spanish)


That is the only sentence I can remember made me actually lol

Can'thavenuthingood
07-31-2009, 8:55 AM
I looked over the NAFR (http://www.nafr.org/index.cfm) site and tried to find the California chapter's site but there does not seem to be one.
http://www.nafr.org/index.cfm

I was curious if the Type 03 FFL's could join up. While not retailers for a living they are allowed to sell via culling their collections.

Membership application is here ... (http://www.nafr.org/share/PDF/apps/NAFR-NASR.pdf)
Says:
'if you are engaged in the business of selling shooting sports related equipment and products.' The term business looks like the killer for 03 FFL's as far as joining CAFR.

I'm thinking GunsR4.us sells shooting sports related stuff. I have gun art all over the place.

Vick

bsim
07-31-2009, 9:00 AM
Originally Posted by bwiese
I'd like to know how Gerry & Kathy and their efforts are not separable - given they seem to sleep together, and share coffee pots, staplers and file cabinets. I think this is the statement that sent her in an uproar. I know Bill puts in a lot of work trying to help us further the cause but some of his post here and there lately have not been of the best mindset. I know some of my post are fairly dumb in the OT but I don't go around liabling other's. Being a board member of the CGF, I believe Bill really has to watch what he says and types before he hits the submit reply button.

I know you meant nothing bad about the above statement but I think that was the last straw for her when you typed that IMHO. Slander, libel! She has her OWN stapler. A red Swingline I bet.

Kestryll
07-31-2009, 9:03 AM
Gentlemen, and I'm being generous in some cases, I have pulled all the pictures and insults based on them as well as the 'tumor humor'.

There is no reason to devolve in to childish behavior or crude mocking.

Let's keep to the high ground and NOT turn this in to a school yard bashfest.

Glock22Fan
07-31-2009, 9:07 AM
Gentlemen, and I'm being generous in some cases, I have pulled all the pictures and insults based on them as well as the 'tumor humor'.

There is no reason to devolve in to childish behavior or crude mocking.

Let's keep to the high ground and NOT turn this in to a school yard bashfest.

Kestryll, whereas I agree we should keep away from the cheap insults, I think that a comparison of how she portrays herself on her website with how she is portrayed on the government website is fair comment.

Kestryll
07-31-2009, 9:09 AM
Kestryll, whereas I agree we should keep away from the cheap insults, I think that a comparison of how she portrays herself on her website with how she is portrayed on the government website is fair comment.

You might have been on to something right up until you started choosing descriptors for facial structure.

AJAX22
07-31-2009, 9:10 AM
Kestryll, whereas I agree we should keep away from the cheap insults, I think that a comparison of how she portrays herself on her website with how she is portrayed on the government website is fair comment.

Kes, the cat is out of the bag... she herself referenced the butt tumor issue and has permenantly branded herself.

As far as the pics go.... its public record (and I had just gone and found some great pictures of Jack Skelington to post up alongside for comparison)

Kestryll
07-31-2009, 9:13 AM
Kes, the cat is out of the bag... she herself referenced the butt tumor issue and has permenantly branded herself.

As far as the pics go.... its public record (and I had just gone and found some great pictures of Jack Skelington to post up alongside for comparison)

That's fine, she referenced the tumor comment and there are pictures on the net.
However here we will discuss it as adults.

rrr70
07-31-2009, 9:19 AM
Kestryll, whereas I agree we should keep away from the cheap insults, I think that a comparison of how she portrays herself on her website with how she is portrayed on the government website is fair comment.

Isn't she misrepresenting herself? Like a false advertising?

AJAX22
07-31-2009, 9:30 AM
That's fine, she referenced the tumor comment and there are pictures on the net.
However here we will discuss it as adults.

Adults can find humor in the attractivly challenged and their misrepresentation of their current appearance.

considerable restraint was used in the issuing of many of those comments....

I for one had some great material involving the shaved hindquarters of a aged camel which (while quite amusing) was not utilized because its provocative nature outweighed its potential to advance the discussion at hand.

obeygiant
07-31-2009, 9:39 AM
That's fine, she referenced the tumor comment and there are pictures on the net.
However here we will discuss it as adults.

Kestryll,

My apologies for the inappropriate quote and comment.


The sad part here is that:


she could have addressed these concerns privately so as to prevent any divisiveness in the 2A community.

She could've contacted Kes to have the posts redacted if necessary

She could've joined the forum to discuss the matter and possibly rebuild bridges that have burnt in the past.


Instead she has chosen her course of action which not only makes the
n. An abnormal growth of tissue resulting from uncontrolled, progressive multiplication of cells and serving no physiological function (http://www.answers.com/topic/tumor) comment public record but further divides her from the community that she represents.

Glock22Fan
07-31-2009, 9:39 AM
You might have been on to something right up until you started choosing descriptors for facial structure.

I think that the descriptors I chose were factual and accurate. I did not use comparisons with unacceptable objects. However, it is your website, so I guess you can get away with being over-zealous. As I said, I do agree that the cheap insults should not be here.

Stan_Humphries
07-31-2009, 9:40 AM
Isn't the SOL on defamation a year in California?

