PDA

View Full Version : Sykes: Update - 60 day delay granted in MSJ


hoffmang
08-27-2009, 6:02 PM
All,

We had a very quick hearing called in Sacramento this afternoon in front of Judge England. Don Kilmer and I made a quick trip up to oppose Sacramento's motion to delay for discovery. Though we were not successful fully in keeping the MSJ hearing on the 24th of September, we were able to limit the delay to 60 days from the 24th - basically the end of November.

Due to some of the questions and interaction at the hearing I am feeling very good about the potential for a very positive outcome in the District Court.

As soon as the court publishes the new date, I will post here.

-Gene

wash
08-27-2009, 6:05 PM
Well, that sucks but at least your travel plans will be a lot simpler.

Does it have anything to do with seeing how the Nordyke en-banc turns out?

Werewolf1021
08-27-2009, 6:14 PM
Did the judge say why he granted the delay? Just curios.

Anyway, thank you for all your hard work Gene. It must be murder listening to those incompetent bozos rant on about how evil guns are.

hoffmang
08-27-2009, 6:17 PM
His honor implied that with the state of the law in flux, he didn't see a major problem letting the Sheriffs do limited discovery. He also understood our rush to make sure that less capable plaintiffs can make bad law if we can't get through the process quickly - hence the only 60 day change to the time line.

-Gene

wash
08-27-2009, 6:21 PM
Did the Sheriffs say anything about what they wanted to discover?

hoffmang
08-27-2009, 6:22 PM
Did the Sheriffs say anything about what they wanted to discover?

Whether our plaintiffs are law abiding - to which we reminded them they have access to a full criminal history database since they are, after all, Sheriffs offices...

-Gene

anthonyca
08-27-2009, 6:25 PM
Whether our plaintiffs are law abiding - to which we reminded them they have access to a full criminal history database since they are, after all, Sheriffs offices...

-Gene

How did the judge react since it takes all of about a few mins to do a background check? Is that all they asked for?

What are they going to do, follow them around for 60 days and see if they commit a crime?:TFH:

1JimMarch
08-27-2009, 6:44 PM
Could this put things off until after the en banc results?

wildhawker
08-27-2009, 6:47 PM
It seems to be a simple and low-risk method to ensure a [presumably forthcoming] grant of MSJ is viewed as credible and not simply judicial activism, being that Judge England gave defendants an additional 60 days to prepare and refute the claims.

SimpleCountryActuary
08-27-2009, 6:50 PM
Whether our plaintiffs are law abiding - to which we reminded them they have access to a full criminal history database since they are, after all, Sheriffs offices...

-Gene

How em-bare-asking! Sixty days to run a check on someone. Tsk, tsk, tsk. I'll bet it really impressed the judge. :p

lioneaglegriffin
08-27-2009, 7:29 PM
booo. lame

hollabillz
08-27-2009, 7:31 PM
:TFH:

dantodd
08-27-2009, 8:13 PM
Whether our plaintiffs are law abiding - to which we reminded them they have access to a full criminal history database since they are, after all, Sheriffs offices...

-Gene

Good to know they aren't questioning CGF/SAF standing any longer. I'm sure your time can be more effectively spent than being deposed. I'm sure the judge was happy to let the wheels grind for 60 extra days on Nordyke in the interim.

Dr. Peter Venkman
08-27-2009, 9:02 PM
The people making the rules, getting sued as a result of their rules, now wants to know if the plaintiffs are law abiding, yet they have access to the very databases that will show that. That's flat-out ridiculous.

command_liner
08-27-2009, 9:45 PM
So, are we still doing the Nordyke-->Sykes shuffle on the 24th?
Probably not.

CalNRA
08-27-2009, 9:48 PM
So, are we still doing the Nordyke-->Sykes shuffle on the 24th?
Probably not.

I'll call the pilot to cancel the Millenium Falcon reservation.

wildhawker
08-27-2009, 9:50 PM
I'll call the pilot to cancel the Millenium Falcon reservation.

