PDA

View Full Version : OB Rothery, Hoffman v. Blanas et al: Well Done!


advocatusdiaboli
05-07-2010, 5:07 PM
I read the Appellants Opening Brief and it really lays out the corruption, cronyism, and favoritism regarding CCW permits in Sacramento County. Thank you all for doing this. I hope the right judges are on the review. Fingers crossed.

anthonyca
05-07-2010, 5:33 PM
Do you have more info on this?

OleCuss
05-07-2010, 5:38 PM
Here's a link to a thread in which there are links and some discussion. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=298266

I'm more bemused than impressed. Opening Brief seems to be citing McDonald before the decision is handed down?

It all seems a bit unfocused as well - but I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination.

Net effect is that it appears an idiot filed the brief/case but it probably won't hurt much of anything. I could be wrong, but that's the best I've been able to gather.

Havoc70
05-07-2010, 5:45 PM
Those Briefs were filed by Gorski, of course they look like they were filed by an idiot...because they were.

Mstrty
05-07-2010, 5:46 PM
Here (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/gorski2amended.pdf)

CSDGuy
05-07-2010, 5:56 PM
Yes, he's citing McDonald v. Chicago as controlling precedent before it's been decided. Notice that there (very conspicuously) are no actual citations of any McDonald decision text... as he doesn't have that text (kind of hard to when it's not been officially decided yet...) All he can actually cite is the Heller decision, the tenets of which haven't been extended to the states...

Apparently, he could be getting himself in a bit of trouble for that.

This is an appeal of the spectacularly bad whomping he got from the previous decision in this case, at basically the trial level.

Yeah, he's a brilliant one...

advocatusdiaboli
05-07-2010, 6:04 PM
I happen to think, that an appellate brief, even if fumbling (and I am not conceding that point yet based on baseless derision and hearsay), that airs our arguments and gives us a chance, is worth trying unless it vacates and bars lines of attack we could have used later for better effect. Any of the critics can say what they want but where are their filings? Where are their amicus briefs? At least he filed something.

CSDGuy
05-07-2010, 6:13 PM
I happen to think, that an appellate brief, even if fumbling, that airs our arguments and gives us a chance, is worth trying unless it vacates and bars lines of attack we could have used later for better effect. Any of the critics can say what they want but where are their filings? Where are their amicus briefs? At least he filed something.
A bad ruling from a case he filed gave us a LOT of our current problems. (Silveira v. Lockyer (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0115098p.pdf#search=%22ninth%20circuit%20%22second %20amendment%22%22)). Sometimes, the best thing to do is NOT to file...

advocatusdiaboli
05-07-2010, 6:20 PM
A bad ruling from a case he filed gave us a LOT of our current problems. (Silveira v. Lockyer (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0115098p.pdf#search=%22ninth%20circuit%20%22second %20amendment%22%22)). Sometimes, the best thing to do is NOT to file...

Yes, I understand that and accounted for that in my second message but is this such a case? Is the implication that he jumped the gun (sorry)?

OleCuss
05-07-2010, 6:25 PM
I happen to think, that an appellate brief, even if fumbling (and I am not conceding that point yet based on baseless derision and hearsay), that airs our arguments and gives us a chance, is worth trying unless it vacates and bars lines of attack we could have used later for better effect. Any of the critics can say what they want but where are their filings? Where are their amicus briefs? At least he filed something.

As a non-lawyer, it seems to me that Sykes vs McGinness is far more likely to succeed - and was filed on 9 May 2009.

From everything I can tell, Gorski is more likely to get slapped around than to prevail. But since Sykes is much further along it seems likely that we'll get the much better done Sykes prior to this appeal getting very far and hopefully Gorski won't be able to mess things up.

Edit: Forgot you were interested in briefs. If you go to the Wiki you can find links which will likely lead to the briefs. http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness

CSDGuy
05-07-2010, 6:27 PM
No implication. It's there in black in white. He's citing as controlling precedent a case that hasn't been decided yet. He knows this. How do I know? Well, he hasn't cited any actual text from McDonald as that text doesn't exist, yet the name of the case is right there...

Suppose that McDonald isn't found in "our" favor, and therefore doesn't control in the way he's saying it does or that it is found to incorporate the 2nd, but not as far as he's saying it will!

Brilliant lawyer he seems to not be.

OleCuss
05-07-2010, 6:39 PM
To add to the above, he is also citing Heller as precedential when Heller was used to incorporate 2A against a federal enclave - not the State of California. I don't think he as far off-base on that but I still think the judge will slap him around on that.

But even if I'm wrong about Heller, the plaintiffs aren't nearly as well chosen as are those in Sykes. Your plaintiffs are really quite important and the ones in Sykes are much more compelling. (No offense to the Gorski's plaintiffs - they may be wonderful people but they don't make as compelling a case.)

advocatusdiaboli
05-07-2010, 9:06 PM
I guess the lesson is that some coordination between plaintiffs would be better for our cause. I assumed you knew about this--i never thought it was not coordinated.

1JimMarch
05-07-2010, 9:33 PM
Ummm...it's a roll of the dice all right! But...is it really a bad one? Seriously? *Nobody* is saying we're going to lose on incorporation. So...since McDonald will be decided before the brief is replied to, why force 'em to consider McDonald the instant it comes out, rather than let them say "he didn't cite to it"?

OleCuss
05-07-2010, 10:34 PM
Ummm...it's a roll of the dice all right! But...is it really a bad one? Seriously? *Nobody* is saying we're going to lose on incorporation. So...since McDonald will be decided before the brief is replied to, why force 'em to consider McDonald the instant it comes out, rather than let them say "he didn't cite to it"?

But you can't cite language that doesn't exist! So what you do if you're smart is to invoke the 2nd, 14th, and whatever else Amendment applies and go on from there. You can even point out that while Heller didn't incorporate against the states that the same logic that incorporated against D.C. can be used to show that the 2A and the 14A do apply to California. You probably can't cite Nordyke since it was taken en banc.

The courts aren't stupid and will recognize that you have a case and if appropriate they will almost certainly hold the case until after McDonald is handed down and then I'm sure it could be cited if appropriate at that time.

So there are smart ways and there are stupid ways. From what I've seen and heard it would appear that Gorski reliably chooses the way that is not smart.

