PDA

View Full Version : So What's The Deal w/Mehl v Blanas???


Drivedabizness
12-10-2012, 11:29 AM
Saw a twitter feed about this today but would appreciate hearing from someone "in the know"

NoJoke
12-10-2012, 12:49 PM
I'd like to know - there was a mention at oral arguments of this. I think the judge mentioned...."later this week...."?????

wildhawker
12-10-2012, 1:03 PM
http://bit.ly/T2dreB

die2surf
12-10-2012, 1:08 PM
Always makes me laugh when Brandon does that. This thread is # 3 on the search, heh.

dantodd
12-10-2012, 1:08 PM
But which link ami supposed to click on?

spalterego
12-10-2012, 1:19 PM
Apparently oral arguments were heard today, this morning, in the Pasadena courthouse for the 9th Cir. Ct. of Appeals.

Don't have any more information than that.

Bobbie Ross was live tweeting it a litle bit. http://twitter.com/BobbieKRossEsq/ http://twitter.com/BobbieKRossEsq/

From reading her tweets it sounds like it was a giant Clusterfu see kay

NoJoke
12-10-2012, 1:33 PM
Bobbie K. Ross, Esq.‏@BobbieKRossEsq
Tweet:
Berzon: Well, what does "bear arms" mean then? Does it mean carry a gun around your house?


Wow.

Drivedabizness
12-10-2012, 1:34 PM
Apparently oral arguments were heard today, this morning, in the Pasadena courthouse for the 9th Cir. Ct. of Appeals.

Don't have any more information than that.

Bobbie Ross was live tweeting it a litle bit. http://twitter.com/BobbieKRossEsq/ http://twitter.com/BobbieKRossEsq/

From reading her tweets it sounds like it was a giant Clusterfu see kay

Which is why I tried to come here and get some better perspective. I watched her Twitter feed and appreciated her effort - but I don't know enough of the background to read between the lines.

BRoss
12-10-2012, 1:52 PM
Which is why I tried to come here and get some better perspective. I watched her Twitter feed and appreciated her effort - but I don't know enough of the background to read between the lines.

Long story short: Mehl is a case handled by attorney Gary Gorski which was filed several years ago (in 2007, IIRC) and deals with Sacramento County denying the Plaintiffs/Appellants LTCs.

The Ninth Circuit will have to decide, among other things, whether or not Mehl is now moot due to Richards v. Prieto (formerly known as Sykes v. McGinness) causing Sacramento County to go shall-issue, and thus spark the case renaming.

During oral arguments this morning, more issues came up, like whether or not there even needs to be a 2A analysis, etc. Part of the problem with the case is that the judges didn't even seem to be sure what exactly Plaintiffs/Appellants were seeking.

hornswaggled
12-10-2012, 2:01 PM
Watched the twitter feed this morning. Getting sick if these state's attorneys or whoever the hell they are that defend the status quo, dance around why their violation of the 2nd Amendment is reasonable or not really their fault.

HowardW56
12-10-2012, 2:01 PM
I clicked on Brandon's link and what pops up, a lovely e-mail from Mr. Gorski to Gene Hoffman and Alan Gura accusing them of meddeling in his litigation and referring to Alan Gura as a ****up...

Read the love letter and you'll see what sort of individual shows shows up late for court and once again attampts to act like a lawyer....

I had seen this e-mail quite a while ago, and had forgotten about it...

:D Nothing is ever gone on the internet...... :D

Drivedabizness
12-10-2012, 2:03 PM
Long story short: Mehl is a case handled by attorney Gary Gorski which was filed several years ago (in 2007, IIRC) and deals with Sacramento County denying the Plaintiffs/Appellants LTCs.

The Ninth Circuit will have to decide, among other things, whether or not Mehl is now moot due to Richards v. Prieto (formerly known as Sykes v. McGinness) causing Sacramento County to go shall-issue, and thus spark the case renaming.

During oral arguments this morning, more issues came up, like whether or not there even needs to be a 2A analysis, etc. Part of the problem with the case is that the judges didn't even seem to be sure what exactly Plaintiffs/Appellants were seeking.