Hold that thought- I'm in for a ride in the Falcon, no reason required.

7x57
08-27-2009, 9:55 PM
I'll call the pilot to cancel the Millenium Falcon reservation.

Wait! Is that the ship that made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs?!? :D

7x57

jdberger
08-27-2009, 10:01 PM
This is going to interfere with my plans for the party bus.....

Librarian
08-27-2009, 10:15 PM
This is going to interfere with my plans for the party bus.....

Shouldn't interfere that much - just plan for origin and final destination to be the same place, as originally necessary, but don't have any particular intermediate stops. Sacramento? One of the casinos? A vista point overlooking the Benicia mothball fleet?

hoffmang
08-27-2009, 10:16 PM
Good to know they aren't questioning CGF/SAF standing any longer. I'm sure your time can be more effectively spent than being deposed. I'm sure the judge was happy to let the wheels grind for 60 extra days on Nordyke in the interim.
Oh, I expect they'll still try to ask CGF some questions. I'm good at depos... I also have a little trick up my sleeve you'll see CGF roll out in a couple of days...
This is going to interfere with my plans for the party bus.....
Yep. Party bus is not likely now. We also need to figure out if we should only throw a lunch event after Nordyke.

-Gene

wildhawker
08-27-2009, 10:17 PM
Shouldn't interfere that much - just plan for origin and final destination to be the same place, as originally necessary, but don't have any particular intermediate stops. Sacramento? One of the casinos? A vista point overlooking the Benicia mothball fleet?

I say we get Kilmer, Kates and Gura sloppy drunk and play pin the tail on the anti while cruising down 80...

ETA: Lunch is better than none; waiting for dinner might be tough for a crowd.

CalNRA
08-27-2009, 10:19 PM
A vista point overlooking the Benicia mothball fleet?


eh...a bunch of dudes sitting in a bus over looking a naval ghost fleet?

I'll sit this one out.

lioneaglegriffin
08-27-2009, 10:41 PM
Wait! Is that the ship that made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs?!? :D

7x57

Nerd! :p

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed; the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

Librarian
08-27-2009, 11:00 PM
eh...a bunch of dudes sitting in a bus over looking a naval ghost fleet?

I'll sit this one out.

Ah, but what if you consider it a zombie fleet? I'm sure we can get a CD with truly creepy steel-drum Jamaican music to set the atmosphere ... :eek:

Blackhawk556
08-27-2009, 11:08 PM
60 days to find out? wow

imagine if the wait period to purchase a firearm was that long:puke:

jdberger
08-27-2009, 11:28 PM
I'm gonna have to think of some interesting interim entertainment.

1pm to 5pm....

kf6tac
08-28-2009, 12:28 AM
60 days to find out? wow

imagine if the wait period to purchase a firearm was that long:puke:

That's just 60 days until the hearing. No guarantee that the court will actually rule on the motion immediately, in the next few days thereafter, or in any sort of timely fashion.

artherd
08-28-2009, 12:32 AM
I suppose we can just take it to aruba instead...

http://www.cdglobal.net/gun/CALGUNS-PLANE.jpg

Paladin
08-28-2009, 4:25 AM
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed; the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of Calguns Foundation.Fixed it for you. ;)

yellowfin
08-28-2009, 4:41 AM
Did they have any explaination as to why a whole 60 days was necessary to accomplish this, particularly when it can usually be done in 60 seconds?

Dr. Peter Venkman
08-28-2009, 5:18 AM
Wait! Is that the ship that made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs?!? :D

7x57

Chewy here....tells me you're looking.....for passage to the....alderaan....system.

Kharn
08-28-2009, 6:08 AM
Harrison Ford, not William Shatner, played Han Solo...

dantodd
08-28-2009, 6:18 AM
Yep. Party bus is not likely now. We also need to figure out if we should only throw a lunch event after Nordyke.


Might work out perfectly. That way, we can have a celebration breakfast after the county's SCOTUS cert is denied.....