Can'thavenuthingood
07-31-2009, 9:44 AM
I'm thinking there ought to be a beer summit involved here. Invite her over to Oaklanders for a beer with Bill Saturday night in San Jose.

Like smoking a Peace pipe, toss back a couple of boilermakers:)

Vick

obeygiant
07-31-2009, 9:47 AM
I'm thinking there ought to be a beer summit involved here. Invite her over to Oaklanders for a beer with Bill Saturday night in San Jose.

Like smoking a Peace pipe, toss back a couple of boilermakers:)

Vick

The POTUS appears to support the idea someone want to extend the offer to her side?

rrr70
07-31-2009, 9:48 AM
Kestryll,

My apologies for the inappropriate quote and comment.


The sad part here is that:


she could have addressed these concerns privately so as to prevent any divisiveness in the 2A community.

She could've contacted Kes to have the posts redacted if necessary

She could've joined the forum to discuss the matter and possibly rebuild bridges that have burnt in the past.


Instead she has chosen her course of action which not only makes the
comment public record but further divides her from the community that she represents.

She's a lobbyist, she couldn't care less about you, me, 2nd A or anything else. Today she represents some companies that deal with firearms, tomorrow it will be a Brady Bunch. Whoever pays more. Lobbyists have no believes or loyalty. They are prostitutes, working for whoever pays more.

IMO all lobbyists need to be put on a barge, pulled into the ocean and left there with open valves.

Kestryll
07-31-2009, 9:48 AM
I think that the descriptors I chose were factual and accurate. I did not use comparisons with unacceptable objects. However, it is your website, so I guess you can get away with being over-zealous. As I said, I do agree that the cheap insults should not be here.

For me the thing is we should be above that stuff.

If we leave the petty stuff to our opposition it presents us, and gun owners, in a much better light than we are normally portrayed.

If I'm over-zealous about this it's because I don't like handing ammo boxes to those working against us.
We need victories in court but we also need victories in the court of public opinion. For too long gun owners have been portrayed as reactionary and juvenile, we need to present a better image to the fence sitters.

AJAX22
07-31-2009, 9:50 AM
Sorry, that is not correct. Please read Maidman v. Jewish Publications, Inc, (1960) 54 Cal. 2d 643, 649, 7 Cal. Rptr. 617. Here is the most important quote from that case:

I believe the issue at hand in that case was qualified privilage.

And since Bill showed the two addresses being the same (a matter of public record) which provided evidence for his analysis, that bit of case law should not be applicable.


**edited to add ** I could be totally wrong though.

bulgron
07-31-2009, 9:50 AM
I'm thinking there ought to be a beer summit involved here. Invite her over to Oaklanders for a beer with Bill Saturday night in San Jose.

Like smoking a Peace pipe, toss back a couple of boilermakers:)

Vick

Yeah, but this is CalGuns. Instead of only drinking beer, they should also build an OLL. :D

PatriotnMore
07-31-2009, 9:52 AM
Hard to argue with the logic, or intent. I think we can all express our disappointment, without giving the opposition ammunition.

For me the thing is we should be above that stuff.

If we leave the petty stuff to our opposition it presents us, and gun owners, in a much better light than we are normally portrayed.

If I'm over-zealous about this it's because I don't like handing ammo boxes to those working against us.
We need victories in court but we also need victories in the court of public opinion. For too long gun owners have been portrayed as reactionary and juvenile, we need to present a better image to the fence sitters.

ivanimal
07-31-2009, 9:54 AM
Kestryll,

My apologies for the inappropriate quote and comment.


The sad part here is that:


she could have addressed these concerns privately so as to prevent any divisiveness in the 2A community.

She could've contacted Kes to have the posts redacted if necessary

She could've joined the forum to discuss the matter and possibly rebuild bridges that have burnt in the past.


Instead she has chosen her course of action which not only makes the
comment public record but further divides her from the community that she represents.

Very well said. A little conversation would have saved a lot of enthusiasts a lot of time.

obeygiant
07-31-2009, 9:55 AM
Isn't the SOL on defamation a year in California?

Any of the legal eagles fee free to correct me if I'm wrong but this quote appears to address the SOL pretty well for Ca.

Can I sue for old internet comments? (http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-i-sue-for-for-old-internet-comments--49604.html)

Generally speaking, the limitations period begins to run when a defamatory statement is "published" (i.e., communicated to someone other than you). In this case, the date of "publication" is the date this person posted the comments on the Internet.

Unlike Florida law (discussed above), California's statute of limitations for defamation is one (1) year. See California Code of Civil Procedure 340(c). Thus, you would likely have one year from the time the comment was published on the Internet to file a lawsuit in California before your claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Certain jurisdictions recognize the "discovery rule" to particular claims. The "discovery rule" provides that Statute of Limitations does not begin until the person “knew or should have known” of the particular event that would trigger the statute of limitations. In these jurisdictions, one could argue that the Statute of Limitations should not begin to run until the defamed person discovered the comments on Internet – or should have discovered them on the Internet.

However, most states, including California, adopt the "single publication rule," which states that the statute of limitations period begins to run when a defamatory statement is first published. See California Civil Code 3425.1-3425.5. At least one California Court of Appeals recognized the single publication rule in the context of publications on the Internet. See Traditional Cat ***'n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 353, 358 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).

