PDA

View Full Version : 9th Cir. Status of Carry cases and why Peruta and Richards should go first.


Crom
08-01-2012, 9:29 AM
I read a nice easy to read filing (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta_Conformed-Appellants-Notice-of-Additional-Related-Cases-and-Status-Therof.pdf) in the Peruta case which explained to the 9th. Cir. panel why Peruta and Richards should go first.

IV. CONCLUSION
Since the filing of the Peruta Appellants’ opening brief, four additional “related cases” addressing the Second Amendment right to bear arms have reached this Court. The Peruta Appellants hereby notify this Court of those cases and of the Peruta Appellants’ position that, among the seven cases concerning the right to bear arms pending before this Court, there are only two cases that should even be considered for review at this time, Peruta and Richards.

This filing addresses all the carry cases pending in the 9th Circuit, two of which have been worrisome and haunting. I hope the court agrees! Good work! Thanks Chuck Michel and Associates. :D

Link to filing dated July 10th 2012 (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta_Conformed-Appellants-Notice-of-Additional-Related-Cases-and-Status-Therof.pdf)

Connor P Price
08-01-2012, 9:45 AM
Only two cases that should even be considered? I'd take it a step further and say only one case needs to go up at this time.

hoffmang
08-01-2012, 10:19 AM
Only two cases that should even be considered? I'd take it a step further and say only one case needs to go up at this time.

There are some key differences between Richards and Peruta beyond who is backing them. Both raise some slightly different issues around the same core issue.

However, I expect a cert grant from another circuit to put these on ice after oral argument, but we shall see.

-Gene

OleCuss
08-01-2012, 12:59 PM
That was an interesting read. Kind of a nice summary of a number of cases.

Always interesting to read a legal report calling a lawyer an idiot (Birdt). Done politely but rather definitively.

Peaceful John
08-01-2012, 1:16 PM
However, I expect a cert grant from another circuit to put these on ice after oral argument, but we shall see.
-Gene

Gene, a lot of people hate it when you do this, but I don't. I understand. You were influenced in your formative years by those girls in high school, the *****teasers. :)

OleCuss
08-01-2012, 2:00 PM
LOL!!!

Yeah, but he's actually been more explicit elsewhere.

For those who don't know what's going on, I'll try to do a very rough paraphrase.

Peruta and Richards are likely to take quite a while to get through the 9th Circuit. It would not surprise me if it takes quite a while before the 9th has a hearing for whichever goes first. Even then, it would be pretty unsurprising if the initial panel's decision were taken en banc and then the case sits around even longer - maybe additional arguments.

But there are cases in other districts which have direct bearing on the situation. I think Moore and Peterson are the ones that are expected to be very good cases which will move through their relevant circuits with blinding speed (well, compared to 9th Circuit anyway).

So if SCOTUS gets, say, Moore and they believe it to be a good vehicle for a ruling in 2013 and they grant cert? All other carry cases will almost certainly be stayed until after Moore is decided. Circuit courts aren't going to want to do all the filings, argue the cases, and write decisions which are effectively overturned even before issued, or shortly after the decision is issued. It's a whole bunch of useless waste of time and resources for the court and for the litigants.

So Moore, Peterson, or another gets cert and all the arguments about Richards, Peruta, Birdt, Mehl, etc just come to a screeching halt until SCOTUS rules on the relevant case. Then you see a whole new set of motions and briefings based on the new guidance from SCOTUS.

Funtimes
08-01-2012, 2:15 PM
All we have to say is big fat professional <^> to NRA on this one.

Shady *** people who go behind other peoples backs.

Peaceful John
08-01-2012, 4:38 PM
LOL!!!

Yeah, but he's actually been more explicit elsewhere.

For those who don't know what's going on, I'll try to do a very rough paraphrase.

Peruta and Richards are likely to take quite a while to get through the 9th Circuit. It would not surprise me if it takes quite a while before the 9th has a hearing for whichever goes first. Even then, it would be pretty unsurprising if the initial panel's decision were taken en banc and then the case sits around even longer - maybe additional arguments.