7x57
08-28-2009, 8:25 AM
Fixed it for you. ;)

I believe Calguns.net would logically be the technological terror. CGF's variety of terror is of an old-fashioned but very much not obsolete type.

On the other hand it is presumably CGF (and the others determined to fill out the meaning of the 2A post-Heller) that makes Diane Feinstein wake up screaming that she sensed a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of Unconstitutional Infringements suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. :D

7x57

lioneaglegriffin
08-28-2009, 11:14 AM
I believe Calguns.net would logically be the technological terror. CGF's variety of terror is of an old-fashioned but very much not obsolete type.

On the other hand it is presumably CGF (and the others determined to fill out the meaning of the 2A post-Heller) that makes Diane Feinstein wake up screaming that she sensed a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of Unconstitutional Infringements suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. :D

7x57

:rofl2:

Theseus
08-28-2009, 11:26 AM
Did they have any explaination as to why a whole 60 days was necessary to accomplish this, particularly when it can usually be done in 60 seconds?

Well, they need time to re-investigate the plaintiffs. . . Probably argue that they would have been technically ineligible regardless of their policy and therefore they have no standing?

Gray Peterson
08-28-2009, 11:36 AM
Well, they need time to re-investigate the plaintiffs. . . Probably argue that they would have been technically ineligible regardless of their policy and therefore they have no standing?

They would have to be prohibited from getting a CCW or prohibited from possessing firearms. I don't think CGF missed anything, and even if all of them happened to be ineligible, there are plenty more potential plaintiffs in Sacto and Yolo that can be chosen.

7x57
08-28-2009, 11:59 AM
Did they have any explaination as to why a whole 60 days was necessary to accomplish this, particularly when it can usually be done in 60 seconds?



If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.


IOW, if you look hard enough you can find a pretext for whatever you want to do. But the interesting question is what does the defense wish to do? Find a reason to deny them the court will accept, and thereby eliminate their standing, or find a pretext to issue them permits, and thereby make the case go away with the core legal question unresolved?

Perhaps they don't know, and simply wish to dig until they find something they do do something with, anything. If so, it simply illustrates the wisdom of the adage that says it sucks to be case-law guy.

7x57

kf6tac
08-28-2009, 12:12 PM
IOW, if you look hard enough you can find a pretext for whatever you want to do. But the interesting question is what does the defense wish to do? Find a reason to deny them the court will accept, and thereby eliminate their standing, or find a pretext to issue them permits, and thereby make the case go away with the core legal question unresolved?

Perhaps they don't know, and simply wish to dig until they find something they do do something with, anything. If so, it simply illustrates the wisdom of the adage that says it sucks to be case-law guy.

7x57

I'd guess that best-case scenario for the defense would be the former - find something that disqualifies the plaintiffs from being eligible for a CCW, which makes the case go away AND avoids having to give them CCWs. The latter is probably a fallback, since the county governments clearly don't want these people to have permits if it can be avoided at all.

cineski
08-28-2009, 12:17 PM
60 days for a background check sounds like they're preparing a schmear campaign. Gonna dig every minor thing from their past and make it into a huge deal.

soopafly
08-28-2009, 12:29 PM
Chewy here....tells me you're looking.....for passage to the....alderaan....system.
Harrison Ford, not William Shatner, played Han Solo...
No, no, no...that's Kevin Spacey doing an impersonation of Christopher Walken trying out for the part of Han Solo. Isn't it obvious?

dantodd
08-28-2009, 12:30 PM
Oh, I expect they'll still try to ask CGF some questions. I'm good at depos... I also have a little trick up my sleeve you'll see CGF roll out in a couple of days...

that makes a bit more sense. I guess they can't do an automated background check to gain info on CGF/SAF's standing. 60 days seems pretty reasonable.

yellowfin
08-28-2009, 12:33 PM
Feinslime says "Nein, nein, nein, nein!" and CGF says "Oh yes, yes, yes, yes!"

sierratangofoxtrotunion
08-28-2009, 12:34 PM
Well, they need time to re-investigate the plaintiffs. . . Probably argue that they would have been technically ineligible regardless of their policy and therefore they have no standing?