Accordingly, if you file a lawsuit in a jurisdiction that adopts the “single publication rule,” the Statute of Limitations would likely begin the day the comment was posted on the Internet. While confirming the exact date a comment was posted on the Internet may be difficult, an attorney should be able to initiate discovery to determine the date the comment was first placed online

Decoligny
07-31-2009, 10:17 AM
I'm thinking there ought to be a beer summit involved here. Invite her over to Oaklanders for a beer with Bill Saturday night in San Jose.

Like smoking a Peace pipe, toss back a couple of boilermakers:)

Vick

http://www.groomstand.com/images/groomsmen-gifts/med/502beerugly.jpg

hoffmang
07-31-2009, 10:25 AM
Isn't the SOL on defamation a year in California?

:whistling:

-Gene

zinfull
07-31-2009, 10:25 AM
So if she goes on and pushes the suit does that mean she has to give all her internal memos, emails and other correspondence to Kilme? That could be some very interesting reading.

Jerry

hoffmang
07-31-2009, 10:28 AM
That's fine, she referenced the tumor comment and there are pictures on the net.
However here we will discuss it as adults.

Your level of opinion editing does have the downside of not educating those that would do stupid things what internet tarring and feathering looks like.

I for one would prefer that people who do stupid things receive the mocking of the community they deserve.

-Gene

obeygiant
07-31-2009, 10:31 AM
:whistling:

-Gene

priceless!

Kestryll
07-31-2009, 10:33 AM
Your level of opinion editing does have the downside of not educating those that would do stupid things what internet tarring and feathering looks like.

I for one would prefer that people who do stupid things receive the mocking of the community they deserve.

-Gene

I don't mind a certain level of mocking as based on actions taken and what was said but to drop down to personal insults based on appearance is a bit much.

Comments such as those about her actions and such as a lobbyist make sense.
Comment such as 'She's ugly' do not.

That is most of what was removed.

SigShooter
07-31-2009, 10:50 AM
Great read in all letters... Jason "SLAPP"s them down and Don just slaps em.

I do have a question... with all the talk of Ms. Lynch being such a poor lobbyist for the 2A, do we have anyone in Sac lobbying for our cause other than Ms. Lynch that is doing a good job? What is their name, what organizations do they represent? I'd love to bring my business to someone that supports a tried and true fighter for 2A in Sac.

ilbob
07-31-2009, 11:00 AM
She's a lobbyist, she couldn't care less about you, me, 2nd A or anything else. Today she represents some companies that deal with firearms, tomorrow it will be a Brady Bunch. Whoever pays more. Lobbyists have no believes or loyalty. They are prostitutes, working for whoever pays more.
While that is true of many, perhaps the majority of lobbyists, a fair number of them mostly take on clients they believe in.


IMO all lobbyists need to be put on a barge, pulled into the ocean and left there with open valves.
Lobbyists fill a need in the political system that is not easily filled otherwise.

7x57
07-31-2009, 11:11 AM
I do have a question... with all the talk of Ms. Lynch being such a poor lobbyist for the 2A, do we have anyone in Sac lobbying for our cause other than Ms. Lynch that is doing a good job? What is their name, what organizations do they represent? I'd love to bring my business to someone that supports a tried and true fighter for 2A in Sac.

The NRA's Ed Worley is the best pit bull we have in Sac. He is full-time for the NRA only, however. CRPA's old lobbyist had problems (see the rest of the thread), but hopefully the new one and Ed Worley have each other's backs. COHA probably has a good lobbyist but I don't know--they overlap with us on many outdoor issues and seem to work well with Ed Worley and the NRA.

It would be awfully nice if the end result of some of these dust-ups would be that CAFR would become a real organization with an lobbyist. I gather they only have a few members left, far fewer than the number of OLL-friendly FFLs. I wonder if we could start a movement to get "our" FFLs to all join and take over push for better lobbying. It depends on what the bylaws say the members can vote on and/or change.

7x57

H Paul Payne
07-31-2009, 11:13 AM
Lobbyists serve one master and the highest truth................ money.

Not all lobbyists are bad. And not all lobbyists are in it for the money.

I personally know some lobbyists that actually believe in our cause, and we would worse-off without them. We, in the NRA, are blessed with several very good (and very under-paid) people on our staff who represent us in government as lobbyists. I feel proud to know, and work with, them.

BTW FWIW, "I" am not a lobbyist and haven't been one for more than ten years.

Paul

Sgt Raven
07-31-2009, 11:23 AM
Oh, I wish I could comment on this!!!! :smilielol5:

jdberger
07-31-2009, 11:24 AM
First it seems as if Bill's statements were made before CGF existed.

Second the SOL may have run.

Third, this may have more to do with CGF being a more effective lobby than Ms. Lynch.

On essence, despite the accusations of incompetance and conflict of interest she's concerned that CGF is taking money out of her pocket.

Lex Arma
07-31-2009, 11:24 AM
Not all lobbyists are bad. And not all lobbyists are in it for the money.

