PDA

View Full Version : Milpitas DOJ letter draft


artherd
03-07-2006, 1:50 AM
Things are moving along on our end with the various law firms, but at a snail's pace.

It's time to do something on our own as a group, and the first phase is to send some letters out en-masse to inquire why your property is being illegally held.

I drafted up a nice one that should be generic enough. If you decide to use another letter, please apply with care, and don't give away too much detail, you never know what may be used against you later, and DOJ are law enforcement.

EDIT: Thanks to Glen for doing something useful and helping me proofread this. (Glen, you can send the bill directly to Alison I am sure she will not mind.) Keep in mind neither he nor I are giving you legal advice.
http://www.cdglobal.net/DOJ/DOJ-Generic-siezure-return3.jpg

glen avon
03-07-2006, 9:04 AM
why personal and confidential? they are not under any obligation to maintain any confidentiality because you put it there. I would remove it. furthermore, if you ever intend to wave that letter in court, you would look silly if you are breaching your own confidentiality.

RMB is not *your* licensee.

no need to say "personal property" as we all know it's not real property.

don't ask them a question that you don't know the answer to.

why capitalize firearms?

all rights reserved? what are you now, a rock star too?

why not throw in habeus corpus and the magna carta?


<letter removed for clairity's sake by Ben. Thanks for the contribution glen.>

rodgster
03-07-2006, 10:01 AM
Glen,

Good Job. Thanks.

I'm sure everyone who hasn't already sent a letter and has a seized receiver thanks you.


rodgster

glen avon
03-07-2006, 10:08 AM
where do I sent the bill

swhatb
03-07-2006, 12:22 PM
artherd- has the retained attorney approved/looked over the letter? it may be a good idea to have this done before people use it an send to doj. just want to make sure that no body says or adds something that they shouldn't. thanx.

adamsreeftank
03-07-2006, 12:37 PM
where do I sent the bill


You can send it here:

Alison Merrilees
Deputy Attorney General
California Department of Justice
Firearms Division
4949 Broadway
Sacramento, CA 95820

glen avon
03-07-2006, 2:59 PM
You can send it to:

Alison Merrilees


Hey, good idea, instead of cash, I will accept my pay in confiscated lowers! :D

artherd
03-08-2006, 1:44 AM
A genuine thanks Glen, I like this one better, less wordy and more focused. I fixed the typos (heheheh) and uploaded a new copy.


don't ask them a question that you don't know the answer to. Currious as to what that referenced?

why not throw in habeus corpus and the magna carta?
Just be glad I was in a better mood :)

glen avon
03-08-2006, 8:16 AM
Currious as to what that referenced?

I don't remember, but there was a question that could have been answered other that how tou would have wanted.

also, re: another post, unlawful detainer is what you use to evict people from your real property, where do you get this stuff?

blacklisted
03-08-2006, 1:30 PM
Typo in last paragraph:

If there is anything I can to to expedite the return

stator
03-08-2006, 6:38 PM
Moreover, DOJ never provided RMB or myself a receipt for my seized receiver.


Holy ****.... if that is true and I image it is since it is in Ben's draft, then....

why in the hell has no one written Allison asking which law gives them the authority to seize property without a receipt? I do not think there is one.

In comparision, federal law requires the ATF to either give a receipt for seizures or get the owner to sign an abandonment paper. If the owner insists on the receipt, i.e., not willing to abandon, then they have a numbered amount of days to post a bond. Otherwise, the property seized is destroyed, but before doing so, the ATF has to advertise in a newspaper.

If the DOJ broke CA laws by not providing a receipt, then you will put them on the defensive right off the bat.


BTW, I believe the letters are written with too much pontification. Keep it simple and pithy and do not disclosure your position as you get them to do so.

artherd
03-09-2006, 2:31 AM
Holy ****.... if that is true and I image it is since it is in Ben's draft, then...
Far as I know. I have yet to see any kind of recipt and also as far as I know, RMB has yet to either.