Thanks, Counselor. I remember hearing about Blanas during the hearing last week and wondering "how many years has Blanas been gone, anyway? Why is someone still suing him?"

Again, just looking for informed tea-leaf reading beyond what I got from watching your Twitter feed (which I appreciate very much)

BRoss
12-10-2012, 2:09 PM
I clicked on Brandon's link and what pops up, a lovely e-mail from Mr. Gorski to Gene Hoffman and Alan Gura accusing them of meddeling in his litigation and referring to Alan Gura as a ****up...

Read the love letter and you'll see what sort of individual shows shows up late for court and once again attampts to act like a lawyer....

I had seen this e-mail quite a while ago, and had forgotten about it...

:D Nothing is ever gone on the internet...... :D


That email makes me laugh every time I read it.

hoffmang
12-10-2012, 2:21 PM
Audio for the oral argument should pop up sometime between now and Noon tomorrow. You can read the lower court opinion here: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/gorski1_dct.pdf

This case could mean that one man has fully damaged your right to bear arms... Because mentally ill ex FBI agents are great plaintiffs to want to carry a firearm...

This bar discipline also serves as important color on who we're dealing with: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/10-C-09659-2.pdf

-Gene

Drivedabizness
12-10-2012, 2:30 PM
Thanks for the add'l info, Gene.

I was really just trying to better understand what was going on. I had no idea there was so much prior "inside baseball" involved.

hoffmang
12-10-2012, 3:46 PM
Oral argument was reheard in Pasadena this morning to a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Mehl v. Blanas. Audio is here - http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/12/10/08-15773.wma

Gorski was up to an hour late to his own oral argument...

Here is the last oral argument from 2009: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2009/06/11/08-15773.wma
And this is the decision of the district court: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/gorski1_dct.pdf

Gary Gorski may be personally responsible for losing carry in California.

Thanks to Chuck Michel for having to wade through this mess at oral argument.

-Gene

LOW2000
12-10-2012, 4:00 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=9891092

HowardW56
12-10-2012, 4:01 PM
Oral argument was reheard in Pasadena this morning to a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Mehl v. Blanas. Audio is here - http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/12/10/08-15773.wma

Gorski was up to an hour late to his own oral argument...

Here is the last oral argument from 2009: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2009/06/11/08-15773.wma
And this is the decision of the district court: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/gorski1_dct.pdf

Gary Gorski may be personally responsible for losing carry in California.

Thanks to Chuck Michel for having to wade through this mess at oral argument.

-Gene

It seemed that Chuck Michel did the best that could, for what he had to deal with...

mag360
12-10-2012, 4:12 PM
Is it to late to say "I kid, i kid" lets fuhgettaboutit

CitaDeL
12-10-2012, 4:34 PM
Sooo... Gorski was arguing for injunctive relief and damages against a Sheriff that is no longer Sheriff for a 14th amendment case where the alleged 'oral' policy is no longer the same?

Aside from being nearly pointless...it lacks sufficient facts to prove even standing, let alone make a case that anyone had their rights violated.

CCWFacts
12-10-2012, 4:45 PM
Whatever happened with Gary Gorski's DUI arrest? I highlight it here to discourage others from dealing with this self-destructive menace to our gun rights.

Gary William Gorski, age 49, arrested by El Dorado County Sheriff's Office, booking number JN1101601, for 23152(A) (DUI), on March 25 2011.

OleCuss
12-10-2012, 4:49 PM
Oral argument was reheard in Pasadena this morning to a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Mehl v. Blanas. Audio is here - http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/12/10/08-15773.wma

Gorski was up to an hour late to his own oral argument...

Here is the last oral argument from 2009: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2009/06/11/08-15773.wma
And this is the decision of the district court: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/gorski1_dct.pdf

Gary Gorski may be personally responsible for losing carry in California.

Thanks to Chuck Michel for having to wade through this mess at oral argument.

-Gene

Thank you for that!

I readily admit that I'm no expert on this stuff and I'm still listening to Gorski's oral, but so far I'm finding this fascinating.