I personally know some lobbyists that actually believe in our cause, and we would worse-off without them. We, in the NRA, are blessed with several very good (and very under-paid) people on our staff who represent us in government as lobbyists. I feel proud to know, and work with, them.

BTW FWIW, "I" am not a lobbyist and haven't been one for more than ten years.

Paul

Ditto Paul's comments. Not all lobbyists (or lawyers for that matter) are scum. Most, but not all. Ed, and Paul when he was there, worked miracles in Sacramento. Ed continues to pull rabbits out of hats. I believe that our discussions here on CalGuns about 2nd Amend. Politics and Law would be much more theoretical if not for their efforts. (e.g., we would be "talking" about bullet buttons instead of "installing" them on OLL and building rifles.)

bwiese
07-31-2009, 11:25 AM
Ditto Paul's comments. Not all lobbyists (or lawyers for that matter) are scum. Most, but not all. Ed, and Paul when he was there, worked miracles in Sacramento. Ed continues to pull rabbits out of hats. I believe that our discussions here on CalGuns about 2nd Amend. Politics and Law would be much more theoretical if not for their efforts. (e.g., we would be "talking" about bullet buttons instead of "installing" them on OLL and building rifles.)

Bingo.

Irrational Voice
07-31-2009, 11:28 AM
Ditto Paul's comments. Not all lobbyists (or lawyers for that matter) are scum. Most, but not all.

As the old saw goes it's the bad 95% that ruin the reputation of the rest.

oaklander
07-31-2009, 11:30 AM
Did I miss some good posts? I'm always down to see an internet tarring and feathering!!!

Sgt Raven
07-31-2009, 11:30 AM
We all have clear disclaimers in our sigs for a reason.

I'm just glad Don & Jason are on our side!

Kathy is a bump on our road, we don't want or need to spend time on her. That she stuck her head up and forced us to render her irrelevant is upon her. NEXT!

Ben, was that like playing 'wack a mole'? :p

SigShooter
07-31-2009, 11:39 AM
The NRA's Ed Worley is the best pit bull we have in Sac. He is full-time for the NRA only, however. CRPA's old lobbyist had problems (see the rest of the thread), but hopefully the new one and Ed Worley have each other's backs. COHA probably has a good lobbyist but I don't know--they overlap with us on many outdoor issues and seem to work well with Ed Worley and the NRA.

Thanks for that... The NRA already gets my money (and the ILA does when I have extra :o )


It would be awfully nice if the end result of some of these dust-ups would be that CAFR would become a real organization with an lobbyist. I gather they only have a few members left, far fewer than the number of OLL-friendly FFLs. I wonder if we could start a movement to get "our" FFLs to all join and take over push for better lobbying. It depends on what the bylaws say the members can vote on and/or change.

7x57

This is something the vendors here should think about. We have some savvy minds on this board (mine is not one) that could probably work this out in a way that would be constructive and cost effective.

H Paul Payne
07-31-2009, 11:41 AM
Ditto Paul's comments. Not all lobbyists (or lawyers for that matter) are scum. Most, but not all. Ed, and Paul when he was there, worked miracles in Sacramento. Ed continues to pull rabbits out of hats. I believe that our discussions here on CalGuns about 2nd Amend. Politics and Law would be much more theoretical if not for their efforts. (e.g., we would be "talking" about bullet buttons instead of "installing" them on OLL and building rifles.)

It's called a TEAM EFFORT folks. And you all know this as well as I do.

What we need to discover, is a way to get as many people, groups, clubs, hunters, sportsmen, organizations, [ and yes - even lawyers ;) ] to work together on areas they believe are common ground.

During the past 20+ months, we have witnessed an amazing turn-around with the CRPA. Personally, and as an NRA staff member, I am extremely happy to know and work with many people in the "New CRPA" (John Fields' term). There are great and talented people as members, staff, officers, and board members and I am expecting great things in the future.

The reason that I bring-up CRPA is that we all know that there were many problems there, in the past. And I assure you that most of you have no idea to what level and how severe those problems were. But that has changed and things are now proceeding quite well. If we can work with CRPA so effectively, we can work with almost all of California's law-abiding gun owners.

As examples (and I'm not trying to hijack this thread) we have two upcoming problems that must soon be addressed: the Lead Ammo Ban vote (http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert073009.shtml) and the legislature coming back into session in a couple of weeks. Maybe we should use our influence to contact other gun owners and try to get them on board?!?

Paul

gn3hz3ku1*
07-31-2009, 11:43 AM
i dont have time to read the posts but i did read the 2 letters..

1. Bill and Gene are one of the main reasons we got AR/AKs in our safes
2. they supported my 2nd Amendment rights..

I and my WALLET will support their 1st Amendment rights..

if she wants to take this to another level.. let us know.


btw what kinda of lawyer doesn't do their research first? everyone knows who our head janitor is. :)

7x57
07-31-2009, 12:00 PM
Not all lobbyists are bad. And not all lobbyists are in it for the money.


Since it came up--at the recent OC meeting Ed Worley got to talking about himself doing firearms training. There's no doubt he's a gunny himself.