BTW, I believe the letters are written with too much pontification. Keep it simple and pithy and do not disclosure your position as you get them to do so.
I think we're onto a pretty good draft so far. If you'd like to mark it up I'll take suggestions/input under advisement! (no guarentees though :D)

stator
03-09-2006, 4:51 PM
Far as I know. I have yet to see any kind of recipt and also as far as I know, RMB has yet to either.



You should clarify this with RMB ASAP. Otherwise, if there was no receipt and you don't, you are letting an opportunity for your lawyer slip away.

RMB should have demanded a receipt. If DOJ refused, he should have demand that they cite the code which gives them the authority to seize property without one. If they could not produce either, he should have called the Milpitas Police department right then and his lawyer.

I will venture a guess that the DOJ did not give RMB a receipt because they were unsure whether they had the authority to seize them away... probably did not have a warrant... they probably think that RMB gave them the permission to seize.

This thing seems to be turning into a GF as more information comes out.

GW
03-09-2006, 5:13 PM
I re-DROS'ed today with Rob and he told me he WAS given a receipt for the lowers and that ONLY 219 were taken NOT 500 (a rumor I helped spread-sorry)
Verify for yourselves but that was what he told me today.

artherd
03-09-2006, 6:33 PM
Agreed, I will look into the matter of a recipt, thanks for the heads up. I can't say any more for obvious reasons. You should clarify this with RMB ASAP.

Cisco
03-09-2006, 7:14 PM
If they only took 219 recievers then how did Rob know mine was one of them without knowing who I was when I walked in to his office?

artherd
03-09-2006, 7:42 PM
If they only took 219 recievers then how did Rob know mine was one of them without knowing who I was when I walked in to his office?
I don't even see how the two could be related?

Cisco
03-09-2006, 8:28 PM
I guess what I was trying to say was did all the laurers get taken or just the ones that didnt fit in the safe?

GW
03-09-2006, 9:10 PM
If they only took 219 recievers then how did Rob know mine was one of them without knowing who I was when I walked in to his office?

I would imagine that he knows the look that folks like you and me have when we arrive to re-DROS yet again. :rolleyes:

adamsreeftank
03-09-2006, 9:15 PM
If they only took 219 recievers then how did Rob know mine was one of them without knowing who I was when I walked in to his office?

If I'm not mistaken, Rob has an incredible memory.

When I walked into his shop the second time, he greeted me by name, even though I had barely said a word to him the first time I was there, and It took me two hours in line, so there were lots of faces the day I drosed my first set.

It was kind of spooky.

TurboKaveman
03-10-2006, 12:09 AM
Question for artherd: should I send in a letter, or a LEGR form? or both? I've got both ready to be mailed out and wanted you/your lawyer's/anyone else's input.

artherd
03-10-2006, 12:26 AM
Pending advice from my consul, right now I would say send both, gives DOJ no more excuses to keep holding onto 'em.

Kalbi
03-10-2006, 9:33 AM
Is there a Congress Person we can CC these letters to also?

I am assuming of course, that there is one that may have sympathy for our issue. If not nevermind this post.

Wulf
03-10-2006, 10:35 PM
Tim Leslie from Placer County is pretty "Pro". Rico Ollier is too IIRC.

artherd
03-14-2006, 1:02 AM
Letter updated. Aparently a recipt after a fashion was given to the FFL. I personally have not been provided by DOJ with any sort of recipt or notice for the 2 lowers of mine they have.

skink
03-15-2006, 6:43 PM
What would happen if I disputed the charge to my credit card for the receiver that I have not received or may never receive?

6172crew
03-15-2006, 7:00 PM
You would stiff the seller.:(

What would happen if I disputed the charge to my credit card for the receiver that I have not received or may never receive?

6172crew
03-15-2006, 7:01 PM
Yes try Tom Mcklintock:)

Is there a Congress Person we can CC these letters to also?

I am assuming of course, that there is one that may have sympathy for our issue. If not nevermind this post.

glen avon
03-15-2006, 7:03 PM
What would happen if I disputed the charge to my credit card for the receiver that I have not received or may never receive?

