PDA

View Full Version : CCW Legal Briefs filed at Appeals Court - Rothery v. Blanas


JustLegalInformation
05-06-2010, 12:21 AM
In the case of Rothery v. Blanas, Opening Briefs were filed today with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging California’s gun control law. The brief is available on the Court’s website.

In addition to Rothery and Mehl v. Blanas pending at the Ninth Circuit, Jacobs v. San Jose has just been filed. Pizzo v. San Francisco is stayed pending Nordyke.

On April 14, 2010, the District Court issued an order the case of Sykes v. McGinnis, prohibiting the Plaintiffs from raising any legal issues, and allowing the County of Sacramento’s “private attorneys” an opportunity to conduct discovery — instead of a clean legal issue now being addressed in Sykes, it is mired down in protracted discovery, including depositions in which County attorneys will milk the case for every penny they can. This is unfortunate as private attorneys paid for by taxpayer dollars have unlimited resources to raise every frivolous argument they can – typically, if the government uses their own attorneys, they do what is right – not what puts money in their pocket.

JustLegalInformation
05-06-2010, 12:49 AM
Rothery Brief Filed in Appeals Court

thedrickel
05-06-2010, 1:08 AM
Gary W. Gorski - CBN: 166526
THE LAW OFFICES OF GARY W. GORSKI
1207 Front Street, Suite 15, Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel. (916) 965-6800 | E-mail: usrugby@gmail.com
Lead Attorney for Appellants/Plaintiffs

JustLegalInformation
05-06-2010, 1:40 AM
The last Mehl v. Blanas filing

Sobriquet
05-06-2010, 2:51 AM
Jesus, not again. Not now. Not this close to McDonald and the promise land...

bruss01
05-06-2010, 7:42 AM
Un freakin beleivable.

Like the sequel to a bad horror movie, "The Hack that Wouldn't Die, Part Duh"

What part of "kids, don't try this at home" does this guy NOT GET? LET THE PROFESSIONALS HANDLE THE HEAVY HITTING.

loather
05-06-2010, 7:49 AM
Damnit Gorski, don't screw the pooch for us again.

rrr70
05-06-2010, 8:02 AM
What an idiot.
Sometimes I think that he works for the other side. Actually sometimes I'm sure of that.

Maestro Pistolero
05-06-2010, 10:10 AM
Can we please get this guy disbarred somehow? How about a class-action with all of his previous clients as plaintiffs?

bwiese
05-06-2010, 10:11 AM
For various timing reasons, he may not do too much damage.

I wonder if he wore a dirty T-shirt to court.

ke6guj
05-06-2010, 10:19 AM
For various timing reasons, he may not do too much damage.
I sure hope that these cases are far enough down in the queue that the earlier cases get ruled on before these come up.

wildhawker
05-06-2010, 10:42 AM
JustLegal, care to disclose your name and relationship to counsel?

berto
05-06-2010, 10:49 AM
Don't Gorski my rights bro!

Peaceful John
05-06-2010, 11:08 AM
كافر

That is clever.

Cordially,
Peaceful John

Flopper
05-06-2010, 11:50 AM
These plaintiffs need to be contacted about this bumbling idiot.

I know it's not "ethical," but neither are the ridiculous failures he calls lawsuits.

wildhawker
05-06-2010, 12:09 PM
Making inappropriate contacts will likely find you on the wrong end of a restraining order. Please do not lose your composure over someone who wears tee shirts to the ninth circuit.

elenius
05-06-2010, 12:45 PM
What are Jacobs and Pizzo about? Are those Gorski cases too?

Davidwhitewolf
05-06-2010, 1:09 PM
...someone who wears tee shirts to the ninth circuit.

:eek: Man, either that refers to something way back in the Silveira days or I missed a thread. When did he do this?

Zhukov
05-06-2010, 1:34 PM
I believe it was during the Nordyke oral arguments. Most everyone came well dressed and he showed up in a T-shirt..

:eek: Man, either that refers to something way back in the Silveira days or I missed a thread. When did he do this?

ke6guj
05-06-2010, 1:34 PM
:eek: Man, either that refers to something way back in the Silveira days or I missed a thread. When did he do this?
that was at the Nordyke en banc oral arguements, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3112558#post3112558

CCWFacts
05-06-2010, 1:53 PM
Gary W. Gorski - CBN: 166526

He's the most effective gun banner in California.

hoffmang
05-06-2010, 4:37 PM
Mr. Gorski assumes the ruling in McDonald. That's not going to be pretty.

Don't worry too much, there are some interesting developments that may make this a non issue.

-Gene

artherd
05-06-2010, 4:42 PM
As mentioned, for a variety of reasons, it looks like this will not affect McDonald and Sykes much.

That said, Gorski could avoid costing us all a lot of money (and rights) if he played ball.

Paladin
05-06-2010, 6:48 PM
He's the most effective gun banner in California.True. But the UOC'ers who refuse to stop the group meetups and stand down until after incorporation are running a close second. . . .

CCWFacts
05-06-2010, 6:52 PM
True. But the UOC'ers who refuse to stop the group meetups and stand down until after incorporation are running a close second. . . .

I don't think they're a close second. Gorski is far above them.

What options do we have for dealing with that kind of situation? What are the rules on contacting his plaintiffs, people who may be quite unaware of the harm they are causing to themselves and everyone else in California?

Sobriquet
05-06-2010, 7:35 PM
Mr. Gorski assumes the ruling in McDonald. That's not going to be pretty.

Don't worry too much, there are some interesting developments that may make this a non issue.

-Gene

I was wondering about that. Immediately after noticing typos, I saw he was using the strict scrutiny language and went to see if McDonald had been released. I'm a bit surprised Mr. Gorski filed a document knowing it was a false statement of law and fact. I wonder if the young attorneys know what sort of trouble they could be in.

G17GUY
05-06-2010, 7:50 PM
I'm a bit surprised Mr. Gorski filed a document knowing it was a false statement of law and fact. I wonder if the young attorneys know what sort of trouble they could be in.:oops:




:rofl2:

dantodd
05-06-2010, 8:03 PM
I wonder if he wore a dirty T-shirt to court.

Probably not, but he may well have left wearing one.

GuyW
05-06-2010, 10:35 PM
I don't think they're a close second. Gorski is far above them.

What options do we have for dealing with that kind of situation? What are the rules on contacting his plaintiffs, people who may be quite unaware of the harm they are causing to themselves and everyone else in California?

Sue him for aiding and abetting violation of civil rights??

It would keep him busy for a while....
.

Dr. Peter Venkman
05-08-2010, 9:06 PM
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d123/WiseBobo/motivatorb27b360e823bed6c711b0c52fd.jpg