As is Paul, though he has told me that he can't be a lobbyist because his parents were married. :eek:

7x57

bwiese
07-31-2009, 12:05 PM
As is Paul, though he has told me that he can't be a lobbyist because his parents were married. :eek:

Bwaaah! <bseg>

7x57
07-31-2009, 12:23 PM
Bwaaah! <bseg>

Ed was near enough that he might have been saying it for Ed's benefit, but I don't think Ed could quite hear. No doubt he's needled Ed with it before, however.

I also made the mistake one time of saying an ex-SF guy was a marine. He informed me that he wasn't a marine--after all, he knew who his parents were. :rolleyes:

7x57

glbtrottr
07-31-2009, 12:26 PM
I also made the mistake one time of saying an ex-SF guy was a marine. He informed me that he wasn't a marine--after all, he knew who his parents were.

I consider this a personal attack. I am a Marine and I know who my parents are.

Sgt Raven
07-31-2009, 12:30 PM
I consider this a personal attack. I am a Marine and I know who my parents are.

Note he said he knew who they were, not that they were married, but knew who they were. :p Really, I don't have anything against 'Sea Going Bell Hops'. :eek:

wildhawker
07-31-2009, 12:32 PM
Paul, the CRPA has a long way to go before I buy in to the 'change'. I only see them reacting out of fear and necessity.

7x57
07-31-2009, 12:32 PM
I consider this a personal attack. I am a Marine and I know who my parents are.

Oh, undoubtedly it was. But you'll have to take it up with the soldier. Lord knows what he'd have said about sailors, let alone airmen....

You'd have more standing to complain if your official hymn didn't express some doubt if the Army and Navy will even get to the heavenly streets that apparently all you guys will be guarding. ;) Not to mention the fact that apparently the Air Force has no chance at all. :eek:

7x57

oaklander
07-31-2009, 12:33 PM
The consensus is that CRPA is on the right track now - I've talked to Gene about it, and that's his opinion too.

Paul, the CRPA has a long way to go before I buy in to the 'change'. I only see them reacting out of fear and necessity.

Stan_Humphries
07-31-2009, 12:34 PM
California Code of Civil Procedure s 425.16...

It's been a while, but I believe the comments fall under (e)(3)

oaklander
07-31-2009, 12:40 PM
Does this apply to public figures? I mean with those giant ears, President Obama definitely looks like there's some Elf in his lineage.

You are most likely correct in the Bill v. Kathy case. Usually, true statements that are just being recounted are prima facie not defamatory. However, many people think that any true statement can not be defamatory, and that generalization goes too far: a true statement that is used to editorialize can still be libel.

Let me give an example, on a hopefully innocuous topic (deliberately toying a little with Kestryll's dislike of disclosing bodily details):

If I published a letter to the editor stating that Ajax22's shoe size is 14.5 and he has unusually large ears, and those statements were indeed correct, that statement would neither be defamatory nor libelous, but a protected statement of fact. However, if I instead publish that Ajax22 looks like the product of a misalliance between a hobbit and an elf, with ugly long ears and even uglier large feet, that could easily be considered libel, even if your ears are indeed unusually large and your feet are size 14.5.

Obviously, I know nothing about your ears or feet, and I have never met either hobbit or elf, so the above example is completely constructed.

rrr70
07-31-2009, 12:44 PM
Does this apply to public figures? I mean with those giant ears, President Obama definitely looks like there's some Elf in his lineage.

Stay where you are, black SUV will be right there to pick you up.:p

sorensen440
07-31-2009, 12:50 PM
Did I miss some good posts? I'm always down to see an internet tarring and feathering!!!
It was more of a Lynch mob ;)

bwiese
07-31-2009, 12:54 PM
I'm betting this thread has run its course. I do thank folks for their support.

All that really needed to be said was in the reply letters by (for CGF) Jason Davis and (for myself) Don Kilmer.

It can indeed be a handy timesaver living only a mile from Don's office & home.

Kestryll
07-31-2009, 12:56 PM
I'm betting this thread has run its course.
When you start getting puns like this it's definitely a sign of getting near the end....
It was more of a Lynch mob ;)
:p

hoffmang
07-31-2009, 1:02 PM
However, many people think that any true statement can not be defamatory, and that generalization goes too far: a true statement that is used to editorialize can still be libel.


I'm pretty confident that analysis doesn't apply to a public figure or a limited purpose public figure. In that case, a statement can only be libelous when the speaker knew at the time that it was false. Your large ear example would not meet the standard of "actual malice" as the speaker did in fact know at the time he said it that it was not false.

Non public or limited public figures are a very different analysis. For context, I'm a public figure pretty much across the board due to the amount of media I participate in. Bill is probably a limited purpose public figure (for gun rights.) 7x57 is not a public figure so I could probably be sued for saying that his head is too large to fit through most doorways. :43:

-Gene

cousinkix1953
07-31-2009, 1:08 PM
It doesn't matter who she is suing. You have to understand that Ms Lynch is not a gun rights supporter, she is a lobbyist. She sells her services to the people who pay her and it doesn't matter what the cause is or if it conflicts with the beliefs of any other clients.

Lobbyists serve one master and the highest truth................ money.
These people are called whores... I would suspect that a registered lobbyist in Sacramento is also a public figure too...