And you would be liable for fraud.

phish
03-15-2006, 7:26 PM
^

How would that be fraud? If anybody is liable for fraud, it should be those responsible for not returning lawfully purchased property.

blacklisted
03-15-2006, 7:29 PM
^

How would that be fraud? If anybody is liable for fraud, it should be those responsible for not returning lawfully purchased property.

I believe the order form clearly said "NON REFUNDABLE"

phish
03-15-2006, 7:40 PM
you're right, just checked some older emails

TT2
03-15-2006, 7:50 PM
^

How would that be fraud? If anybody is liable for fraud, it should be those responsible for not returning lawfully purchased property.

Who,would that be the DOJ or the dealer??
The property was never delivered is what AMEX says.
Nothing about FRAUD on the buyers part..

glen avon
03-15-2006, 7:55 PM
Who,would that be the DOJ or the dealer??
The property was never delivered is what AMEX says.
Nothing about FRAUD on the buyers part..

If the seller delivered it to the FFL, he did his part. you can't refuse to pay him. if you do, you will have to say the dealer did not do his part.

but he did.

so that would be fraud.

now, if you admit the dealer sent it to the FFL of your choosing, and the FFL received it as the dealer promised, then your credit card company will not accept your refusal of the charges. you will have to tell them a different story, and the truth won't do it.

1) lying 2) knowingly and 3) materially 4) to get money 5) is fraud.

TT2
03-15-2006, 8:49 PM
If the seller delivered it to the FFL, he did his part. you can't refuse to pay him. if you do, you will have to say the dealer did not do his part.

but he did.

so that would be fraud.

now, if you admit the dealer sent it to the FFL of your choosing, and the FFL received it as the dealer promised, then your credit card company will not accept your refusal of the charges. you will have to tell them a different story, and the truth won't do it.

1) lying 2) knowingly and 3) materially 4) to get money 5) is fraud.


Seems the truth about the seizure was enough for the credit card company to investigate, and they will decide the truth. The FFL of my choice is not in Milpitas, so it was sent to the FFL I was told to go DROS with in Milpitas.
I felt like I was a 15 year old trying to get a six pack, not buying a lower.
I am not redrosing and am not paying for something I never received.
I never Lied nor tried to get anything that I didnt pay for. I got nothing and if they are returned with the list, they will have to be sold out of state anyway.
I will still get nothing, Sucks for everyone involved, but when they are returned they will be resold regardless of where.

Show Me The Baby, I am sick of hearing about the labor pains.

artherd
03-16-2006, 12:00 AM
What would happen if I disputed the charge to my credit card for the receiver that I have not received or may never receive?

Well, you'd be screwing me out of the money I advanced to the manufactuar to get these in state at all, and to get a semi-good price for everyone at a time of mass backlogs.

Basically, all that would accomplish is taking money out of my pocket, since I couldn't take back your firearm that you've already DROS'd and transfered on a 4473. (that'd be stealing a rifle from you, a crime :)

Best!
Ben.

artherd
03-16-2006, 12:10 AM
EDIT: TT2 and I have talked, and we've worked out all issues and questions completely amicably and civilly! Aparently there are a lot of roumours going around, so I will leave this post as a means to dispell them. TT2 was a pleasure to talk with, and I thank him for getting in touch with me!
-Ben.


Who,would that be the DOJ or the dealer??
The property was never delivered is what AMEX says.
Nothing about FRAUD on the buyers part..
Aaaah, so YOU're the one! I'm not sure you're aware of any of the following, so I'll share some information with you real quick here.

I went way out of my way, and took great personal financial exposure with no oppertunity for gain, in order to secure a bunch of these lowers to CA citizens at large. My reasons for doing this were alturistic and such that I belive every law abiding citizen has the RIGHT to own what he/she pleases. Together, we helped bring in approximately 1400+ lowers, so I consider the effort a broad success.

I both understand and share your prediciment, in-fact 2 of my own personal lowers are currently tied up in the issue. I am confident they will be returned in a reasonable fasion in short order. I have even secured an attorney (at my own expense, greater than cost of merchandise as it is the principle at work now.) to help insure their timely return.