Seriously, go take a look at the information on the plaintiffs in Heller, McDonald, Sykes, etc. These are people with exceptionally compelling stories to bring to the case - if not as an individual then as an aggregate. There is a reason why these people were chosen to challenge the abuse of our rights - and the lawyers are being careful in how they present the case(s) and strategic both in the questions they ask of the court as well as the timing and sequencing of those cases.

This is not a slam at the plaintiffs in the Gorski case at all. I tend to think highly of myself but I'd obviously not be a good choice for testing CCW in Sacramento (the most obvious reason is that I've never lived there). It is possible that if I lived in Sacramento that I would have been useful in such a case (clean record, veteran, all that) but it would have depended on things like when and how I applied for a CCW, what documentation I have, who the other plaintiffs are, etc.

Amateurs should not be leading this war - it requires consummate professionals.

JustLegalInformation
05-07-2010, 11:58 PM
McDonald was not cited as binding precendent, but only as a stop-gap -- so the Court would not order rebriefing of the issue silly. READ THE BRIEF IN


SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The State of California presently employs a statutory scheme regulating
firearms which assumes that the State has full authority to prohibit all private
firearm ownership if the State so chooses. See e.g. Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 101 (9th Cir. 1996). While the statutory scheme does not go this far, it does impose significant and a abitrary restrictions and regulations on private firearm ownership.

Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v.
Heller, the State was at least arguably justified in enacting and enforcing its
regulations. However, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in District of
Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___,128 S.Ct. 2783(2008) and pending a decision
from the Court in Mcdonald v. City of Chicago U.S. Supreme Court Case No.
Case: 09-16852 05/05/2010 Page: 22 of 65 ID: 7326970 DktEntry: 10
08-1521, in which the Court will likely find that the Second Amendment is
incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment to apply against the states as well as the federal government, California’s current statutory scheme runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
*********************

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2.6, I certify that to my knowledge there
are related cases: The panels of this Court in which other cases are pending have stayed further proceedings until the United States Supreme Court decides McDonald v. City of Chicago (Docket # 08-1521) in which applicability to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment of Second Amendment rights of individuals to keep and bear arms is at issue. The en banc panel in Nordyke v. King, No. 07-15763 (9th Cir.) has withdrawn submission of that case pending a decision in McDonald and the panel in Mehl v. Blanas, No. 08-15773 (9th Cir.) has also withdrawn submission pending decisions in Nordyke and McDonald.



Arguments are not until October, way after McDonald ---- non-laywers are not picking up on the key nuances of the brief -- if there is no incorporation, then there will never be a case! END OF STORY!!!! WE ARE ALL DEAD IN THE WATER, SO PARAPHRASING MR. MARCH - ITS THE ROLL OF THE LOADED DICE!!! :cool:

1JimMarch
05-08-2010, 12:09 AM
But you can't cite language that doesn't exist!

Why not? Seriously.

OK. Here's an actual court precedent otherwise.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of AZ regularly sends out public safety broadcasts to the local newspapers...stuff like "there's a loon on the loose to the effect of..." or whatever.

Except he didn't want to send these broadcasts to newspapers that were critical of him.

One of them files a public records request for all such broadcasts as they were produced in the future on a regular basis. Arpaio responded that public records requests could only be filed against documents that already exist.

Said newspaper went to state court and got a ruling that yes indeed, we can request documents we know WILL exist in future, for release at that point.

Soooo...if we can guess the broad strokes of a ruling that's about to appear...no, I don't understand why we can't cite to it. Sure it's weird but...jeez, look at that ruling from a New Jersey appellate court a few days ago: "we're gonna to screw this gunnie daring to try for CCW right now but we recognize he's gonna be able to screw us right back in a few months due to McDonald". Seriously, more or less, that's what they said.

It's a really bizarre situation. Why not go with it?

JustLegalInformation
05-08-2010, 12:14 AM
p.s. Last time I checked, we lived in a society whereby we all have equal rights -- and that includes the right to take issues to court. Who voted for what plaintiff gets to present their respective case? I don’t remember seeing that ballot on this website. This whole debate sounds more like an aristocracy dictating to “the People” the way things should be. Criticize the brief. Criticize the attorney. Criticize based upon your expert experience in appellate matters. But you have no right to attack any person who hires an attorney to vindicate the very same rights that you refuse to take up to court yourself. No one is stopping you from hiring an attorney, going to court, and taking the risk that you could lose and end up paying the government’s cost bill. It reminds me of the fat guy who never played football and sits his fat butt on the couch watching the game every Sunday and saying what he would do if he was out there on the field. Take a hard look at yourself before you criticize someone else for having the guts to put their own money on the line – opinions run cheap around here. Lets see “you” take the risk and go to court instead of criticizing those who are at least trying to make a difference without your negativity.

And no one mentions the Equal Protection arguments that are raised in Rothery, Mehl, Jacobs, and Pizzo. Name one case that is challenging the current CCW laws on that basis? Oh, wait, there are none!

JustLegalInformation
05-08-2010, 12:34 AM
P.S.S. Maybe your forgot to read this in Silveria -- just to remind you -- and by the way, that was the case that prompted Six Dissents on the 9th Cir, which is 6 more than any other gun case up to that point in time!

C. The AWCA’s Provisions Regarding Off-Duty Police
Officers Do Not Offend The Fourteenth Amendment;
However, There Is No Rational Basis For the Retired
Officer Exemption.
Plaintiffs contend that the privileges that are afforded to
off-duty and retired peace officers under the AWCA violate
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution. Specifically, they contend that the pertinent
provisions afford benefits to off-duty and retired officers that
are unavailable to the plaintiffs, and that there is no rational
reason that they and other law-abiding citizens should be
treated differently than off-duty and retired peace officers.
***

3. The Validity of the Two AWCA Provisions
a. The Off-duty Officer Provision
The appellants’ attack on the AWCA provision applicable
to off-duty peace officers is easily resolved. It is manifestly
rational for at least most categories of peace officers to possess
and use firearms more potent than those available to the
rest of the populace in order to maintain public safety. The
off-duty officer exception provides that an off-duty officer
permitted to possess and use the assault weapons must do so
only for “law enforcement purposes.” § 12280(g). We presume
that off-duty officers may find themselves compelled to
perform law enforcement functions in various circumstances,
and that in addition it may be necessary that they have their
weapons readily available. Thus, the provision is designed to
further the very objective of preserving the public safety that
underlies the AWCA. Consequently, there is a rational basis
for the provision, and it comports with the requirements of the
Fourteenth Amendment.54
b. The Retired Officer Exception
In contrast, the retired officer exception has no such clearly
rational basis. The amendments to the AWCA provide that the
California agencies listed at note 6, supra, may sell or transfer
assault weapons to a sworn peace officer upon the retirement
of that officer. § 12280(h). The exception does not require
54One could question the wisdom of arming certain government officials
categorized as “peace officers” by the AWCA — particularly park
rangers and employees of the district attorney’s office — with highpowered
military-style weapons. However, that is not the basis for plaintiffs’
challenge to this provision of the AWCA. The question is whether
those officers furnished such weapons may use them for law enforcement
purposes when off duty. As set forth in the text, inclusion of the limitation
that the assault weapons are to be used for law enforcement purposes only
renders the provision a rational one.