KCM222
07-31-2009, 1:19 PM
7x57 is not a public figure so I could probably be sued for saying that his head is too large to fit through most doorways. :43:

Can we specify that money we donate to the CGF is used to support a libel suit against Gene on behalf of 7x57?

sorensen440
07-31-2009, 1:21 PM
When you start getting puns like this it's definitely a sign of getting near the end....

:p
You just wish you had thought of it first :clown:

trashman
07-31-2009, 1:32 PM
Can we specify that money we donate to the CGF is used to support a libel suit against Gene on behalf of 7x57?

Only if we're not paying 7x57 (or his counsel) by the word...:p

--Neill

7x57
07-31-2009, 1:39 PM
7x57 is not a public figure so I could probably be sued for saying that his head is too large to fit through most doorways. :43:


Let's try to apply the lessons I've learned from this thread:

1. The closer to home someone hits, the more ready I should be to sue.

2. It's well worth suing even if it means a nasty comment heard by ten people is spread to an additional million or so.

That does it, Gene--your lawyers will be hearing from my lawyers immediately. ;)

7x57

yakmon
07-31-2009, 1:43 PM
Your level of opinion editing does have the downside of not educating those that would do stupid things what internet tarring and feathering looks like.

I for one would prefer that people who do stupid things receive the mocking of the community they deserve.

-Gene

+1,000,000

wildhawker
07-31-2009, 1:43 PM
Zing Neill!

Kestryll
07-31-2009, 3:05 PM
Your level of opinion editing does have the downside of not educating those that would do stupid things what internet tarring and feathering looks like.

I for one would prefer that people who do stupid things receive the mocking of the community they deserve.

-Gene

+1,000,000

Okay, this one sticks in my craw.

I removed the posts with rude comments based on physical appearance and posts with 'comparative pictures' and not just then to now comparisons.

That's it.

That's all.


So are you really saying that posts resorting to childish 'She's ugly' or 'She looks like 'X' type of insults are the kind of posts you're upset about having been removed?

Seriously??

HowardW56
07-31-2009, 3:11 PM
This letter is proof who's side she is on

She is a lobbyist; she is on her side....

hoffmang
07-31-2009, 3:16 PM
I removed the posts with rude comments based on physical appearance and posts with 'comparative pictures' and not just then to now comparisons.


I don't see how the "waaahmbulance" mocked physical appearance or was a 'comparitive picture'. Ditto the Governor's "Tumor" photos.

-Gene

Fjold
07-31-2009, 3:20 PM
These people are called whores... I would suspect that a registered lobbyist in Sacramento is also a public figure too...


Ah, someone who can read between the lines.






You don't get in trouble with Kes, if you're subtle.

cedricxerxes
07-31-2009, 3:21 PM
Great to see all the facts laid out in black and white and to see the excellent responses from Davis & Associates and Donald Kilmer. Doesn't look to me like Mr. Yake did his homework in terms of the facts or in any basis in the law. I doubt they will respond, but it sure was nice to see them get slapped back.

Thank you both, Gene and Bill, for continuing to fight the good fight.

Californio
07-31-2009, 3:23 PM
Maybe letters to all the Firearms related groups and a boycott of all the other groups, letting them know why, would be in order if she does not cease and desist rather than an internet roast.

I am willing to bet money that her clients would be very very unhappy to be caught up in a downpour of discovery motions, to the point of ending her career.

Kestryll
07-31-2009, 3:34 PM
I don't see how the "waaahmbulance" mocked physical appearance or was a 'comparitive picture'.
Do you mean this one?
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2850609&postcount=9
That would be why it is still part of this thread.



Ditto the Governor's "Tumor" photos.

-Gene

The Govenator's tumor photos really weren't that bad but it was a matter of public safety.

Did you see the video that was posted?

For goodness sake man, think of the lost brain cells!!

And frankly there were only about three counting the video and the rest were quotes. The most prevalent quoted picture being the KL/Arnold yelling matched pair.

Shotgun Man
07-31-2009, 3:37 PM
I didn't get the part in the pre-litagation ban letter where he writes, "Despite references in webmail that Mr. Wiese is banned, Calgun continues to publish his false, injurious statements."

Also the letter isn't signed. Do we not have to sign our letters, especially one as targeted as this?

Kestryll
07-31-2009, 3:43 PM
I didn't get the part in the pre-litagation ban letter where he writes, "Despite references in webmail that Mr. Wiese is banned, Calgun continues to publish his false, injurious statements."


A while back Bill did get a temp ban for an unrelated issue, I would read that as 'Even though he is banned his post remains and has not been deleted.'

Remember, they think calguns.net and CGF are the same entity so in their eyes CGN not deleting it is the same as CGF publishing it on the web.

It kind of becomes a moot point when viewed through the lens of reality.

Joe
07-31-2009, 3:46 PM
Oh joy. She was less than useful before, and she continues to be a liability. Time to write the letters.

^this

Shotgun Man
07-31-2009, 3:48 PM
A while back Bill did get a temp ban for an unrelated issue, I would read that as 'Even though he is banned his post remains and has not been deleted.'