It really hurts my feelings that you didn't:

1) call my office at the number listed on your statement.
2) contact me on calguns.net.
3) e-mail me at the address on your order form.
4) contact the FFL.
5) read the T&Cs you agreed to in the purchase. (Specifically 'non-refundable'.)
6) think twice before screwing a fellow CA gun owner who is only trying to help you out.

I've got a form signed by you under Penalty of Purjury declareing everything true and correct (blah blah blah.) transfering the actual serialized firearm to your posession. I *cannot* take it back, ever (that would be felony Theft of Firearm.)

Want to go ahead and cancel the chargeback before I send any of this in? Shoot me an e-mail, let's chat.
-Ben.

artherd
03-16-2006, 12:13 AM
^
How would that be fraud? If anybody is liable for fraud, it should be those responsible for not returning lawfully purchased property.

I won't discuss the 'f-word' on the forum ;), but I agree with you, DOJ is the responsible party in this nonsense!

Best!
Ben.

1) lying 2) knowingly and 3) materially 4) to get money 5) is fraud.
Hehehe, I'm going to get a t-shirt made up!

TT2
03-16-2006, 8:10 AM
I both understand and share your prediciment, in-fact 2 of my own personal lowers are currently tied up in the issue. I am confident they will be returned in a reasonable fasion in short order. I have even secured an attorney (at my own expense, greater than cost of merchandise as it is the principle at work now.) to help insure their timely return.


It really hurts my feelings that you didn't:

1) call my office at the number listed on your statement.
2) contact me on calguns.net.
3) e-mail me at the address on your order form.
4) contact the FFL.
5) read the T&Cs you agreed to in the purchase. (Specifically 'non-refundable'.)
6) think twice before screwing a fellow CA gun owner who is only trying to help you out.

I've got a form signed by you under Penalty of Purjury declareing everything true and correct (blah blah blah.) transfering the actual serialized firearm to your posession. I *cannot* take it back, ever (that would be felony Theft of Firearm.)

Want to go ahead and cancel the chargeback before I send any of this in? Shoot me an e-mail, let's chat.
-Ben.

I had no intention of srewing anyone, Catch 22. I really thought you could resale the lowers if and or when they are returned. OK I will cancel it.
no offence intended, just self preservation. Tony

glen avon
03-16-2006, 8:15 AM
Seems the truth about the seizure was enough for the credit card company to investigate, and they will decide the truth.

the bank will tell you no. what conclusion would you want them to come to? that DOJ improperly seized them? I doubt very much your agreement with the bank grants you protection against that. but you could check. it would be great if the bank did take this up, but I doubt they will.

TT2
03-16-2006, 8:18 AM
the bank will tell you no. what conclusion would you want them to come to? that DOJ improperly seized them? I doubt very much your agreement with the bank grants you protection against that. but you could check.

I thought the letter couldnt hurt. The DOJ stole them??

artherd
03-16-2006, 8:50 AM
I thought the letter couldnt hurt. The DOJ stole them??
Essentially, yes. DOJ siezed them under quite questionable circumstance, and is holding them under, well no circumstance :)

In any event, I am fighting it hard with my attorneys, just for my 2, however I am confident that the other 217 should be returned at or around the same time.

artherd
03-16-2006, 9:03 AM
I had no intention of srewing anyone, Catch 22. I really thought you could resale the lowers if and or when they are returned. OK I will cancel it. no offence intended, just self preservation. Tony
Hi Tony, thanks again for getting in touch with me and working this all out. I'm very confident we will see a resolution here, it is only a matter of time. (and yes unfortunately since your lower was already transfered on a 4473 to you, I'd be completely unable to do anything else with it. It's literally legally 'your gun' and I'd actually be stealing it if I were to take it and direct an FFL to give it to somebody else.)

glen avon
03-16-2006, 9:30 AM
Essentially, yes. DOJ siezed them under quite questionable circumstance, and is holding them under, well no circumstance :)

In any event, I am fighting it hard with my attorneys, just for my 2, however I am confident that the other 217 should be returned at or around the same time.

not theft. conversion perhaps, not theft.

adamsreeftank
03-17-2006, 1:57 AM
not theft. conversion perhaps, not theft.