First thing, though, is that it seemed to me that Michel did a good job in his argument.

For Gorski? I got the impression that the judge who was questioning him was being very polite but that if she were not concerned about the dignity of the proceedings that she'd have been laughing at him.

I may have mis-heard things, but I got the impression that before Gorski got started that she considered standing to be pretty solid and that when Gorski got done - she didn't.

I also got the impression that Mr. Michel set the stage properly for getting the judge to be sympathetic to his position and the judge just seemed to me to be really considering the idea that the case was moot/that there is a standing problem.

It is an interesting listen.

ohsmily
12-10-2012, 4:53 PM
Whatever happened with Gary Gorski's DUI arrest? I highlight it here to discourage others from dealing with this self-destructive menace to our gun rights.

Gary William Gorski, age 49, arrested by El Dorado County Sheriff's Office, booking number JN1101601, for 23152(A) (DUI), on March 25 2011.

Gene posted the discipline imposed by the State Bar against Gorski which contains a summary of both of his criminal convictions:
(1) reckless driving - pled down from a DUI w/injury (it was a low BAC but with a bad accident) and;
(2) a straight 23152(a) for a BAC of .12%.

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/10-C-09659-2.pdf

Window_Seat
12-10-2012, 4:59 PM
Here is the oral argument (of today's argument, different from the last argument that Gene posts)

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/12/10/08-15773.wma

I think that Michel did a fine job trying to clean up Gorski's shi+ pile, but showing up 48 minutes late is not even the beginning of this mess that he has created.

This panel is trying to take priority over the Richards/Peruta/Baker case, but I don't think that can be done because of Ninth Circuit rule 34-3 because Richards was submitted by the Court for consideration before Mehl, no? Or is it that the case has to be submitted to the Panel first?

Erik.

n2fooz
12-10-2012, 5:00 PM
Oh my god, Gorski said "irregardless". I would hope that an attorney would know that there is no such word AND if there was it would mean "regarding" NOT "regardless".
:eek:

CCWFacts
12-10-2012, 5:02 PM
Gene posted the discipline imposed by the State Bar against Gorski which contains a summary of both of his criminal convictions:
(1) reckless driving - pled down from a DUI w/injury (it was a low BAC but with a bad accident) and;
(2) a straight 23152(a) for a BAC of .12%.

I'm sick thinking that this guy may hold California's LTC future in his shaking, inebriated hands.

Tarn_Helm
12-10-2012, 5:12 PM
Oral argument was reheard in Pasadena this morning to a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Mehl v. Blanas. Audio is here - http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/12/10/08-15773.wma

Gorski was up to an hour late to his own oral argument...

Here is the last oral argument from 2009: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2009/06/11/08-15773.wma
And this is the decision of the district court: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/gorski1_dct.pdf

Gary Gorski may be personally responsible for losing carry in California.

Thanks to Chuck Michel for having to wade through this mess at oral argument.

-Gene

Thanks for the link.

Any notion when can we expect to hear how all this boils down to any kind of result, one way or another?

***
EDIT
***

Holy crap!

Been listening to Gorski's oral "argument."

Gorski sounds far less worthy of a license to practice law than any of us might be to ccw.

I cannot stop cringing.

Paladin
12-10-2012, 5:21 PM
I'm sick thinking that this guy may hold California's LTC future in his shaking, inebriated hands.

Ugh! I forgot this was a Gorski case.... :facepalm:

Fellow CGNers, please forget everything I wrote about our chances at the 9th over the past few days.

Instead we need to collectively get on our knees in prayer that our courts recognize our RKBA that the 2nd A was designed to protect so that we can protect our liberties (incl property rts), and our lives.

BRoss
12-10-2012, 5:22 PM
Any notion when can we expect to hear how all this boils down to any kind of result, one way or another?

:twoweeks:

Window_Seat
12-10-2012, 5:26 PM
"Has anyone heard from Appellant Counsel?"... "He called at what time, about 8:30?" "Could you call again please"?
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

Erik.

