PDA

View Full Version : Sykes: Opposition to Sac's Motion for Discovery


hoffmang
08-26-2009, 2:42 PM
We filed an opposition (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.32.0.pdf) to Sacramento's motion (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.28.1.pdf) to seek discovery.

-Gene

dantodd
08-26-2009, 2:46 PM
Excellent work. I guess if they know they're going to lose eventually stalling is their only tactic.

ETA: the Sacto. motion is riddled with typos and bad grammar.

Nodda Duma
08-26-2009, 2:46 PM
Nice. Is this standard fare for a case like this going through the courts?

-Jason

hoffmang
08-26-2009, 3:02 PM
Nice. Is this standard fare for a case like this going through the courts?


Sacramento's motion here is a little abnormal.

-Gene

boxbro
08-26-2009, 3:05 PM
They are obviously stalling, they must really be scared.

Untamed1972
08-26-2009, 3:08 PM
Damn I love reading your guys' legal filings.....it's like listening to a finely tuned violin!


Sounds like Sac. is trying to angle for some kind of "They can't have a gripe because they never applied, so how can they know they wouldn't have gotten a permit" angle.....completely overlooking the fact that the Sheriff's published policy tells them they don't qualify.

So someone is supposed to go thru the application procedure and spend the time and money knowing they will get denied before they have standing? Sheesh! I'm so glad our gov't officials care so much about the rights of it's citizens not to mention the law.

Keep up the good work guys!

navyinrwanda
08-26-2009, 3:18 PM
Sacramento's motion here is a little abnormal.

-GeneIndeed. According to the case filings and orders, “relationship among counsel is very good and constructive despite our disagreement about the merits of each others’ motions.”

What do Lavra et al hope to accomplish? A simple delay doesn't make much sense...

command_liner
08-26-2009, 3:26 PM
Holy beat-downs Batman! That was great.

I like the pace we are working at. Keep the forces of ignorance
and oppression on the run, please.

Clearly the other side is stalling. My guess is they are trying to
put the case off until after they can see what happens in Nordyke.

On edit: One more note. There is a terrible grammar error on the
last page of the Sacto motion. "On the heals"? This is an example
of the sort of laziness and stupidity we find in all levels of government.
But it is good for us. Arguing with stupid lazy people takes less
effort.

stormy_clothing
08-26-2009, 3:29 PM
calguns is turning into twitter, 150 letter posts that we have to then hunt down the answers to, slow down people - copy and paste something at least. lol

dantodd
08-26-2009, 3:34 PM
The words in blue and underlined are hyperlinks to all the information you need. Hardly hunting.

Untamed1972
08-26-2009, 3:37 PM
Arguing with stupid lazy people takes less
effort.

Unless that person is the judge....then you're screwed!

dantodd
08-26-2009, 3:41 PM
On edit: One more note. There is a terrible grammar error on the
last page of the Sacto motion. "On the heals"? This is an example
of the sort of laziness and stupidity we find in all levels of government.
But it is good for us. Arguing with stupid lazy people takes less
effort.

It's only a 3 page motion but there are more than just that one.

Racefiend
08-26-2009, 3:41 PM
I believe that response could only have been better if it had IN YO FACE!! written at the end.

Southwest Chuck
08-26-2009, 4:18 PM
I believe that response could only have been better if it had IN YO FACE!! written at the end.

It did.........only it was very subtle ! :D

7x57
08-26-2009, 4:24 PM
If there was a point to the motion for discovery, could it be that they hoped to choose some specific facts in the plaintiff's backgrounds previously unknown, or allegedly unknown, to the defendents, and claim that within a sheriff's broad discretionary latitude those facts constituted good cause beyond "self defense"? That would make the case go away and the underlying Constitutional issues unanswered for now.

I didn't say it was a good strategy, just trying to find some plausibly rational strategy behind the motion.

7x57

hoffmang
08-26-2009, 4:26 PM
If there was a point to the motion for discovery, could it be that they hoped to choose some specific facts in the plaintiff's backgrounds previously unknown, or allegedly unknown, to the defendents, and claim that within a sheriff's broad discretionary latitude those facts constituted good cause beyond "self defense."

