PDA

View Full Version : Gorski CCW Suit: Jacobs v. Reed et al (San Jose/Santa Clara County)


Gray Peterson
05-10-2010, 2:40 AM
After a posting on one of the other two threads in regards to Gary Gorski, there was the dropping of the name of one of his cases recently filed, which is Jacobs v. Reed.

I took the time to RECAP the case (http://ia331231.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.caed.206178/gov.uscourts.caed.206178.docket.html), as well, for your perusal.

Despite my misgivings about Gorski's tactics, the exhibits are interesting to say the least. Santa Clara County denied a person a license because they live in a "police jurisdiction". How much does anyone want to bet that Sheriff Smith has in fact issued to persons who lived in "police jurisdictions", especially campaign contributors? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Purple K
05-10-2010, 5:48 AM
Gorski must be a closet Brady!

CCWFacts
05-10-2010, 7:18 AM
Does anyone know about his co-counsels?

Co-Counsel
CC WEAVER & ASSOCIATES
Craig C. Weaver - SBN: 264571
P.O. Box 2275, Folsom, CA 95763
Tel. (916) 941-5184 | Fax (916) 404-4867
craigcweaver@ccweaver.com

THE LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL M. KARALASH
Daniel M. Karalash - SBN: 176422
dankaralash@gmail.com

LAW OFFICE OF DUSTIN MACFARLANE
Dustin MacFarlane - SBN: 262162
dustinmacfarlane@gmail.com

LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN KENNEDY
Brian Kennedy - SBN: 247961
brian_kennedy6@yahoo.com

Who would attach themselves to an attorney like Gorski?

It's weird, Gorski is listed on the Attorneys page of CC Weaver & Associates (http://ccweaver.com/old_site/attorneys.html), but he's listed in white font so it doesn't show up when you look at the page.

Btw it looks like he's going crazy filing a bunch of suits related to gun issues. Fortunately these new filings are too late to do damage, I assume.

Despite my misgivings about Gorski's tactics, the exhibits are interesting to say the least. Santa Clara County denied a person a license because they live in a "police jurisdiction". How much does anyone want to bet that Sheriff Smith has in fact issued to persons who lived in "police jurisdictions", especially campaign contributors? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Yes, CCW issuances practices are rotten throughout the state. Santa Clara County is home to (guessing) a dozen or more billionaires. I don't think Sheriff Smith is going to tell a billionaire, "sorry, I'm rejecting your app because you live in the wrong location, go talk to your chief." Rule-bending is inevitable.

Unfortunately, even in cases where there is obvious corruption (http://old.californiaccw.org/files/mccloud-v-santa-maria/) going on, that's not enough to win.

bwiese
05-10-2010, 8:41 AM
Gray & CCWFacts...

I may well be mistaken but I think I dimly recognize one or two of these names from Sliviera too. I'm writing from off the top of my head and have not searched.... (unsure if this info is readily available from free web anyway)

Gray Peterson
05-10-2010, 9:21 AM
Gray & CCWFacts...

I may well be mistaken but I think I dimly recognize one or two of these names from Sliviera too. I'm writing from off the top of my head and have not searched.... (unsure if this info is readily available from free web anyway)

Not Silveira. He was sole practicing attorney according to PACER with Silveira.

CSDGuy
05-10-2010, 9:25 AM
Just from a cursory read, about the only issue I have right now with this lawsuit is that for the 2A violation claims, they're probably about 6 weeks to 2 months early... If everything else is correct/factual... there's probably a good 14A claim there. Personally, I think this suit may eventually be mooted by cases ahead of it...

BigDogatPlay
05-10-2010, 10:06 AM
While I am sure the plaintiff(s) and counsel have only the best motivations in heart and mind, given Mr. Gorski's track record I am more than a bit concerned about eventual outcomes of any firearm litigation he files.

:hide:

berto
05-10-2010, 10:56 AM
Does anyone know about his co-counsels?