***
In sum, not only is the retired officers’ exception contrary
to the legislative goals of the AWCA, it is wholly unconnected
to any legitimate state interest. A statutory exemption
that bears no logical relationship to a valid state interest fails
constitutional scrutiny. The 1999 AWCA amendments
include, however, a severability provision providing that
should any portion of the statute be found invalid, the balance
of the provisions shall remain in force. Accordingly, because
the retired officers’ exception is an arbitrary classification in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, we sever that provision,
§ 12280(h)-(i), from the AWCA.

Sobriquet
05-08-2010, 1:08 AM
Jim, I fail to see how the Arpaio case you've mentioned is analogous to what Mr. Gorski filed. There's a big difference between a court saying "if this document is created, you must share it" and implying the Supreme Court has articulated a level of scrutiny that is to apply in Second Amendment cases. For all we know, the Court may incorporate and leave the question of the standard of review for another day.

[Edit:] For the sake of clarity, it would be nice if you would post under your own name, Mr. Gorski. Also, it would be easier if you would set large blocks of quoted text off with the quotation tool.

OleCuss
05-08-2010, 5:31 AM
McDonald was not cited as binding precendent, but only as a stop-gap -- so the Court would not order rebriefing of the issue silly. READ THE BRIEF IN

.
.
.

Arguments are not until October, way after McDonald ---- non-laywers are not picking up on the key nuances of the brief -- if there is no incorporation, then there will never be a case! END OF STORY!!!! WE ARE ALL DEAD IN THE WATER, SO PARAPHRASING MR. MARCH - ITS THE ROLL OF THE LOADED DICE!!! :cool:

Thank you for your kindness in educating me. I am clearly quite the amateur at this and I appreciate the education!

If you'd be so kind as to indulge me further? Maybe I just missed it, but I don't recall his mentioning Sykes vs. McGiness which I would think would be a relevant case. Does this mean that he may have to do a re-brief? I'd think Palmer might be relevant although maybe less so?

Thank you for the further education.

OleCuss
05-08-2010, 5:36 AM
I must also admit that I'm astonished that an FOIA-type case involving Arpaio would be very relevant to this case.

CCWFacts
05-08-2010, 8:03 AM
p.s. Last time I checked, we lived in a society whereby we all have equal rights -- and that includes the right to take issues to court.

That's right.

And we have a right to defend our rights using whatever options are available. We'll defend our rights against attacks from our anti-gun politicians, and ego-driven anti-gun attorneys like you.

N6ATF
05-08-2010, 8:22 AM
So, how is the disbarment process going?

Mute
05-08-2010, 8:31 AM
Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should. Using a little common sense and strategy helps. Apparently, some people are too damn arrogant to consider those points.

advocatusdiaboli
05-08-2010, 8:38 AM
IANAL, but which is the more common practice--not biased ether way--just trying to understand: 1) cite only case law and have to ask to amend the brief to add new case law support if a case is decided during the appellate trial or 2) put in placeholders for pending cases as a foot in the door to hope amendment will be more likely granted? I am guessing it's a gamble either way that amendment is granted--assuming amendments can be allowed or disallowed by the court--I don't know. Curious.

PS: Man, no better way to stir up a hornet's nest than to poke a hive of lawyers--they are dissimilar in most ways save in aggressiveness, determination, and sting. I am new to this stuff and the lively discussion has been enlightening even if a bit ad hominem

Foghlai
05-08-2010, 8:40 AM
p.s. Last time I checked, we lived in a society whereby we all have equal rights --

Hi Mr. Gorski,

You are right, we do all have equal rights. I would however like to ask, from the bottom of my heart, will you please refrain from damaging my 2nd amendment rights by continuing to file these law suits?

Please?

Please, Please, Please, please for the love of god, please stop filing lawsuits related to gun issues.

If you truly believe in 2nd amendment rights, will you please leave the cases to people who understand the law, and more importantly have a good understanding of how to get holdings that will let us have even better outcomes in future cases?

Please stop?

I have not seen a single case filed by you that has actually done something positive for 2nd amendment law in California. None.

Pretty please?

As a concerned California citizen I would really, really, really, appreciate it if you just stopped. There are so many different areas of law. Would you please find something else to do with your time?

Please?

Sincerely,
Erik

:(

jdberger
05-08-2010, 8:50 AM
I'd like to remind folks that a number of us have offered our services to Mr. Gorski to ensure that his briefs aren't rife with spelling, capitalization and grammar errors. We've also offered Shepardizing and cite-checking services. Further, IIRC, the Calguns Foundation has reached out more than once to Mr. Gorski, so that people could pool their efforts in crafting lawsuits to roll back the draconian gun laws in California.

Mr. Gorski has rejected all of the above.

Pity.

Gray Peterson
05-08-2010, 9:57 AM
Gary Gorski telling Gura to suck his **** (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/Sykes-Gura-NRA-interfering-once-again-with-Second-Amendment-litigation.pdf)

I just think he needs a very large sand pail, as I think he is sandier than the Sahara desert due to the fact that Alan Gura won the 2A case that he "should have won" 5 years before, but SCOTUS didn't like the way Gorski did things, whereas they did with the Alan Gura.