But there are cases in other districts which have direct bearing on the situation. I think Moore and Peterson are the ones that are expected to be very good cases which will move through their relevant circuits with blinding speed (well, compared to 9th Circuit anyway).

So if SCOTUS gets, say, Moore and they believe it to be a good vehicle for a ruling in 2013 and they grant cert? All other carry cases will almost certainly be stayed until after Moore is decided. Circuit courts aren't going to want to do all the filings, argue the cases, and write decisions which are effectively overturned even before issued, or shortly after the decision is issued. It's a whole bunch of useless waste of time and resources for the court and for the litigants.

So Moore, Peterson, or another gets cert and all the arguments about Richards, Peruta, Birdt, Mehl, etc just come to a screeching halt until SCOTUS rules on the relevant case. Then you see a whole new set of motions and briefings based on the new guidance from SCOTUS.

Thanks, OleCuss. Sometimes this begins to feel like Lucy with the football. Your explanation was hopeful.

hoffmang
08-07-2012, 11:19 AM
Gene, a lot of people hate it when you do this, but I don't. I understand. You were influenced in your formative years by those girls in high school, the *****teasers. :)

As OleCuss explains above I didn't mean to be opaque. You also caught me on vacation where I promised myself I'd spend some time with the family - hence no additional remarks.

But yeah, I think one of the carry cases in other states will get to the Supreme Court before the end of the calendar year and whatever 9th Circuit panel hears oral argument here will decide to wait on the ruling from SCOTUS. Assuming a win there, then these cases all become procedural, not precedential, and mostly about fees.

New cases would be filed for any jurisdiction that had the dumb idea of holding out...

-Gene

moleculo
08-07-2012, 7:13 PM
But yeah, I think one of the carry cases in other states will get to the Supreme Court before the end of the calendar year and whatever 9th Circuit panel hears oral argument here will decide to wait on the ruling from SCOTUS. Assuming a win there, then these cases all become procedural, not precedential, and mostly about fees.

Sounds good to me! BTW, everyone wanted to throw stones at me when I posted that my opinion was that carry in places like LA county would likely determined by out of state cases before anything changed here. It looks like Gene & I share the same opinion. How we get carry in CA state-wide doesn't really matter - only that we get it.

Gray Peterson
08-07-2012, 7:44 PM
Sounds good to me! BTW, everyone wanted to throw stones at me when I posted that my opinion was that carry in places like LA county would likely determined by out of state cases before anything changed here. It looks like Gene & I share the same opinion. How we get carry in CA state-wide doesn't really matter - only that we get it.

If that's the case, why the pressure to file lawsuits in LA county in the first place?

sully007
08-07-2012, 8:08 PM
If that's the case, why the pressure to file lawsuits in LA county in the first place?

Must of had a steak dinner bet! ;-)

moleculo
08-07-2012, 9:16 PM
If that's the case, why the pressure to file lawsuits in LA county in the first place?

I'm starting to believe that you have the same reading comprehension issue as Taperxz.

I guess i need to type the message S L O W L Y. My comments in that other thread were about the public perception caused by the message sent by CGF with regards to why action is not desirable in LA County. It's about CGF PR.

I WAS NEVER PRESSURING ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT IN LA COUNTY EXCEPT TO WORK ON RESHAPING THE PUBLIC RELATIONS MESSAGE TO GUNNIES IN THIS AREA. I'm not going to retype arguments from that entire thread or engage in that useless debate again. Go back and read it for yourself if you're really interested because I'm NOT going to be accused of derailing this thread by responding on that subject here.

You guys a really a piece of work - some of you REALLY don't know how to take suggestions or constructive criticism and are REALLY full of yourselves.

Either that, or you hate to admit it when I might be right about something - even when Gene said basically the same thing I did.

wash
08-07-2012, 9:33 PM
Why does LA need a PR message?

Alameda county doesn't get one, San Francisco county doesn't get one, San Mateo county doesn't get one, Santa Clara county doesn't get one, etc.

California and the ninth circuit do not revolve around LA.

Get over yourself.

And for Gene, don't be afraid to turn off your cell phone or IPad for a while, I'm sure the quark has your back.

curtisfong
08-07-2012, 9:48 PM
It is pretty obvious what he's saying.