They run solo/small practices. Two are recent admitees to the CA bar. It's cross marketing to drum up business.

CCWFacts
05-10-2010, 11:09 AM
They run solo/small practices.

Yes that's what it looked like to me.

It's cross marketing to drum up business.

I wonder if they are realizing the harm this could do to their reputations and future prospects. Anyone who is a savvy client would look at that connection as a major warning flag. It shows bad judgment.

They may be thinking, "if there's even some chance that he will win an important high-profile appeals case, the free publicity would be great, so I want to be attached to this." This is a really bad miscalculation because it's tremendously more likely he will be humiliated in a high-profile appeals case, and their names will be attached forever to incoherent, misspelled, very high profile briefs that crashed and burned. Should they somehow be alerted about this situation?

1JimMarch
05-10-2010, 11:41 AM
I skimmed over the pleading. It's not half bad. Under the current precedents it's dead on arrival but nothing is really going to happen until after the McDonald decision comes down so, the timing on the filing is actually pretty good. Consider: 30 days for a reply, then figure the county and city will do a motion for summary, Gary gets to do a reply motion, then add 30 days to schedule a summary hearing and boom, McDonald is already in.

Now, if they'd filed this two months earlier, that would have been dumb. As is? Uhh...what exactly is the problem here?

NOTE: look at the timing of the various CCW applications and appeals. Looks to me like we've got ourselves a very, VERY gung-ho plaintiff that was in large part driving things forward. Looks to me like Gary or his partners in this actually stalled the filing of the suit as long as they could, so that the McDonald decision hit before they could lose a summary judgement hearing.

Doesn't smell like bad lawyerin' to me.

berto
05-10-2010, 11:49 AM
I wonder if they are realizing the harm this could do to their reputations and future prospects. Anyone who is a savvy client would look at that connection as a major warning flag. It shows bad judgment.

They may be thinking, "if there's even some chance that he will win an important high-profile appeals case, the free publicity would be great, so I want to be attached to this." This is a really bad miscalculation because it's tremendously more likely he will be humiliated in a high-profile appeals case, and their names will be attached forever to incoherent, misspelled, very high profile briefs that crashed and burned. Should they somehow be alerted about this situation?

Viewed with a non-2A centric lens there's little blowback for the other guys. This is high profile for us but most people will never hear the name Gorski or know anything about his case/s. Gorski losing won't lead the nightly news or headline the paper. Lawyers lose cases all the time. Some in spectacular fashion. It's part of the business unless one takes only cases that are guaranteed wins or settles at the first sign of trouble.

If Gorski refers a paying client to the estate planning guy the connection worked. It's all about funneling business to a guy who practices in a different field and who will return the favor.

No need to alert those who are either on board or should have known better.

Gray Peterson
05-10-2010, 12:09 PM
I skimmed over the pleading. It's not half bad. Under the current precedents it's dead on arrival but nothing is really going to happen until after the McDonald decision comes down so, the timing on the filing is actually pretty good. Consider: 30 days for a reply, then figure the county and city will do a motion for summary, Gary gets to do a reply motion, then add 30 days to schedule a summary hearing and boom, McDonald is already in.

Now, if they'd filed this two months earlier, that would have been dumb. As is? Uhh...what exactly is the problem here?

NOTE: look at the timing of the various CCW applications and appeals. Looks to me like we've got ourselves a very, VERY gung-ho plaintiff that was in large part driving things forward. Looks to me like Gary or his partners in this actually stalled the filing of the suit as long as they could, so that the McDonald decision hit before they could lose a summary judgement hearing.

Doesn't smell like bad lawyerin' to me.

I didn't detect the same amount of grammatical errata that is common, though I could be just overlooking it.

Why is Jerry Brown getting sued again? Why is it that the entire law is being challenged facially again for the fourth time? Challenging the entire statute is a waste of time and resources. It's overreaching for a complaint. Doesn't the KISS principle apply anymore?

wildhawker
05-10-2010, 12:13 PM
I didn't detect the same amount of grammatical errata that is common, though I could be just overlooking it.