That's the only thing I could think of. How amusing that the sheriff would all of a sudden like very much to figure out how citizens actually have good cause...

-Gene

POLICESTATE
08-26-2009, 4:31 PM
Wow, what a read! The defendants' motion was poorly written with several typos, not what I would expect from a good lawyer. The response from plaintiffs' counsel was very well written, good reasoning, lots of case law to back up their position and attacked the practices of the defense at many levels.

Great work plaintiffs! I like you're lawyers!

Fjold
08-26-2009, 4:47 PM
That opposition is a very well written legal argument. Short, to the point, written in language that conveys the message with no ambiguity or convoluted rhetoric.

Very well done.

7x57
08-26-2009, 4:56 PM
That's the only thing I could think of. How amusing that the sheriff would all of a sudden like very much to figure out how citizens actually have good cause...


D'ya suppose we could get him accustomed to that line of thinking? :D

7x57

CitaDeL
08-26-2009, 6:15 PM
Walking around armed in public without the benefit of a license to do so is a crime.

I think this is a little factually ambiguous. Its a crime to conceal without a license and it is a crime to carry a loaded firearm in city limits, in areas where discharge is prohibited and within a 1000 ft of a school without the handgun being locked up.

Is it possible that the Defendants could argue that the Plaintiffs right to carry is not impaired by by the lack of issuance of a LTC concealed? That LUCC and UOC are options leaving their rights unmolested?

7x57
08-26-2009, 6:41 PM
Is it possible that the Defendants could argue that the Plaintiffs right to carry is not impaired by by the lack of issuance of a LTC concealed? That LUCC and UOC are options leaving their rights unmolested?

I suspect Heller's ruling about the right of self-defense requiring functional firearms makes this a losing argument. I do not recall if it actually said the word "loaded," but this being Calguns no doubt someone will chime in with a quote before I could even track it down anyway.

7x57

Untamed1972
08-26-2009, 6:55 PM
That's the only thing I could think of. How amusing that the sheriff would all of a sudden like very much to figure out how citizens actually have good cause...

-Gene


Yeah.....like it's common for the Sheriff to say, "well the good cause you stated isn't good enough, but we noticed this other thing in your background check that is good cause even though that's not the cause you requested the permit for. So we'll grant you a permit for the cause you didn't ask for but not for the one you did ask for."

dantodd
08-26-2009, 6:57 PM
Heller specifically says:

"the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of 'functional firearms within the home.'"

If we assume that the right is to be extended beyond the domicile I doubt that it would be watered down to include non-functional firearms. If a trigger lock makes it non-functional then surely a locked container does as well. I don't see UOC standing, for the same reason but it is a more legitimate argument.

Liberty1
08-26-2009, 8:39 PM
That was such a fun read I was disapointed that it ended...looking forward to Gura/Kilmers next work of non-fiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!

KylaGWolf
08-26-2009, 8:47 PM
We filed an opposition (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.32.0.pdf) to Sacramento's motion (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.28.1.pdf) to seek discovery.

-Gene

Gene think the other side would be miffed had they realized they had a typo on page three line three of their motion? :D

postal
08-26-2009, 9:22 PM
I believe that response could only have been better if it had IN YO FACE!! written at the end.



Here----

Many people would dispute Plaintiffs’ legal claims. Defendants should have no difficulty
formulating arguments opposing the motion for summary judgment, even if those arguments, like
those made on behalf of the Rule 56(f) motion, lack merit. But depositions to review facts that
are already well-known to Defendants, if not completely obvious, will not alter the outcome of
the summary judgment motion, one way or another.

-----

Not suble at all!:D:D:D

eaglemike
08-26-2009, 10:04 PM
Gene think the other side would be miffed had they realized they had a typo on page three line three of their motion? :D
That one is hilarious! :jump:

Heels on desk, frantically trying to think of a way to heal the rift in the wall insulating the powers that be from the ordinary decent citizen.....

Or was it looking for a way to heal the hole in the desk....... :43:

all the best,
Mike

hoffmang
08-26-2009, 11:37 PM
Is it possible that the Defendants could argue that the Plaintiffs right to carry is not impaired by by the lack of issuance of a LTC concealed? That LUCC and UOC are options leaving their rights unmolested?