They would have to be prohibited from getting a CCW or prohibited from possessing firearms. I don't think CGF missed anything, and even if all of them happened to be ineligible, there are plenty more potential plaintiffs in Sacto and Yolo that can be chosen.

I'm thinking that this should be difficult, considering one of the plaintiffs already had a CCW from Shasta.

So, basically, the discovery they want (and are getting) is 60 days to run a background check so intensive that many of our current state and national leaders would fail?

dantodd
08-28-2009, 12:40 PM
Feinslime says "Nein, nein, nein, nein!" and CGF says "Oyez, Oyez, Oyez!"

Fixed your post. :D

Glock22Fan
08-28-2009, 1:00 PM
Seems to me that what they are saying is:

"We've investigated and rejected these people once, and now we agree that we shouldn't have rejected them on what we knew then so we're going to have another bite at the cherry and see if we can make it stick this time."

Dr. Peter Venkman
08-28-2009, 1:38 PM
No, no, no...that's Kevin Spacey doing an impersonation of Christopher Walken trying out for the part of Han Solo. Isn't it obvious?

THANK YOU

yellowfin
08-28-2009, 1:40 PM
I find their lack of faith disturbing.

Untamed1972
08-28-2009, 2:35 PM
60 days for a background check sounds like they're preparing a schmear campaign. Gonna dig every minor thing from their past and make it into a huge deal.


My question would be though......the sheriff can't start what would amount to a criminal investigation on these people simply because they filed a lawsuit. Aren't they limited to the legal procedures for discovery to gather their info? Like depo's, asking for documention to support plaintiff claims and such. To use the investigative tools the sheriff has at it's disposal to investigate someone who is not the subject of a bonafide criminal investigation would be illegal would it not?

HondaMasterTech
08-28-2009, 3:30 PM
IOW, if you look hard enough you can find a pretext for whatever you want to do. But the interesting question is what does the defense wish to do? Find a reason to deny them the court will accept, and thereby eliminate their standing, or find a pretext to issue them permits, and thereby make the case go away with the core legal question unresolved?

Perhaps they don't know, and simply wish to dig until they find something they do do something with, anything. If so, it simply illustrates the wisdom of the adage that says it sucks to be case-law guy.

7x57

If Sac gave the plaintiffs CCWs wouldn't they be admitting a fault in the arbitrary denial of applicants and cause the court to rule against Sac? ie shooting themselves in the foot?

Shotgun Man
08-28-2009, 3:31 PM
My question would be though......the sheriff can't start what would amount to a criminal investigation on these people simply because they filed a lawsuit. Aren't they limited to the legal procedures for discovery to gather their info? Like depo's, asking for documention to support plaintiff claims and such. To use the investigative tools the sheriff has at it's disposal to investigate someone who is not the subject of a bonafide criminal investigation would be illegal would it not?

I wouldn't put it by them. There's no law against surveiling an opponent in civil litigation. The sheriff is a party to this lawsuit. I can see them using departmental resources to gather intel on their opponents.

It might be bad p.r. and blow up in their face, but as a layman, I'm not sure it is illegal.

pnkssbtz
08-28-2009, 3:38 PM
I wouldn't put it by them. There's no law against surveiling an opponent in civil litigation. The sheriff is a party to this lawsuit. I can see them using departmental resources to gather intel on their opponents.

It might be bad p.r. and blow up in their face, but as a layman, I'm not sure it is illegal.I believe use of the police database to search the back ground of an individual requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Being an opposing party in a civil litigation case is not reasonable suspicion.

kf6tac
08-28-2009, 6:04 PM
I believe use of the police database to search the back ground of an individual requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Being an opposing party in a civil litigation case is not reasonable suspicion.