Remember, they think calguns.net and CGF are the same entity so in their eyes CGN not deleting it is the same as CGF publishing it on the web.

It kind of becomes a moot point when viewed through the lens of reality.

Okay. I didn't know that Bill got banned. That even undercuts their argument that CGF and CGN are the same-- if they were the same, Bill would be untouchable.

Kestryll
07-31-2009, 3:51 PM
Okay. I didn't know that Bill got banned. That even undercuts their argument that CGF and CGN are the same-- if they were the same, Bill would be untouchable.

True, but then logic doesn't seem to be a player in this game...

7x57
07-31-2009, 4:01 PM
A while back Bill did get a temp ban for an unrelated issue, I would read that as 'Even though he is banned his post remains and has not been deleted.'


Or perhaps they somehow think "ban" means permanent and are upset that Bill continues to post. Your guess is probably better, though.

7x57

bomb_on_bus
07-31-2009, 4:26 PM
My gawd if you can't state your opinion on the internet without fear of legal retaliation when someone gets offended then WHERE?

And doesn't this whole ordeal fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment?

I mean if someone is getting onto legal hot soup over this while other stuff THAT SHOULDN"T EVER BE WRITTEN is sold on public newstands and forcefed to eveyone watching the cable news what kinda world has this become?

HowardW56
07-31-2009, 4:29 PM
True, but then logic doesn't seem to be a player in this game...

We are talking about a lobbyist that works in Sacramento.... Logic never comes into play, unless it happens to enhance political standing...

cousinkix1953
07-31-2009, 5:26 PM
My gawd if you can't state your opinion on the internet without fear of legal retaliation when someone gets offended then WHERE?

And doesn't this whole ordeal fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment?

I mean if someone is getting onto legal hot soup over this while other stuff THAT SHOULDN"T EVER BE WRITTEN is sold on public newstands and forcefed to eveyone watching the cable news what kinda world has this become?
There are a lot of totalitarian people involved with both sides of the gun isuue. On one side you have police chiefs who harass officers who belong to the NRA. They'd better shut up or they'll get fired. Anti-gun politicians are the biggest supporters of the Fairness Doctrine and other legislative schemes, designed to selectively censor certain radio and TV outlets they don't like. On this side, some people literally freak out if you question anything that their NRA God does. We also have puritanical minds, who think that questioning an authority figure is the same thing as attacking them.

You don't have far to go, if you're looking for PC fascists who treat the First Amendment like dirt...

Sgt Raven
07-31-2009, 5:59 PM
Or perhaps they somehow think "ban" means permanent and are upset that Bill continues to post. Your guess is probably better, though.

7x57

I bet KL thinks this board is run like her friends run DU. There you get banned and your posts are deleted. :p

7x57
07-31-2009, 6:55 PM
I bet KL thinks this board is run like her friends run DU. There you get banned and your posts are deleted. :p

DU?

7x57

Shotgun Man
07-31-2009, 6:56 PM
DU?

7x57

Ducks Unlimited?

ke6guj
07-31-2009, 7:02 PM
Democratic Underground.

Ruled with an iron fist. Disagree with the liberal view and you get banned and deleted.

762cavalier
07-31-2009, 7:35 PM
Democratic Underground.

Ruled with an iron fist. Disagree with the liberal view and you get banned and deleted.

My My how democratic of them:rolleyes:

obeygiant
07-31-2009, 7:47 PM
True, but then logic doesn't seem to be a player in this game...

neither does vocabulary, i.e. "webmail', "weblog site","weblog 'forum'" and "weblog advertisers".

published on the weblog "forum" of your organization

Despite references in webmail discussions that Mr. Wiese was "banned,"

The Cal guns Foundation shall post a retraction and apology to Ms. Lynch on the weblog site on which the defamatory statements were posted.

This retraction and apology shall be posted in the same section as the weblog advertisers.

"weblog" (http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html) is about 11 years too late to be used and sound convincing when addressing a couple of guys that spend a decent amount of their time "posting" on this "forum".

Sgt Raven
07-31-2009, 7:49 PM
My My how democratic of them:rolleyes:

Yep! :iagree:

7x57
07-31-2009, 8:34 PM
My My how democratic of them:rolleyes:

Maybe the emphasis is more on "underground." :rolleyes:

7x57

Sobriquet
07-31-2009, 9:35 PM
With friends like ours, who needs enemies?

hoffmang
07-31-2009, 10:54 PM
A while back Bill did get a temp ban for an unrelated issue, I would read that as 'Even though he is banned his post remains and has not been deleted.'


I don't think the fact that Kathy's counsel thought Bill was "banned" and the topic he was banned for were mere coincidence. I note that Mr. Yake is from the San Diego area. Bill was banned because he went over the top on otherwise correct negative comments about Jay LaSeur - now a candidate for Sheriff in... San Diego. I find it interesting and maybe more than a coincidence that a San Diego lawyer might work from print outs of Bill's words dating to when he was point out some serious negatives in Mr. LaSeur's legislative record. Makes one wonder if friends of Mr. LaSeur were involved in this...