Glen Avon, can you explain what you mean by "conversion". Would they be required to make restitution?

Thanks

glen avon
03-17-2006, 7:24 AM
Glen Avon, can you explain what you mean by "conversion". Would they be required to make restitution?

Thanks

sure, if you win. but you will only get what they sell for.

svenu
03-17-2006, 9:48 AM
As previously reported, DOJ has all 6 of my receivers.

I failed to re-DROS before 30 days. Ben and I spoke a bit ago about this, he said to just re-DROS again anyhow. My question is: is re-DROSing after the 30 days expires even allowed/legal/valid?

If so, why not just stop re-DROSing and re-DROS if/when the receivers are sent back?

-s

artherd
03-17-2006, 3:55 PM
As previously reported, DOJ has all 6 of my receivers.
I failed to re-DROS before 30 days. Ben and I spoke a bit ago about this, he said to just re-DROS again anyhow. My question is: is re-DROSing after the 30 days expires even allowed/legal/valid?[quote]

Should be, yes!
[quote]
If so, why not just stop re-DROSing and re-DROS if/when the receivers are sent back?
-s

There's a TINY chance DOJ might use it as an excuse to keep your reciever, if all of the following happen:

1) DOJ lists your brand as an assault weapon during the time you do NOT have a DROS open.
2) DOJ decides that your first DROS when you initially purchased the weapon was for some reason not good enough for return.(probally illegal for them to do.)
3) DOJ furthur decides that it will not return an otherwise legally posessed AW. (probally illegal for them to do.)

To guard against that, I've been advising people to re-dros if they can.

artherd
03-17-2006, 3:57 PM
Glen Avon, can you explain what you mean by "conversion". Would they be required to make restitution?

Thanks
If the court found so (small claims possible? Hrm.) then yes, restitution would be granted but limited to the fair market value at time of conversion. There would also be plenty of grounds for a punative action by a class IMO, so I don't think DOJ is going to risk conversion here.

Hence, go out and get something else and when you get these back count your luck that you got TWO recievers!

GW
03-17-2006, 8:31 PM
Fair market value for here in CA?

Is there any news you can give us?
Thanks

svenu
03-17-2006, 10:29 PM
Got it. Thx again. Took care of my Plan B today. :)

adamsreeftank
03-18-2006, 1:37 AM
sure, if you win. but you will only get what they sell for.

OK Glen avon. I'm not really concerned about the money, but what exactly do you mean by "conversion" and how it would apply in this case. Can you enlighten a non-lawyer.

Thanks

artherd
03-18-2006, 3:30 AM
Is there any news you can give us?
Thanks
More progress that I can't really talk about :( We're still waiting for the big event of course, being the return of property. Not sure exactly how that will take place yet, if they will be returned to the FFL, or directly to the owners.

tcrpe
03-18-2006, 12:50 PM
[QUOTE=artherd]Essentially, yes. DOJ siezed them under quite questionable circumstance, and is holding them under, well no circumstance :)QUOTE]

I'm curious, did not the DOJ seize them because they weren't properly secured in a safe?

Were they required to be stored in a safe?

Or were they NOT required to be stored in a safe, and this is why it is being called "questionable"?

glen avon
03-18-2006, 12:59 PM
theft is the trespassory taking of another's goods to which you do not have the right.

DOJ was not trespassing when they took the lowers. so, if you argue that they wrongfully have something of yours, there are a couple things you can do besides theft claims. one is "conversion," which is when somebody has the right to take something, then wrongfully dispose of it or refuse to return it. they have converted it to their use. the remedy is money.

you can also seek equitable relief, like a writ of mandate or an injunction, but that can't be done in small claims.

John S
03-19-2006, 7:19 PM
More progress that I can't really talk about :( We're still waiting for the big event of course, being the return of property. Not sure exactly how that will take place yet, if they will be returned to the FFL, or directly to the owners.