Why is Jerry Brown getting sued again? Why is it that the entire law is being challenged facially again for the fourth time? Challenging the entire statute is a waste of time and resources. It's overreaching for a complaint. Doesn't the KISS principle apply anymore?

When has it applied *ever* in re Gorski?

CCWFacts
05-10-2010, 12:23 PM
Viewed with a non-2A centric lens there's little blowback for the other guys.

If Gorski refers a paying client to the estate planning guy the connection worked. It's all about funneling business to a guy who practices in a different field and who will return the favor.

Yeah, that makes sense.

When Heller came out, my biggest fear was that guys like Gorski (and Mr. Gorksi in particular) would use it to create case law that would foreclose CCW reform in this state forever. It's tense waiting to see how this plays out. It is awful that the future of CCW could rest in the hands of an incompetent fool who only thinks of his own ego and has no concern for the consequences to everyone else in this state, including the real lives that will be lost, the rapes that will occur, the assaults, etc, if he "wins".

Sobriquet
05-10-2010, 2:31 PM
It's not unusual for solo practitioners to develop relationships with other lawyers who can assist in other fields of law. Clients often need advice on more than one field of law in a particular matter and the days of generalist lawyers are behind us.

What I do find interesting is the youth of the attorneys and the unusual law schools they attended. For those that don't know, you can look up attorneys by name or bar number on the California Bar website. Here's a link:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member.aspx

CCWFacts
05-10-2010, 2:51 PM
What I do find interesting is the youth of the attorneys and the unusual law schools they attended.

I take that's a polite way of saying, they're inexperienced and they went to the lowest-ranked law schools because they are among the least competent.

sighere
09-13-2010, 10:35 AM
I skimmed the pleading and I think he hit all of the issues head on. Personally, I think lawsuits like this will wake up the cities and counties because attorney fees are compensable in civil rights cases. My personal plan is to keep an eye on these type of cases and their outcome. That way, when L.A. County denies me I'll have some ammo to try to get my CCW on appeal. If no appeal, I'll file a similar complaint.

Glock22Fan
09-13-2010, 11:41 AM
I skimmed the pleading and I think he hit all of the issues head on. Personally, I think lawsuits like this will wake up the cities and counties because attorney fees are compensable in civil rights cases. My personal plan is to keep an eye on these type of cases and their outcome. That way, when L.A. County denies me I'll have some ammo to try to get my CCW on appeal. If no appeal, I'll file a similar complaint.

Mmm, necro post. I don't know how long you have been lurking, but (from your post count) maybe it isn't long. There's a lot going on at the moment. Don't even think of a lawsuit against Baca until you really, really, know what is going on. He's going to be one of the toughest nuts, and there is already a lot of ammo against him.

sighere
09-13-2010, 11:47 AM
Seems like a pretty dead thread. I was googling the different cases on point and I found this one that I had not previously run across. I have to assume you're probably right about the cases backing up to challenge Baca, so I will probably not be in much of a hurry to file mine so I'm educating myself in the process. I'm picking up a lot of good common threads between the cases, and naturally because I'm biased, they make a lot of sense to me. Do you know if anyone's filed against Baca, or do you think everyone's waiting for Sykes?

jdberger
09-13-2010, 12:07 PM
Seems like a pretty dead thread. I was googling the different cases on point and I found this one that I had not previously run across. I have to assume you're probably right about the cases backing up to challenge Baca, so I will probably not be in much of a hurry to file mine so I'm educating myself in the process. I'm picking up a lot of good common threads between the cases, and naturally because I'm biased, they make a lot of sense to me. Do you know if anyone's filed against Baca, or do you think everyone's waiting for Sykes?

Before you file any case, it would be helpful to coordinate with The Calguns Foundation. There's a method to this madness, it requires a lot of knowledge, a bucketful of strategy and a pocket full of lawyers who dedicate their lives to this cause. 2A law isn't a proper venue for amateurs (no offense). Please take time to discuss any pending suits with The Right People.

sighere
09-13-2010, 1:13 PM
Who at calguns should I talk to about this?