-Gene

jdberger
07-31-2009, 10:59 PM
Let's try to apply the lessons I've learned from this thread:

1. The closer to home someone hits, the more ready I should be to sue.

2. It's well worth suing even if it means a nasty comment heard by ten people is spread to an additional million or so.

That does it, Gene--your lawyers will be hearing from my lawyers immediately. ;)

7x57

And make sure that they spell your name correctly.

Any publicity....

artherd
07-31-2009, 11:30 PM
"weblog"[/URL] is about 11 years too late to be used and sound convincing when addressing a couple of guys that spend a decent amount of their time "posting" on this "forum".

I'm not overly concerned on matters of tech law, when the opposition can't even get the terms right :)

blackberg
07-31-2009, 11:46 PM
I was thinking that maybe they happen to have a printout,( or archive, etc) of when Bill was banned, showing his status as banned. Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense to mention it, but the whole thing make no sense...
-bb

I don't think the fact that Kathy's counsel thought Bill was "banned" and the topic he was banned for were mere coincidence. I note that Mr. Yake is from the San Diego area. Bill was banned because he went over the top on otherwise correct negative comments about Jay LaSeur - now a candidate for Sheriff in... San Diego. I find it interesting and maybe more than a coincidence that a San Diego lawyer might work from print outs of Bill's words dating to when he was point out some serious negatives in Mr. LaSeur's legislative record. Makes one wonder if friends of Mr. LaSeur were involved in this...

-Gene

turbosbox
08-01-2009, 7:15 AM
Let me echo this. We could spend time dealing with something that borders on the irrational or we could be turning another draft of an MSJ in one of our cases. I'm confident that the donors to CGF would rather us spend our CGF voluntary time and attorney fee $ on expanding the rights of gunowners instead of embarrassing detrimental lobbyists further than they did on their own.

-Gene
yes, thank you. going after individuals does not make good use of our resources, unless that person will directly affect 2a.
+1
but for members to contact their bosses or affect their ability to continue to hurt our 2a rights, that's a different story.

yellowfin
08-01-2009, 8:17 AM
yes, thank you. going after individuals does not make good use of our resources, unless that person will directly affect 2a. Well, the particular person in question has done damage to the 2A in CA, actually rather bad damage in fact for which she should be ashamed and probably ousted from her job and herself sued, but that's been covered in other threads.

motorhead
08-01-2009, 8:35 AM
wow, i made it to the end before it got any longer. gene, pehaps you need to foolow our fearless leaders example and have your own beer summit. a build party! somehow i get the feeling the small core of dealers she claims to represent are the ones that are ok with the legal status quo and don't want to make waves politically. many remain hostile to the oll movement in general.


disclaimer:any postings here are to be considered the rantings of a deranged mind and bear no resemblance to reality as we know it.

Full Clip
08-01-2009, 8:59 AM
I'd argue that Lynch's chosen profession makes her a public figure as well, instantly absolving the accused parties of any slander or libel charge.
BTW, $5 say she voted for Obama, too.

MT1
08-01-2009, 10:33 AM
How pathetic...



Good response letters.

hoffmang
08-01-2009, 10:46 AM
gene, pehaps you need to foolow our fearless leaders example and have your own beer summit. a build party! somehow i get the feeling the small core of dealers she claims to represent are the ones that are ok with the legal status quo and don't want to make waves politically. many remain hostile to the oll movement in general.

An invitation to sit down was specifically in the CGF response letter and stands and has been presented in additional channels. I'm happy to spend a few minutes clearing the air.

-Gene

gucci pilot
08-01-2009, 12:11 PM
An invitation to sit down was specifically in the CGF response letter and stands and has been presented in additional channels. I'm happy to spend a few minutes clearing the air.

-Gene

I think our Sgt Crowley AKA Gene, will most definitely say, "Agree to disagree with Ms Lynch". Maybe Brian could be Joe Biden in the meeting. :p

KylaGWolf
08-01-2009, 12:33 PM
That, of course, goes much further than the attorney's fees Don brought up. Do you realize he just threatened to prove in court that she's been horse-trading her clients' interests behind their backs? If in fact she has, how is that going to affect her future relationship with her clients? He's telling her that she not only has not one, not two, but *three* attorney's fees at stake (if she actually sues CGF), but quite possibly annoyed clients as well. And even supposing he doesn't prove that, how happy do you think they will be with her to find themselves subpoenaed over her lawsuit? :43:

One thing I've learned from listening to people with far, far more litigation experience than me--discovery can be a nasty, nasty thing. If you have some secrets, worse than the actual lawsuit.

7x57

Yep you are right the discovery process is a nasty business. Especially if one has been doing things they shouldn't be doing. Or when the discovery process can ruin ones business. That was a beautiful paragraph in Mr. Kilmers letter.

KylaGWolf
08-01-2009, 12:45 PM
LOL - I'm the only one who doesn't have one - and I'm one of the lawyers!!!

EDIT - oh crap - I do have one!

I can't even read my own fine print. . .

lol Sometimes I wonder if everyone needs the small print. Maybe someone should send her a magnifying glass so she can see that lovely small print she seemed to miss. :D

10-54
08-02-2009, 6:24 AM
#8- they didnt cite sleeping with Gerri as libelous....