As was being discussed in the thread about whether or not a Utah CCW shows up on a background check, there are third-party background check services that can be used to produce, at a minimum, a criminal history report. I don't know what the sheriffs' attorneys are planning to do in this 60-day period, but if they want to avoid the bad PR/potential legal ramifications of using state resources to dig up evidence for their case, they could just go through one of these services. Might also explain why they need 60 days - going through a private investigation service might take more time to procure records that a sheriff's department could usually pull up instantaneously.

hoffmang
08-28-2009, 7:21 PM
To use the investigative tools the sheriff has at it's disposal to investigate someone who is not the subject of a bonafide criminal investigation would be illegal would it not?

Usually you would be correct, but here we're willing to waive whatever and let them dig on "law abiding."

-Gene

dantodd
08-28-2009, 10:24 PM
If Sac gave the plaintiffs CCWs wouldn't they be admitting a fault in the arbitrary denial of applicants and cause the court to rule against Sac? ie shooting themselves in the foot?

The plaintiffs have no pending applications, how can the sheriff issue them CCWs? Just send them out as random gifts from the sheriff?

kf6tac
08-28-2009, 10:34 PM
If Sac gave the plaintiffs CCWs wouldn't they be admitting a fault in the arbitrary denial of applicants and cause the court to rule against Sac? ie shooting themselves in the foot?

No, because once the plaintiffs are holders of CCWs, they have no standing to sue, so the case before the court becomes moot and the court can't rule on it. For PR purposes it'd be an admission that they screwed up the first time around (whether intentionally or unintentionally will depend on the respective PR spins), but for legal purposes there is no basis for a ruling once all of the plaintiffs lose their standing to sue.

swhatb
08-28-2009, 10:54 PM
Seems to me that what they are saying is:

"We've investigated and rejected these people once, and now we agree that we shouldn't have rejected them on what we knew then so we're going to have another bite at the cherry and see if we can make it stick this time."

EXACTLY :mad:

HondaMasterTech
08-29-2009, 4:32 AM
The plaintiffs have no pending applications, how can the sheriff issue them CCWs? Just send them out as random gifts from the sheriff?

Well, good. Then if the plaintiffs have no current apps Sac has no way out of this, right?

dantodd
08-29-2009, 5:52 AM
Well, good. Then if the plaintiffs have no current apps Sac has no way out of this, right?

That would be my understanding. Also, CGF and SAF are also plaintiffs and naturally just issuing to them is not an option. Of course, as stated in their request and by Gene up above part of this discovery process by the Sheriff will be to try and prove CGF/SAF do not have standing.

bruss01
08-29-2009, 7:56 AM
A lot can happen in 60 days.

Who knows, you might bite into a cookie or sip a beverage and later on the way home start to feel woozy in your car. At that moment you see red and blue lights in your mirror, and lo and behold you seem to be driving while impaired. Doesn't look too good on a "background check" now does it? And we know that Sheriff's departments NEVER have access to illegal intoxicants, wherever would they get such a thing, let alone why would an upstanding member of the law enforcement community have a reason to do such a thing (slip someone a mickey).

Or you seem to have a problem with one broken tail light or headlight after another... "but officer, it can't be broken I just had it fixed yesterday" "Well maam it is broken, just look here (*SMASH*tinkle*tinkle*) now I'm going to have to write you up..." which continues until the person loses their cool with the calm collected officer and then you have a charge for interfering with an officer, verbally abusing an officer or some other nonsense. No, we can't have hotheads like that running around with guns in the interest of public safety.

The sixty days is either an excuse to find some reason to grant a permit (like a previous threat) which won't apply to most people or to manufacture some reason NOT to grant a permit.

Watch your six, guys, watch your six.

bulgron
08-29-2009, 8:39 AM
A lot can happen in 60 days.

Who knows, you might bite into a cookie or sip a beverage and later on the way home start to feel woozy in your car. At that moment you see red and blue lights in your mirror, and lo and behold you seem to be driving while impaired. Doesn't look too good on a "background check" now does it? And we know that Sheriff's departments NEVER have access to illegal intoxicants, wherever would they get such a thing, let alone why would an upstanding member of the law enforcement community have a reason to do such a thing (slip someone a mickey).