Sobriquet
05-08-2010, 10:41 AM
Save your breath, Erik. I believe that Gary means well, but he operates in his own reality. He's going to do what he wants regardless of the harm he may cause. Chuck Michel called him a "well-intentioned loose cannon" almost 8 years ago. Not much has changed.

wildhawker
05-08-2010, 11:23 AM
Hence, tell Gura he is a punk, and to stay out of my f*cking business. As far
as I’m concerned, he is a walking cluster-f*ck as an attorney. (edits mine)

Gura's 2A record (SCOTUS): 1-0, soon 2-0
Gorski's 2A record (SCOTUS): Petition Denied

CERTIORARI DENIED
03-51 SILVEIRA, SEAN, ET AL. V. LOCKYER, ATT'Y GEN. OF CA

But Gorski did not withdraw the appeal. Portions of his appellate brief are well-written, and provide a good summary of caselaw and scholarship on the Second Amendment. Other portions are fanciful, at best, such as Gorski's argument that because the California constitution explicitly recognizes the United States Constitution as "the supreme law of the land," California "thereby incorporated the Second Amendment into its own Constitution."

Factual arguments about the non-dangerousness of "assault weapons" often appeared without supporting citation — even though there are many books and law-journal articles which could have cited.

Not all of the Silveira appellate brief was written in standard English: "...whether the state of California can ban all firearms, and confiscate those in possession of its citizens, such as what just happened in Australia." Understandably, there is no citation for "such as what just happened in Australia," because Australia has banned and confiscated only some firearms, not all firearms. The phrasing might be acceptable in a letter to the editor of a gun magazine, but is not appropriate in a federal appellate court brief which expects to be taken seriously.

It is less likely that a judge will take a brief seriously if the attorney writes "Defendants fair no better under a rationale basis test." The properly spelled sentence would be "Defendants fare no better under a rational basis test."

The California Department of Justice filed its opposition brief. Then, Gorski did not file a reply brief in response to the DOJ's brief, although he was entitled to do so.

The DOJ made important arguments in its opposition brief, many of them incorrect. Because of Gorski's failure to file a reply brief, those errors went unchallenged. For instance, DOJ asserted that under the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, no limits could be placed on the type of arms one may possess under the individual-rights view. Actually, as a reply brief could have explained, numerous state-court decisions — which could have been cited in a reply brief — uphold an individual right to arms, while allowing restrictions on particularly dangerous arms.

The Ninth Circuit is not the proper circuit to litigate the Second Amendment. It is like bringing a 1946 test case on racial segregation in a Mississippi court. The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights does have friends on federal courts in other parts of the country. The case law should be developed there.

Gorski has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. Should the Court grant cert., lawyers for the gun-prohibition groups should jump for joy. Not because they are certain of winning on the Second Amendment issue, because they might well lose. But because they are much better off with Silveira being the Second Amendment showdown case, than in almost any other possible case.

Gorski claims that if cert. is granted, he will in win the case invalidating the "assault-weapon" ban 7-2 or 9-0. He told me that the reason he is so confident is that he is right on the merits, and will therefore win, "unless you believe that the Supreme Court cannot be trusted."

The fundamental error of prohibition is trying to alleviate the problem of gun misuse but ignoring the ancient medical admonition which should be the first rule of public policy as well as medicine: in trying to cure problems first make sure that you do no harm. The Silveira decision is the disastrous result of ignoring that admonition. The Ninth Circuit loss was as predictable as it was avoidable.

Silveira and cases like it are worse than playing Russian Roulette with our freedoms, and the freedoms of our heirs. With Russian roulette, the odds of not getting harmed are 5/6. The odds are much worse in Silveira, with the only question being the type of self-inflicted damage. (emphasis added)

Gray Peterson
05-08-2010, 11:44 AM
wildhawker,

Thank you for posting that information. It's pretty clear that Gorski is sandier than the dunes in Imperial County. Too bad he didn't learn from his grammar mistakes, because he did the same thing again in Mehl and Rothery. The only walking clusterf*** of an attorney here is Gorski.

JustLegalInformation
05-08-2010, 11:59 AM
In response to advocatusdiaboli's question, there are two approaches in dealing with the pending McDonald decision:

A) If a decision comes out during the briefing period, a party can always move the court for a new briefing schedule, or, after a brief has been filed, for re-briefing on the issue. Either way, this takes time to prepare and file - or in other words, more work! In addition, this would set your case back another 9 months.

B) The other option would be to cite the “pending” case in the opening brief so that it is already part of the record, and use the “optional” reply brief due in late July to address the McDonald decision. Timing is everything.

Now, if YOU were paying some attorney, and option (A) was going to cost you about another $40,000, or option (B), which really costs you what you would have to pay anyway for doing the Opening Brief, which would you choose?

The Rothery briefing schedule was modified already by the court to have briefs filed AFTER oral argument in McDonald. The decision is due in June, and the Supreme Court will find incorporation without a doubt (and if it doesn’t, then I guess we are all moving to D.C. LOL) -- the only two issues that are really unknown as to MdDonald are 1) the level of scrutiny (and it won't be a rational basis test that much is certain - look at how Scalia shot down the so-called “Interest-Balancing Inquiry” in Heller). 2) whether incorporation will be under "due process" or the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. From oral argument, it seems due process will be utilized since Justice Scalia does not seem very inclined to disturb past case history in one big swoop, though Justice Thomas has said in an opinion that 14th Amendment jurisprudence needs to be re-evaluated.

As Syke’s being the Holly Grail of CCW case law, that case is mired down in protracted discovery, precluding any legal ruling on that case for at least another two years. The County defendants are right now conducting discovery on two weaknesses in that case:

1. Plaintiff Sykes last filed a CCW application in 2004 at the time her case was filed in 2009. She had two years to file a civil rights action from 2004; her claim is barred by the statute of limitations. In additions, she never claimed her sexual orientation in her application as being grounds for “good cause” criteria, which is now the gist of her argument.

2. Unlike the Plaintiffs in Rothery v. Blanas, and Mehl v. Blanas, the other two remaining Plaintiffs in Sykes NEVER submitted CCW applications, and therefore lack standing to bring the action. See Madsen v. Boise State Univ., 976 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1992). It must be noted that the same judge who threw out Mehl in the lower court rejected Mehl’s claim, not because he did not file an application for a CCW, but that he did not complete Section 7 on the application only.

These two reasons are why the County’s private attorneys are fighting the factual issues in the case, and not allowing the legal issues to be addressed first, and this is also the reason why Rothery is already packaged and briefed before the 9th Circuit, and Syke’s is going to take an inordinate amount of time and money to get the case to where Rothery is, and with way more baggage.

Have someone explain the status of Syke’s, instead of attacking Rothery – and what you will find is what you are not being told. Have them say what was just written in this post is not true.