How could this possibly happen since you have to sign the final DROS form and complete the original sale through the same FFL you originally DROS'ed with in order to make the transaction legal?

tpliquid1
03-20-2006, 10:11 AM
i just hate redrosing. im thinking imma redros when the lowers are returned

Omega13device
03-20-2006, 1:36 PM
theft is the trespassory taking of another's goods to which you do not have the right.

DOJ was not trespassing when they took the lowers. so, if you argue that they wrongfully have something of yours, there are a couple things you can do besides theft claims. one is "conversion," which is when somebody has the right to take something, then wrongfully dispose of it or refuse to return it. they have converted it to their use. the remedy is money.

you can also seek equitable relief, like a writ of mandate or an injunction, but that can't be done in small claims.

I'm not seeing how trespassing is required to call something a theft. If you leave your car parked on a public street and I take it, that's theft, but I haven't trespassed. The dictionary definition of stealing (which is a synonym of theft) is "To take (the property of another) without right or permission". DOJ didn't have permission but they may have had a right to take the lowers based on their status as a law enforcement agency doing an investigation.

RRangel
03-20-2006, 1:43 PM
There are two elements to theft:

1) Asportation

2) Intent

I bet that wouldn't stick though.

Jeff Rambo
03-20-2006, 2:00 PM
I am not sure how trespassing comes into play. You do not need trespassing as an element for theft.

The chrime of theft is the taking and carrying away (asporation) of the personal property of another without the consent of the owner with the intent to permanently deprive the owner.

To arrest a suspect for theft, the necessary crime elements include:
- the taking and
- carrying away of
- personal property of another
- without consent
- with intent to permanently deprive the owner.

Not all thefts require "intent to permanently deprive" to violate the section, i.e. embezzlement and vehicle theft.

This is the definition of theft from a law enforcement perspective with regards to how theft is taught in police academies throughout California. I took this directly my Property Crimes learning domain (06).

glen avon
03-20-2006, 3:41 PM
trespassory taking is taking without permission or right, two different ways of saying the same thing. you don't have to be trespassing in the common sense to trespassorily take something.

artherd
03-20-2006, 9:34 PM
trespassory taking is taking without permission or right, two different ways of saying the same thing. you don't have to be trespassing in the common sense to trespassorily take something.
Yes, it's akin to excluding "lending" from theft.

For it to be theft, the taking of the object must be trespassory (ie not permitted by the owner.) It's needlessly confusing language however!

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvtx/1040173.txt

tpliquid1
03-31-2006, 10:51 AM
any update yet?

artherd
03-31-2006, 7:50 PM
Nothing, been very quiet lately. Calls resume on Monday.

HeHateMe
04-04-2006, 4:09 PM
Any update? I have my 3rd?, 4th? DROS coming up.

duraglock
04-04-2006, 8:09 PM
any word on these?

thmpr
04-04-2006, 8:11 PM
any word on these?


There are a few calgun members moving on with the LERA route.

tpliquid1
04-04-2006, 11:06 PM
what is LERA?

artherd
04-05-2006, 12:16 AM
I belive he means LEGR. Not a bad tack to take if you wish to pursue it that way.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/legrinfo.htm

1911_sfca
04-05-2006, 12:20 AM
I belive he means LEGR. Not a bad tack to take if you wish to pursue it that way.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/legrinfo.htm

Let us know how that goes...

Ben, what happened to your lawyers who were working on this? Why has it been so quiet?

duraglock
04-05-2006, 3:31 PM
what does legr stand for?

grammaton76
04-05-2006, 3:34 PM
what does legr stand for?

Law Enforcement Gun Release. It's a form you have to fill out in order to get a gun back when it's been taken into custody by law enforcement as evidence.

Jeff Rambo
04-06-2006, 12:04 AM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=31554

artherd
04-06-2006, 12:53 AM
Guys, looks like victory, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=263975&posted=1#post263975

I will be closing this thread.

EDIT: Jeff beat me to the punch agian!