Or you seem to have a problem with one broken tail light or headlight after another... "but officer, it can't be broken I just had it fixed yesterday" "Well maam it is broken, just look here (*SMASH*tinkle*tinkle*) now I'm going to have to write you up..." which continues until the person loses their cool with the calm collected officer and then you have a charge for interfering with an officer, verbally abusing an officer or some other nonsense. No, we can't have hotheads like that running around with guns in the interest of public safety.

The sixty days is either an excuse to find some reason to grant a permit (like a previous threat) which won't apply to most people or to manufacture some reason NOT to grant a permit.

Watch your six, guys, watch your six.

I think you've crossed the line into paranoia, but then maybe I'm naive. In any case, if I was one of the defendants and I thought something like this might happen, I'd find a way to go stay with relatives outside of the county until the 60 days passed.

Shotgun Man
08-29-2009, 8:51 AM
Any volunteers for food tasters for the plaintiffs?:) These folks are truly heroic.

Scarecrow Repair
08-29-2009, 8:58 AM
For Pete's sake! Even dumb cops aren't dumb enough to start following around someone who is suing them, bashing taillights, poisoning food. All the judge would need would be a couple of instances of harassment accusations, whether or not proved, to start bashing heads, and the sheriff's depts would come out pretty bad.

Stop wasting time on nonsense and start being productive.

jmlivingston
08-29-2009, 10:19 AM
I suppose we can just take it to aruba instead...


No thanks, I'd stick around for this flight.


31775

Glock22Fan
08-29-2009, 10:28 AM
For Pete's sake! Even dumb cops aren't dumb enough to start following around someone who is suing them, bashing taillights, poisoning food. All the judge would need would be a couple of instances of harassment accusations, whether or not proved, to start bashing heads, and the sheriff's depts would come out pretty bad.

Stop wasting time on nonsense and start being productive.

You might think so, you might hope so. Might I point out though that while Guillory v. Gates was in progress, Guillory was harrassed to the point of being arrested on trumped up charges?

Of course, he won in the end.

hoffmang
08-29-2009, 10:31 AM
You might think so, you might hope so. Might I point out though that while Guillory v. Gates was in progress, Guillory was harrassed to the point of being arrested on trumped up charges?

Of course, he won in the end.

Gentlemen,

I can vouch for the honor and integrity of the opposition here. They may not like the political situation, but they have no interest in fighting dirty here.

Let's knock off the tinfoil hat stuff.

-Gene

Shotgun Man
08-29-2009, 10:41 AM
Gentlemen,

I can vouch for the honor and integrity of the opposition here. They may not like the political situation, but they have no interest in fighting dirty here.

Let's knock off the tinfoil hat stuff.

-Gene

Accepting your proposition that the named litigants in our lawsuit do not fight dirty, I do think such practice is de rigueur for the anti-gun lobby.

hoffmang
08-29-2009, 10:51 AM
Accepting your proposition that the named litigants in our lawsuit do not fight dirty, I do think such practice is de rigueur for the anti-gun lobby.

Potentially. All I can say is that the anti-gun lobby is notably absent here.

-Gene

dantodd
08-29-2009, 2:38 PM
Gentlemen,

I can vouch for the honor and integrity of the opposition here.

Excellent point. No reason to start the ad-hominem attacks. They are defending the law, it would not be right for them to put up anything other than a rigorous defense. I believe they will lose in the end and I doubt they will really care after 2 or 3 years pass and there isn't blood running in the streets.

lioneaglegriffin
08-29-2009, 3:10 PM
the anti-gun lobby is notably absent here.

-Gene

well where did they go?

dantodd
08-29-2009, 3:24 PM
well where did they go?

Somewhere they don't feel will be a sure loser?

Opus109
08-29-2009, 4:13 PM
People, this isn't a grand conspiracy so much as it is the need of defense counsel to have more time to work on their lame, and LOSING, arguments to the district court judge. There will be no discovery, and no miraculous granting of CCW's to the plaintiffs in the next 60 days. Just maybe a bit of legal research!