JustLegalInformation
05-08-2010, 12:03 PM
http://libertymatch.com/Silveira/NRO.asp

JustLegalInformation
05-08-2010, 12:08 PM
http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/Kopel.asp

KOPEL CLUELESS:
Silveira Lawsuit Attacker is Shooting Blanks

by Roy Lucas

October 15, 2003

JustLegalInformation
05-08-2010, 12:12 PM
True back then, as it is today:

"Given that we are now waiting to learn if the Supreme Court will hear Silveira, one would think that David Kopel and those close to him would be doing many concrete, positive things to ensure an overwhelming success for the Second Amendment. This essay is a plea to them to do so, to join rather than divide. They are categorically not at the present time involved in Silveira and have contributed nothing but negativity to the case. KeepAndBearArms.com and grass roots individuals have been the principal supporters and have provided invaluable assistance. Chuck Michel and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, an NRA affiliate, actually filed a brief on the other side in Silveira, denying that there was standing for citizens to sue. That issue was resolved in the Supreme Court decades ago to the contrary, and there the Ninth Circuit is wrong again. Mr. Kopel’s ill-advised, ill-informed screed plays directly into the hands of the gun grabbers and controllers."

wildhawker
05-08-2010, 12:15 PM
:rolleyes:

wildhawker
05-08-2010, 12:25 PM
Could I pay you $40,000 to neither file a case or submit a brief?

In response to advocatusdiaboli's question, there are two approaches in dealing with the pending McDonald decision:

A) If a decision comes out during the briefing period, a party can always move the court for a new briefing schedule, or, after a brief has been filed, for re-briefing on the issue. Either way, this takes time to prepare and file - or in other words, more work! In addition, this would set your case back another 9 months.

B) The other option would be to cite the “pending” case in the opening brief so that it is already part of the record, and use the “optional” reply brief due in late July to address the McDonald decision. Timing is everything.

Now, if YOU were paying some attorney, and option (A) was going to cost you about another $40,000, or option (B), which really costs you what you would have to pay anyway for doing the Opening Brief, which would you choose?

The Rothery briefing schedule was modified already by the court to have briefs filed AFTER oral argument in McDonald. The decision is due in June, and the Supreme Court will find incorporation without a doubt (and if it doesn’t, then I guess we are all moving to D.C. LOL) -- the only two issues that are really unknown as to MdDonald are 1) the level of scrutiny (and it won't be a rational basis test that much is certain - look at how Scalia shot down the so-called “Interest-Balancing Inquiry” in Heller). 2) whether incorporation will be under "due process" or the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. From oral argument, it seems due process will be utilized since Justice Scalia does not seem very inclined to disturb past case history in one big swoop, though Justice Thomas has said in an opinion that 14th Amendment jurisprudence needs to be re-evaluated.

As Syke’s being the Holly Grail of CCW case law, that case is mired down in protracted discovery, precluding any legal ruling on that case for at least another two years. The County defendants are right now conducting discovery on two weaknesses in that case:

1. Plaintiff Sykes last filed a CCW application in 2004 at the time her case was filed in 2009. She had two years to file a civil rights action from 2004; her claim is barred by the statute of limitations. In additions, she never claimed her sexual orientation in her application as being grounds for “good cause” criteria, which is now the gist of her argument.

2. Unlike the Plaintiffs in Rothery v. Blanas, and Mehl v. Blanas, the other two remaining Plaintiffs in Sykes NEVER submitted CCW applications, and therefore lack standing to bring the action. See Madsen v. Boise State Univ., 976 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1992). It must be noted that the same judge who threw out Mehl in the lower court rejected Mehl’s claim, not because he did not file an application for a CCW, but that he did not complete Section 7 on the application only.

These two reasons are why the County’s private attorneys are fighting the factual issues in the case, and not allowing the legal issues to be addressed first, and this is also the reason why Rothery is already packaged and briefed before the 9th Circuit, and Syke’s is going to take an inordinate amount of time and money to get the case to where Rothery is, and with way more baggage.

Have someone explain the status of Syke’s, instead of attacking Rothery – and what you will find is what you are not being told. Have them say what was just written in this post is not true.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/5/8/129178237761108550.png

CCWFacts
05-08-2010, 1:21 PM
Save your breath, Erik. I believe that Gary means well, but he operates in his own reality. He's going to do what he wants regardless of the harm he may cause. Chuck Michel called him a "well-intentioned loose cannon" almost 8 years ago. Not much has changed.

No, I think a lot has changed. I think "well-intentioned" is far too charitable. He's not a loose cannon. He's not on our side. His interests are with his own ego and his actions are aligned with the interests of the LCAV. I wouldn't even be surprised if the Joyce Foundation were paying him. How does he have time to waste on these non-paying cases? The Joyce Foundation couldn't ask for anything better than an attorney who argues in the 9th Circuit with briefs that are incoherent and full of spelling mistakes, and shows contempt for the entire system by wearing a t-shirt. His briefs have more spelling and grammar mistakes than my forum posts. I don't wear a t-shirt anywhere except the gym, and I'm not an attorney.

Thank you for posting that information. It's pretty clear that Gorski is sandier than the dunes in Imperial County. Too bad he didn't learn from his grammar mistakes, because he did the same thing again in Mehl and Rothery. The only walking clusterf*** of an attorney here is Gorski.

Yeah, and he he has no qualms about the consequences to all of us, the life-or-death consequences even, of his actions.

I don't understand enough of the legal stuff, but my hope is that the other cases (Palmer, Sykes) will move fast enough that Gorski will be irrelevant.

Mute
05-08-2010, 4:23 PM
It should be telling that you had to go back seven years to dig up an article in support of Silveira, one that, GIVEN WHAT WE NOW KNOW, appears to be full of crap and clearly wrong. Not the best "evidence" in support of Silveira.

Doesn't appear anyone in the legal community with half a brain believes this is a wise move.

JustLegalInformation
05-08-2010, 6:26 PM
Have someone explain the status of Syke’s, instead of attacking Rothery – and what you will find is what you are not being told. Have them say what was just written in this post is not true.

One thing observable about the negativity going around on these posts is that it is limited to a "few" who think because they donate their $10 (or profit from the donation) that makes their position the correct position. Anyone with an opinion that is not in compliance with other opinions results in silly posts that lack any substance.

It seems someone should be asking where is the money going that is donated -- ask for a complete accounting, and lets see the money trail. Certainly that question will not be answered either.