He's saying that all the activity in counties other than LA are good PR for CGF.

The (perceived) complete lack of any activity in LA means LA residents are less likely to be interested in what CGF can do for them.

IOW, CGF should be making a bigger deal of the things they are doing in LA, so there is a perception that CGF is doing ... something.... anything... for LA, and to dispel the perception that CGF only cares about NorCal.

Gray Peterson
08-07-2012, 10:53 PM
Let me put this issue to bed: The current LTC lawsuits in LA County (besides the Lu v. Baca case filed in state superior court) from the independent operator lawyer have plaintiffs that already knew about Richards and Peruta in the 9th Circuit. It is not because of "Lack of PR". It is because of desire to make a name for themselves, as well as pure malevolence of the lawyer (who has moral turpitude problems and was called out on it when he asked whether he should file a case) who's pissed off at CGF rejecting the idea of his case at that time.

Richards was appealed up to the 9th Circuit on 5/19/2012, Peruta (which was a copy of Sykes which later became Richards) was appealed on 12/16/2010.

2:11-cv-08026-MWF-JCG Sigitas Raulinaitis et al v. Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department filed 09/28/11

11-cv-06154-SJO-JC Robert Thomson v. Torrance Police Department et al, filed 7/26/2011

The plaintiffs in this case was quite well aware of Sykes (later Richards), and others (the first one quite enthusiastically asked questions about this case in the numerous threads about it). The PR did in fact reach him, and his lawyer. They knew that Richards in the 9th Circuit directly pertain to these cases, and once Richards was won at the 9th (or SCOTUS), they could file a case against LA if they resisted and have a preliminary injunction against them quickly. Easy, quick, even a caveman can do it.

Instead, the lawyer (and it's just one) decided to file multiple cases (including his own pro-se case) in Federal District Court before Richards is resolved, which is now 0-2, with one other case still pending (and a near 100 percent chance of loss), and allow it to slog through the courts for over year in a Sisyphusean stupidity, only to get it up to the 9th Circuit anyway.

His inane theory that the 9th Circuit will for some reason remand the cases back to District Court now that Handgun UOC is banned since "facts" have changed, a position rejected by both the CGF/SAF legal team (Lead Counsel being Alan Gura, the guy who saved 2A in the courts) and the NRA/CRPAF (who's lead counsel is former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement). De Novo review of appeals requires looking at changes in law in the midstream. The fact that the 9th Circuit did not reverse/remand the case as soon as Nordyke was lifted is evidence of this.

Oh, and he waived oral argument in his case and asked for expedited review of the case so he can attempt to "jump ahead" of Richards. He's dead set himself on being the 2A "bear/carry" victor.

The LA cases have nothing to do with lack of PR. It has to do with the lack of willingness of a particular lawyer to accept the fact that he's a poor choice for counsel on a case because of his lack of 2nd amendment case background, as well as his then at the time suspended suspension for moral turpitude. He reacted poorly to being told that his bar history, which would be greatly scrutinized by any federal judge who hears his cases, would not help the RKBA, and that it would be better to wait for Richards and Peruta to complete in the 9th, and that if there was a need for an LA carry case post-win at the 9th, it would probably be with cleaner plaintiffs (but still vindicating his rights to get a carry license, of course). He HAD to file something now, immediately, and damn the consequences to the potential of his losing cases because of his lack of experience in the subject matter, and lack of clean bar history.

He posted repeatedly on this site with pretty vile invective, it was pretty publicly pointed out why he's a bad idea to do cases, he didn't like it. Do enough searching, and you'll find it all publicly here (though most of his posts were deleted and K-lined).

And then there's the matter of the strange PM's and text messages he sends me, where he references vile sexual acts and name calling befitting of a 14 year old high schooler, not a professional lawyer who's of similar age to Alan Gura.

It's not lack of PR, Moleculo. It's about one man's Eric Cartman-esque quest for vengeance against the folks who rebuked him for the sake of saving a civil right. He doesn't accept what he did was incorrect or wrong, or downplays what he did that got him suspended, saying that he could "never shake that", instead blaming the people bringing that up.