Invisible_Dave
08-29-2009, 4:35 PM
I often wonder how many Sheriffs are truly pro-ccw from their patrol days (as many if not most patrol guys I know are) and are handcuffed into nonissue but the City council and those that employ them. What if, in the ultimate act of ironic humor, the Sheriffs go home at night and hope this passes and they go "shall issue" statewide. (I'm going tin fold hate in the other direction)

Opus109
08-29-2009, 4:58 PM
Tin Fold Hate. Isn't that an LA metal band?

Gray Peterson
08-29-2009, 5:28 PM
I often wonder how many Sheriffs are truly pro-ccw from their patrol days (as many if not most patrol guys I know are) and are handcuffed into nonissue but the City council and those that employ them. What if, in the ultimate act of ironic humor, the Sheriffs go home at night and hope this passes and they go "shall issue" statewide. (I'm going tin fold hate in the other direction)

Sheriffs are elected officials, rather than appointed like City Police Chiefs.

dantodd
08-29-2009, 7:45 PM
People, this isn't a grand conspiracy so much as it is the need of defense counsel to have more time to work on their lame, and LOSING, arguments to the district court judge. There will be no discovery, and no miraculous granting of CCW's to the plaintiffs in the next 60 days. Just maybe a bit of legal research!

Why inject common sense into a perfectly good thread?

Scarecrow Repair
08-29-2009, 7:53 PM
Gentlemen,

I can vouch for the honor and integrity of the opposition here. They may not like the political situation, but they have no interest in fighting dirty here.

Let's knock off the tinfoil hat stuff.

-Gene

Even aside from that, this case is way too big and has way too much spotlight on it. Petty harassment only works in petty cases, and a mere sheriff's department is not big enough for the truly big harassment.

lioneaglegriffin
08-29-2009, 8:06 PM
Somewhere they don't feel will be a sure loser?

and where would that be? its 1944 and the writing is on the wall.

AEC1
08-29-2009, 8:36 PM
Sheriffs are elected officials, rather than appointed like City Police Chiefs.

Unless you live in San Diego...

hoffmang
08-29-2009, 8:39 PM
well where did they go?

They weren't invited and the defendants have strong political reasons to keep them far, far away from them.

-Gene

bwiese
08-29-2009, 8:56 PM
Even aside from that, this case is way too big and has way too much spotlight on it. Petty harassment only works in petty cases, and a mere sheriff's department is not big enough for the truly big harassment.

You'd be surprised. Many moons ago an NRA representative in CA that quite a few of us know & respect was contacted by Willie Brown to help get some kinda gun bill thru, with supposed sweeteners that he could 'sell' to 'his' membership.

When said Fine Individual righteously kicked an N. F. W. back to Willie, a few days later he began being followed around town for a period of time by (IIRC) OCSO deputies.

nicki
08-29-2009, 9:13 PM
Back in the old days, the sheriffs and other public officials could get away with alot more because of limited communications.

With internet, people carrying cell phones, video cameras, etc, it would be really stupid for the sheriffs office to play games.

Of course arrogance and ignorance do go hand in hand.

Nicki

Scarecrow Repair
08-29-2009, 9:50 PM
When said Fine Individual righteously kicked an N. F. W. back to Willie, a few days later he began being followed around town for a period of time by (IIRC) OCSO deputies.

But F.I. knew about it, right? And if it had been a court case, and he had the presence of mind to get a few pictures or his own P.I. to tail the tail, I can't imagine the judge would have been very happy.

yellowfin
08-30-2009, 6:10 AM
People, this isn't a grand conspiracy so much as it is the need of defense counsel to have more time to work on their lame, and LOSING, arguments to the district court judge. There will be no discovery, and no miraculous granting of CCW's to the plaintiffs in the next 60 days. Just maybe a bit of legal research! Good. The more arguments they make which lose means the more lines they can't use in the future because they've been squashed already. I hope they bring out the full gamut of "public safety" , "ordered society", "police safety", "necessary discretion", and all that garbage all to LOSE LOSE LOSE and forever have their BS lines shot down.