Glock22Fan
09-13-2010, 1:17 PM
Who at calguns should I talk to about this?

As well as Calguns, look at californiaconcealedcarry (link in my sig) and maybe send your details/proposed Good Cause to us for some private (and no cost) feedback.

Do not publish much in the way of details on line.

jdberger
09-13-2010, 1:21 PM
Who at calguns should I talk to about this?

Send a PM to bwiese.

sighere
09-13-2010, 1:21 PM
thanks. Did that. Shall issue is what I need. I might have only a slightly "elevated" good cause, but those who have reviewed it tell me it's not enough for LA County. I did finally turn in may app last week and fully expect to be denied. I'll then appeal through whatever is the county's process. Again, I seriously doubt I'll prevail there. That's when I'll have to decide whether or not to file a civil rights suit in federal court. Naturally, I'm hoping by the time that transpires there might be some movement on Sykes that might cause cities/counties to reassess their positions.

wash
09-13-2010, 1:23 PM
Anyone on the CGF board, JD, wildhawker, bweise, Gene Hoffman, and a few others.

Billy Jack
09-13-2010, 1:46 PM
Do not, repeat, do not apply to 'no issue' departments without guidance from a CCW attorney or someone involved in the 'cause'.

They can not make a silk purse out of a sows ear. If your application and appeal are flawed you are toast. We are looking for 'special' people who do a fully documented application and who do not post about it. Oops, looks like you have a problem already.

Baca is not going anyplace and he is not going to change until he and the county are faced with overwhelming case law relating to his issuance. Been there, done that. 'Brave who attack Fort without plan is doomed to fail'. Billy Jack

Team Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

dantodd
09-13-2010, 2:03 PM
That's when I'll have to decide whether or not to file a civil rights suit in federal court. Naturally, I'm hoping by the time that transpires there might be some movement on Sykes that might cause cities/counties to reassess their positions.

That is a really really bad idea.

Law suits that are filed outside of the strategic goals of the leading 2A legal community has the potential to delay recovery of your 2A rights.

There are a number of very good lawyers and legal strategists funding and planning an approach for returning the state to shall issue (just one example of their goals.) A lawsuit which is filed outside of their strategy could slow down the process and/or create bad case law which means the leadership will have to continue further up the court system before they can make good changes.

Please sit still for now and do not file any lawsuits. Your lawsuit will more likely than not both cost you a bunch of money AND will result in a longer wait for your CCW than a little patience would produce.

sighere
09-13-2010, 2:19 PM
Points well taken. My intention is to see what the current cases in litigation produce. Believe me, I'd love to write "self defense" in my GC statement with a footnote "see McDonald V Chicago and Sykes v McGinness"

yellowfin
09-13-2010, 5:20 PM
Baca is not going anyplace and he is not going to change until he and the county are faced with overwhelming case law relating to his issuance. How much do you think will it take to be overwhelming enough? Is it a matter of number of cases (5 or 6 in a row we win and he loses) or the strength of content pertaining to two or three major cases?

Crom
09-13-2010, 5:47 PM
How much do you think will it take to be overwhelming enough? Is it a matter of number of cases (5 or 6 in a row we win and he loses) or the strength of content pertaining to two or three major cases?

It only takes one case. Peruta or Sykes would do it. If we win either case then it sets precedence. If the looser (the County) appeals in either case and the decision is affirmed in the 9th Cir., then it only strengthens our cause and it would do so in 9 western states. (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000135)

sighere
09-14-2010, 7:05 AM
Can anyone hazard a guess as to when a decision may come down in Peruta or Sykes?

Andy Taylor
09-14-2010, 7:11 AM
Can anyone hazard a guess as to when a decision may come down in Peruta or Sykes?

Two weeks.

sorry, couldn't help myself.

sighere
09-14-2010, 7:13 AM
should have seen that coming!