The hundreds of others who read these posts will be looking forward to seeing a status report on ALL gun cases in California. And BTW, the last time I checked, there was another CCW case that is kicking butt down South Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal. 2010, 2010 WL 143762. And again, the "few" attack that case as well.
See
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=259383

This was a copycat case based on borrowing the pleadings in Sykes. This was not recommended but Mr. Peruta has gotten very lucky. This is likely to be a very large win.

-Gene

Everyone that is not in the Calguns little circle is copying Calguns work, that is interesting that no other attorney gets to represent a client that Calguns does not approve. Great work - way to fight for civil rights.

I look forward to my next post after McDonald. Take care, and I will see if the questions are ever answered -- till then, enjoy. :)

Mstrty
05-08-2010, 6:49 PM
Everyone that is not in the Calguns little circle is copying Calguns work, that is interesting that no other attorney gets to represent a client that Calguns does not approve. Great work - way to fight for civil rights.

Word!

JustLegalInformation
05-08-2010, 6:51 PM
P.S. For everyone’s edification (including mine), please point out all the deficiencies in the OPENING BRIEF in Rothery, including what erroneous legal arguments were made, and what facts make Sykes or any other CCW case more palatable than those in Rothery. That would be an opinion worth posting, and not personal dislikes of those involved in the case.

JustLegalInformation
05-08-2010, 6:54 PM
P.S.S. And "if" there is something nice to say, that would be just as educational.

jdberger
05-08-2010, 7:57 PM
Are you kidding, Gorski?

CGF is a 501(c)3. Its filings and accounting are part of the public record.

Quit obfuscating.

Sobriquet
05-08-2010, 8:06 PM
P.S. For everyone’s edification (including mine), please point out all the deficiencies in the OPENING BRIEF in Rothery

Other than the fact that you treated a pending Supreme Court case as if it had already been decided and presumed not only incorporation but also strict scrutiny? Obviously I think the wiser course of action would have been not to file, but you could have easily argued - at a minimum - why you would succeed under either strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. I still think it's possible the Court may articulate some new standard of review specific to Second Amendment analysis.

You know what would have been even cheaper for your client? Letting someone else litigate the same issue with better attorneys, more logistical support, and more sympathetic plaintiffs.

For future reference, Gary, you can edit existing posts instead of adding a new one. My mother taught me that if I didn't have anything nice to say to not say anything at all. Here's where I'll sign off.

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

POLICESTATE
05-08-2010, 9:14 PM
P.S. For everyone’s edification (including mine), please point out all the deficiencies in the OPENING BRIEF in Rothery, including what erroneous legal arguments were made, and what facts make Sykes or any other CCW case more palatable than those in Rothery. That would be an opinion worth posting, and not personal dislikes of those involved in the case.

What is this YOUR case or something? :rolleyes:

CCWFacts
05-08-2010, 10:27 PM
Many people have pointed out flaws. From the obvious, superficial, and yet important stuff, like spelling and wearing respectful attire in court, to the various legal flaws and so on.

Gorski is incapable of listening to any of them. He claims he wants to understand but he does not. When they made that saying, "there is none so blind as he who will not see", they must have been thinking of someone like Gorski.

Anyway, at this point, I'm left wondering, who is paying his bills? I have not a shred of evidence but I wouldn't even be surprised if he were being paid by the Joyce Foundation, the LCAV, etc.

Barabas
05-09-2010, 8:55 AM
These posts are proof that playing football without safety equipment is bad for your health.

dwtt
05-09-2010, 9:49 AM
Anyway, at this point, I'm left wondering, who is paying his bills? I have not a shred of evidence but I wouldn't even be surprised if he were being paid by the Joyce Foundation, the LCAV, etc.

I would not be surprised either. The stuff coming from this guy seems too suspicious and no gun owner in CA can consider him to be on our side.

CCWFacts
05-09-2010, 11:07 AM
I would not be surprised either. The stuff coming from this guy seems too suspicious and no gun owner in CA can consider him to be on our side.

Either his wife has a steady job and keeps him from being homeless, and is willing to throw money away on her husband's fantasies, or else someone with deep pockets is investing in him. He's achieving more for the left-wing long-term gun-ban community (ie, the Joyce Foundation) than the LCAV is. There's no way his "clients" are paying for this. They seem like the kind of people who are barely able to keep their own affairs in order, much less pay the > $100k legal bill that an attorney would charge for this much work.

And even if Gorksi's "clients" could pay, I think anyone who spends that much money on an attorney would burst a cerebral blood vessel when his attorney shows up to argue the case, wearing a t-shirt. I know I would. I, and anyone else who actually pays attorneys, would file a malpractice suit and file a complaint with the bar if my attorney acted in such a manner.

So, "follow the money", right?

wildhawker
05-09-2010, 1:03 PM
Hold on all.

While it's not unreasonable for one to judge Gorski's work on its own merits and find that it leaves something to be desired, to say or imply that he's an "anti-gunner" or 'on the LCAV/Brady/Joyce payroll' is really ludicrous.

The negative outcomes from otherwise well-intentioned efforts are sometimes difficult, but important to, distinguish from true mal-intent. At least from what I know of him, nothing would substantiate such an inflammatory assertion against Mr. Gorski's motives. As such, and while I'm a vocal critic of his work and approach to the issues, I simply cannot in good conscience allow these unsupported comments to go unchallenged.

Let's be constructive critics of our work; let's not go so far as to say that any unproductive or damaging efforts are founded in evil. This is truly a slippery slope we don't wish to find ourselves upon.

thebronze
05-09-2010, 2:44 PM
Gorski doesn't sound like the sharpest knife in the drawer. He seems to have an overly-inflated sense of credibility and intellect.

Flopper
05-09-2010, 3:11 PM
Yes, he's citing McDonald v. Chicago as controlling precedent before it's been decided. Notice that there (very conspicuously) are no actual citations of any McDonald decision text... as he doesn't have that text (kind of hard to when it's not been officially decided yet...) All he can actually cite is the Heller decision, the tenets of which haven't been extended to the states...

Apparently, he could be getting himself in a bit of trouble for that.

This is an appeal of the spectacularly bad whomping he got from the previous decision in this case, at basically the trial level.

Yeah, he's a brilliant one...

We can only hope this is the first step which leads to his disbarment.

Let us pray. . .

N6ATF
05-09-2010, 3:31 PM
Should be the final step. He's nearly climbed the whole flight of stairs, if you believe what you read here.

CCWFacts
05-09-2010, 4:15 PM
We can only hope this is the first step which leads to his disbarment.