That's essentially your entire theory of "Lack of PR in LA county caused people to file cases" up in smoke. The fact that you now mention that "well, non-California case would likely have done so", caused me to look at you crosswise. Considering how much you've been haranguing CGF for "No PR in LA" repeatedly, calling the volunteers and unpaid board members similar to a "high school cheerleading squad", continuing to say that we're doing something shady because they won't release information that you want (SAF and NRA-CRDF wouldn't tell you that information, either), among other things, and now you're saying "Well, since LA will be fixed by out of 9th Circuit case...." What was the point of the LA cases that you harangued CGF for "not doing enough PR for" then? Or do you just troll for fun?

Peaceful John
08-08-2012, 10:34 AM
I'm starting to believe that you have the same reading comprehension issue as Taperxz.

I've never found Gray Peterson to have a "reading comprension issue". As a matter of fact, Gray's posts are the ones I seek out when I need clarity.

My guess is that others, as well, appreciate Gray's thoughtful and well reasoned contributions to this forum.

wash
08-08-2012, 7:33 PM
Maybe there is a political message to learn in this.

Bad politicians are always doing something stupid to make it look like they are doing something and those bad politicians keep getting elected.

CGF just refuses to do something stupid to make it look like they are doing something (even though they actually are busy doing the smart thing) and that's not good politics.

taperxz
08-08-2012, 8:22 PM
I'm starting to believe that you have the same reading comprehension issue as Taperxz.

I guess i need to type the message S L O W L Y. My comments in that other thread were about the public perception caused by the message sent by CGF with regards to why action is not desirable in LA County. It's about CGF PR.

I WAS NEVER PRESSURING ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT IN LA COUNTY EXCEPT TO WORK ON RESHAPING THE PUBLIC RELATIONS MESSAGE TO GUNNIES IN THIS AREA. I'm not going to retype arguments from that entire thread or engage in that useless debate again. Go back and read it for yourself if you're really interested because I'm NOT going to be accused of derailing this thread by responding on that subject here.

You guys a really a piece of work - some of you REALLY don't know how to take suggestions or constructive criticism and are REALLY full of yourselves.

Either that, or you hate to admit it when I might be right about something - even when Gene said basically the same thing I did.

I don't care what you think of me but i certainly think Gray deserves a little respect for what he is accomplishing to restore 2A rights in America. His case is one of a few that may actually go to the SCOTUS. You may want to cut him some slack.

Gray Peterson
08-09-2012, 1:48 AM
Maybe there is a political message to learn in this.

Bad politicians are always doing something stupid to make it look like they are doing something and those bad politicians keep getting elected.

CGF just refuses to do something stupid to make it look like they are doing something (even though they actually are busy doing the smart thing) and that's not good politics.

That's exactly it. 100 percent. When it comes to courtroom stuff, mixing politic and grandstanding is a BAD idea. Farmer v. Higgins in the 11th Circuit is the best example of this.

hoffmang
08-09-2012, 7:36 PM
CGF just refuses to do something stupid to make it look like they are doing something (even though they actually are busy doing the smart thing) and that's not good politics.

Suing for the right to carry in the Central District Federal Court of California is a guaranteed loss. Suing in the Eastern District wasn't a guaranteed loss and you can see that by the fact that Sacramento County decided to go virtually shall issue.

Winning or losing in any Federal District Court in California meant an appeal to the 9th circuit court of appeal and/or SCOTUS. At the time Sykes which became Richards was filed, it looked like it would be first since incorporation came first to the 9th circuit.

For various reasons that changed. However, moleculo - that doesn't mean you are correct about what the best strategy was nor are you agreeing with what I'm saying in the full spirit of the strategy CGF chose to execute.

Even though we lost Richards in District, we won the freedom of the residents of Sacramento County in the interim while continuing to wage the war across the nation and in this circuit. All the silly LA area cases only added to the long list of citations by Brady et. al. against the right to bear arms...

-Gene

wjc
08-09-2012, 7:42 PM
"inch by inch...step by step"

:43:

radioman
08-09-2012, 8:43 PM
CGF is playing legal chess, to win in that game you must see all five sides of the board.