No. We've made it clear that only functional firearms are adequate for the fundamntal right of self defense that the Second Amendment embodies. Also note that all we've asked for is a carry license. At no point have we specified the manner of carry. California specified the manner of carry. Things that are constitutional are not necessarily the best policy...

-Gene

GoodEyeSniper
08-26-2009, 11:59 PM
Something I've been mulling over in my head lately. Can we get CCWs to cover other "weapons" restrictions. Such as concealing a fixed blade knife? I'm pretty sure Florida does something like this, when you get your CCW you can carry concentrated pepper spray, longer knife blades, etc...

I mean, being able to legally carry a stinking .45, but then getting in trouble for having a tiny fixed blade knife on you is a bit ridiculous. There are a few smaller knives that I'd really like to be able to carry, and I don't like openly carrying, nor does my attire usually allow me to.

Well, if these knife laws were thrown out altogether that would be even better...

hoffmang
08-27-2009, 12:13 AM
Something I've been mulling over in my head lately. Can we get CCWs to cover other "weapons" restrictions. Such as concealing a fixed blade knife?

Not really, but a carry license is a bit more broad that it looks. It will not yet allow you to carry arms that aren't firearms. However, a carry permit exempts people from a variety of restrictions that do not relay on specific arms or how you carry them. As such, you can actually LOC with a permit issued pursuant to 12050...

In follow up cases we'll fix 12020...

-Gene

CABilly
08-27-2009, 12:58 AM
*SMACK*


So, uhh... do law firms pay proofreaders?

hollabillz
08-27-2009, 4:40 AM
:thumbsup: :)

Dr. Peter Venkman
08-27-2009, 5:01 AM
So Sacramento says that they need discovery when the only reason a lawsuit has been brought around is the result of their own policies. What a bunch of morons.

demnogis
08-27-2009, 8:51 AM
Well, they did need time to discover their a**hole with both hands.

wash
08-27-2009, 9:11 AM
I wonder how these things are written?

I'm pretty sure Alan is busy enough with things in D.C., Don has the family law part of his practice too.

I'm betting there is some super para-legal or something that links everything together and does a pretty good proof reading.

Whoever is involved, they are doing a great job and making our opposition look very inept.

dantodd
08-27-2009, 9:13 AM
Whoever is involved, they are doing a great job and making our opposition look very inept.

While our side has great leaders and lawyers as well as, I am sure, support staff. I think we should give the opposition some credit too.

dantodd
08-27-2009, 9:14 AM
Whoever is involved, they are doing a great job and making our opposition look very inept.

While our side has great leaders and lawyers as well as, I am sure, support staff. I think it would be unfair to take all the credit, surely the opposition deserves some too.

wash
08-27-2009, 9:23 AM
OK, concerning the defendants, they are doing a poor job and make our side look very good.

Paladin
08-27-2009, 9:50 AM
Q: How long does it usu take for a judge to decide re these opposing motions?

greasemonkey
08-27-2009, 10:01 AM
Well, they did need time to discover their a**hole with both hands.

But they already have both hands on their cheeks to firmly plant the asshat onto their own head.

My heals need to heel.:rolleyes:

boxbro
08-27-2009, 10:19 AM
Q: How long does it usu take for a judge to decide re these opposing motions?

2 weeks ;) :D

HowardW56
08-27-2009, 5:05 PM
Q: How long does it usu take for a judge to decide re these opposing motions?

Depending on the moving papers, the Judge usually has some inclination before the hearing. Some Superior Court Judge will issue tentative orders before the hearing; I have never seen this in Federal Court

artherd
08-27-2009, 6:00 PM
"This is not a case that alleges any sort of malfeasance or corruption on the part of the Defendants. To the contrary, Plaintiffs aver that the Sheriffs are faithfully and accurately following their policies."

I honestly think the SO actually failed to grasp this. We're not accusing you of discrimination in your good cause - we're arguing that your discretion itself is unlawful.

hoffmang
08-27-2009, 7:02 PM
Update here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=216815

-Gene