Let us pray. . .

My understanding is that it's really hard to get someone disbarred. There was some (in)famous attorney named Jack Thompson who also made all kinds of rambling, offensive, and untrue filings, worse than Gorski. Read the Wiki page about about him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_%28activist%29) to see how long it took to get the guy disbarred. It seems like conduct needs to be beyond outrageous for it to happen. I don't know much about the process, other than the few examples I've seen sound really extreme and it seems like it's a rare occurrence.

I guess in most situations, disbarment would start with a complaint from the clients. In Gorksi's case, the clients probably don't truly care about the outcome, because they aren't paying and don't understand, so they wouldn't have much reason to complain.

command_liner
05-09-2010, 6:45 PM
There is no reason to consider me a fan of Gorski, but the court in Silveria simply
got the details wrong.

Did the 1849 Ca. Const. bind the US BOR into itself? Yes, that was clearly
the intent. The J. Ross Brown convention notes are VERY clear on this point.
(Check it yourself as I did. Read pages 45 to 50.)

What about the revised Ca. Const., the 2nd one? Less clear, but there is no
specific repudiation of the clear position of 1849. More tedious research needs
to be done on this point. The documents are around, and heck I have been
out of work for a few months, but nobody wants to pay for my historical
research skills. Preliminary analysis shows no documentary support for the
position cited as "fact" by the court in Silveria.

Goreski was right, if incompetent.

This point seems to be very important to the chief justice of the 9th circuit.
He specifically brought up the question at the Nordyke En Banc last fall.
Neither side wanted to brief or argue this VERY IMPORTANT point. I was
there and watched both sides fail to address the question.

My take is that the chief justice of the 9th would like to use the historic record
to overturn the factually incorrect decision that is Silveria. Go back and read
the transcript and see if you can figure out some other reason for his line of
questioning.

So far I have not been able to cause our side to jump at this opportunity.
Resources are finite.

Regardless, Gorski is still incompetent.

hoffmang
05-09-2010, 7:31 PM
1. This case is very sadly further along in the court system than Sykes. It can and very well may lead to bad law that ends the quest for carry in California.

2. No case can cite an undecided case. Period. I don't care what was written in the brief - it doesn't change the FRCP.

-Gene

Paladin
05-09-2010, 8:13 PM
1. This case is very sadly further along in the court system than Sykes. It can and very well may lead to bad law that ends the quest for carry in California.I won't write what I am thinking . . . .:censored:

When would you guess we'll know if this case derails "Shall Issue"/Sykes (its judicial equivalent)?

wildhawker
05-09-2010, 9:02 PM
I won't write what I am thinking . . . .:censored:

When would you guess we'll know if this case derails "Shall Issue"/Sykes (its judicial equivalent)?

If an opinion with that effect is published by CA9.

N6ATF
05-09-2010, 9:15 PM
Wait, Gorski got to oral arguments? I thought he had just briefed CA9 so far.

Gray Peterson
05-09-2010, 9:39 PM
Wait, Gorski got to oral arguments? I thought he had just briefed CA9 so far.

On Rothery, he's only done briefings. On Mehl has did oral arguments. The Mehl panel withheld submission due to McDonald, similar to what the En Banc panel in Nordyke.

CCWFacts
05-09-2010, 9:49 PM
1. This case is very sadly further along in the court system than Sykes. It can and very well may lead to bad law that ends the quest for carry in California.

That would be really awful. I would be quite upset about it. Is there anything that can be done to try to prevent this horrible train wreck?

hoffmang
05-09-2010, 10:18 PM
That would be really awful. I would be quite upset about it. Is there anything that can be done to try to prevent this horrible train wreck?

Nope. Remember that Mr. Gorski doesn't care to listen to others who don't parrot what he wants to hear.

-Gene

CCWFacts
05-09-2010, 10:22 PM
Nope. Remember that Mr. Gorski doesn't care to listen to others who don't parrot what he wants to hear.

Oh, that's abundantly clear. Any solution has to be done without help from Mr. Gorski.

Can people who are not involved at all in any of the litigation contact his plaintiffs? Can people who are not his plaintiffs file a complaint with the bar? Could he be sued somehow? Could his plaintiffs be sued, for almost anything?

stag1500
05-10-2010, 8:46 AM
It can and very well may lead to bad law that ends the quest for carry in California.
-Gene

How could it if we get incorporation and if Palmer is decided the right way? After all, if a state prohibits one form of functional carry, don't the have to allow the other?

Sobriquet
05-10-2010, 2:27 PM
I'm losing track of the Gorski cases. I wish Librarian would put up a very short blurb on the Wiki.

Davidwhitewolf
05-10-2010, 3:10 PM
if a state prohibits one form of functional carry, don't the have to allow the other?

This is just theory. It's a nice theory, and it's potentially a winning theory, but it has to be argued competently in a winning case to become law.

Librarian
05-10-2010, 5:27 PM
I'm losing track of the Gorski cases. I wish Librarian would put up a very short blurb on the Wiki.

That'd mean I'd have to read them ...

That might turn out to be edifying. It certainly would be a good exercise in maintaining a neutral tone in difficult circumstances.

Sobriquet
05-10-2010, 5:35 PM
That'd mean I'd have to read them ...

That might turn out to be edifying. It certainly would be a good exercise in maintaining a neutral tone in difficult circumstances.

Given his or her unbiased, third-party perspective, I'm sure JustLegalInformation would be more than willing to lend a hand, Librarian. ;)

Gray Peterson
05-10-2010, 6:06 PM
Who are you, JustLegalInformation? You obviously have some sort of interest in this litigation.

OleCuss
05-10-2010, 7:00 PM
Who are you, JustLegalInformation? You obviously have some sort of interest in this litigation.

There is an assumption (I think a good one) that "JustLegalInformation" = Gorski. They were equated in the thread and that assumption was not challenged by JustLegalInformation/Gorski.

Gray Peterson
05-10-2010, 8:44 PM
There is an assumption (I think a good one) that "JustLegalInformation" = Gorski. They were equated in the thread and that assumption was not challenged by JustLegalInformation/Gorski.

If that's the case, then he's breaking a forum rule by posting here. You can't have two identities at a time here. He has a Gary Gorski account, and Just Legal Information? I think the mods should question this.

navyinrwanda
05-14-2010, 4:00 PM
Just read through plaintiff's brief in this case... what a mess! The clerks assigned to this one have my sympathies. That they must accept all appeals is certainly one of the least glamorous aspects of an appointment to a circuit bench.

It's hard to imagine this case going anywhere — there are so many issues that would call for (and could be used for) its dismissal.

jdberger
05-14-2010, 4:35 PM
Train wrecks are interesting.

edwardm
05-14-2010, 5:14 PM
Unless you're the passenger, at the mercy of a half-baked conductor.

Train wrecks are interesting.

N6ATF
05-14-2010, 11:14 PM
Just read through plaintiff's brief in this case... what a mess! The clerks assigned to this one have my sympathies. That they must accept all appeals is certainly one of the least glamorous aspects of an appointment to a circuit bench.

It's hard to imagine this case going anywhere — there are so many issues that would call for (and could be used for) its dismissal.

IANAL, but isn't that why they tend to start every new section with "All arguments to this point are hereby incorporated..." or somesuch? So that there's some severability, and each claim has to be dismissed instead of just one sinking the case?

navyinrwanda
05-15-2010, 4:32 PM
IANAL, but isn't that why they tend to start every new section with "All arguments to this point are hereby incorporated..." or somesuch? So that there's some severability, and each claim has to be dismissed instead of just one sinking the case?
This is an appellate brief, not a trial court complaint. Its authors don't appear to fully understand the difference.

But the short answer is: no. The original case was dismissed for “failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” That's a typical response to a pro se complaint, one drafted by a layperson with little or no understanding of the law, and essentially means that the complaint fails as a matter of law. In other words, nothing has been alleged that, even if true, would constitute a violation of law that the court is empowered to address.

This new brief isn't much more than a rehash of their trial pleadings. Remember, appeals courts review matters of law — not facts. Hre's a sample of what the trial court judge had to say about their pleadings at the hearing where he dismissed the original complaint (copy of original transcript attached):


The complaint itself is an example that more is not better. It's 808 paragraphs. It's 78 pages long. And it is a mishmash of thoughts, legal argument, speculation, with some allegations thrown in. Quite frankly, Mr. Karalash, it's Exhibit A of what you should not do in terms of pleading a complaint in federal court.

And to the defendants' credit, you filed motions to dismiss. I don't know how you would have answered this complaint given that there were paragraphs that don't allege anything. They're simply statements. There's one paragraph in here where it just contains -- there it is, paragraph 784. "See Melendez vs. City of Los Angeles." How do you respond to an allegation like that in a complaint? It contains a cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief that is almost identical to the same cause of action in the 2003 case involving other plaintiffs which Judge England clearly set forth that you can't maintain a cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief. It should have been included in the prayer for relief.

So the complaint itself, if I wasn't, as you see where I'm headed, going to grant the motions to dismiss, I clearly would have granted the motions to strike, and we would have started all over. We're not going to go there.

In terms of the lawsuit itself, it is apparent to the Court that the plaintiffs are misreading cases. That they, in particular, have misread both the Heller case and the Nordyke case. Those cases in no way support this lawsuit or maintaining this lawsuit. They have not done the necessary legal research in terms of maintaining a RICO claim. And nearly all of the other claims in this case, the 1983 claims, were dealt with by Judge England in his order dismissing the 2003 case. And I'll go through that...

The final issue is whether I should for some reason allow the plaintiffs leave to amend or whether I should dismiss this with prejudice. The Court is going to order that this case, and each and every claim, be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons set forth in both the Attorney General and the county defendants' briefs. And that is there is no legal basis for this lawsuit. There is no support in the law for this lawsuit. And even if I gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to try to amend, they would be unable to. These are all solid, well-founded legal reasons set forth in the defendants' briefs as to why this case should not go forward.

I'm not sugarcoating this, obviously, Mr. Karalash. I find this lawsuit to be almost frivolous, if not frivolous. I recognize you disagree. But it seems to me that your clients had their shot in 2003...

jdberger
05-15-2010, 10:02 PM
Ouch.

383green
05-15-2010, 10:33 PM
Again, the plaintiffs' request evidences just a fundamental lack of understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"Ouch" is right.

Gray Peterson
05-16-2010, 12:06 AM
Ouch.

Gorski's lucky I wasn't at the en banc Nordyke hearing in September. I would have asked him how many of my sisters (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,471308,00.html) and brothers that he's willing to let be gang raped and savagely attacked because he's an incoherent jackass. When a federal judge tells you to stop filing carbon copy cases, and I quote:

They have not done the necessary legal research in terms of maintaining a RICO claim. And nearly all of the other claims in this case, the 1983 claims, were dealt with by Judge England in his order dismissing the 2003 case. And I'll go through that...

That means you need to find a new line of work, and stop endangering the lives of Californians with your poorly drafted lawsuits. Filing the cases you do will make as much innocent blood on your hands as the sheriffs do by denying licenses.

CCWFacts
05-16-2010, 7:51 AM
Gorski's lucky I wasn't at the en banc Nordyke hearing in September. I would have asked him how many of my sisters (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,471308,00.html) and brothers (http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews34_39/page4.cfm) that he's willing to let be gang raped and savagely attacked because he's an incoherent jackass.

He really wouldn't care. He would repeat some line about he's doing everything for his "clients" and so on. His ego comes first. And note that if / when he loses, it's not a loss for his ego. He's been in an important case, and then he will have lost due to some unfair judge who hates the constitution, so Gorski is still the hero in his own mind. That's why all the "you're going to lose" arguments don't matter to him.

Maestro Pistolero
05-16-2010, 9:49 AM
Gorski is a classic narcissist, IMO. There is simply no amount of reason or facts which could be assembled to convince him that he is hopelessly incompetent.

Campbell and Foster (2007) [9] review the literature on narcissism. They argue that narcissists possess the following ‘basic ingredients’:

Positive. Narcissists think they are better than others.[10]

Inflated. Narcissists’ views tend to be contrary to reality. In measures which compare self-report to objective measures, narcissists' self-views tend to be greatly exaggerated.[11]

Agentic. Narcissists’ views tend to be most exaggerated in the agentic domain, relative to the communion domain.[10][11]

Special. Narcissists perceive themselves to be unique and special people[12].

Selfish. Research upon narcissists’ behaviour in resource dilemmas supports the case for narcissists as being selfish[13].

Oriented toward success. Narcissists are oriented towards success by being, for example, approach oriented [14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

Until there are conditions outside of his control which stop his legal activities, it seems he is hard-wired to persist.