OleCuss
12-10-2012, 5:38 PM
Throwing out a bit more so maybe those who know more can correct my misunderstandings? Understand that I do not claim at all to have carefully analyzed the case (not really qualified to do so, either) but that I'm going almost entirely on where I thought the judge was going and such.

Mr. Michel seems to have done a good job.

Mr. Gorski? I thought the judge had trouble taking him seriously.

The attorney for the sheriff's department I thought to be quite competent and I think that the judge seems likely to largely agree.

The attorney for the DOJ seemed pretty competent but I didn't think that he agreed with the position he was arguing. I thought he argued the position well, but it seemed to me that he went a little further out of his way to divorce the position from his personal opinion. If anyone wonders, I don't have an ethical problem with his competently presenting his client's position. Of course, I have real problems with Kamala Harris' position. . .

The LCAV/whatever attorney seemed to have done some pretty good research and I thought it would have been interesting to see where the judge would have gone with the questioning if the allotted time had been longer. I didn't like it that the judge seemed to agree that "intermediate scrutiny" would be the appropriate standard.

But my overall bet is that the court says that this is an equal protection case and that there are standing issues or that the case is basically defective or moot. I just didn't think that the judge that I was hearing bought Gorski's argument at all.

I'm cheering for Mr. Michel and I'm hoping his argument prevails! (Yeah, I know, everyone else on the forum is as well. . .)

Window_Seat
12-10-2012, 7:03 PM
EDIT
***

Holy crap!

Been listening to Gorski's oral "argument."

Gorski sounds far less worthy of a license to practice law than any of us might be to ccw.

I cannot stop cringing.

Just for info, make sure you're listening to today's Gorski argument (you quote the previous 2009 argument cited by Hoffman). If not, you'll be able to cringe even more. :(

Mehl v. Blamas Audio - 12/10/2012 (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/12/10/08-15773.wma)

Erik.

joe_sun
12-10-2012, 7:42 PM
Gorski...I can't even describe my displeasure with him and his antics.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

MOA1
12-10-2012, 8:27 PM
Give out the permits so citizens can be safe where they travel. :mad:

If the gangs have guns, shouldn't the citizens have guns as well. Ya know, liberal perspective an all. Everyone should have the right.

This is such a fundamental right it should not even be up for debate. Ugh.

kcbrown
12-10-2012, 8:43 PM
And now, maybe, some of you will understand that it matters who runs the case, why we really need Gura's cases to be first, and why any cases that are brought that aren't being directly overseen and argued by Gura should be worked on in direct cooperation with Gura and his staff, with great weight given to Gura's opinions on how the cases should be handled.

These cases are of monumental importance. We can't afford to lose. We can't afford to slip. We can't afford mistakes. And at stake is the most important right of all: that of protecting our very lives. Get this wrong and we'll wind up with a stunted, neutered "right" that will be the same as not having the right at all. Get this wrong, and we will lose our right to life. The only way to minimize the chance of that is to put our very best into the fray.

It is not because of hubris, "star power", or shallow personality cults that a number of those here have been so insistent that additional RKBA suits be carefully coordinated, if not refrained from entirely, while Gura's suits (or those he has a supervisory role in) proceed. It is because Gura has proven to be the biggest, most effective gun we have in the legal arena, and we cannot afford to fail.


That Gorski has a carry case in front of the 9th Circuit should scare the daylights out of you. But it should also make you realize that there is, indeed, wisdom in insisting upon putting only your best in this fight.

hoffmang
12-10-2012, 9:45 PM
That Gorski has a carry case in front of the 9th Circuit should scare the daylights out of you. But it should also make you realize that there is, indeed, wisdom in insisting upon putting only your best in this fight.

This.

Also, for those who would prefer an MP3 version of today's mess: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/08-15773-Mehl-2012-12-10.mp3

-Gene

Gray Peterson
12-10-2012, 9:47 PM
Just to show you how stupid Gorski is....

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=184201&stc=1&d=1355208222

hornswaggled
12-10-2012, 10:41 PM
Edify me. What's to stop an anti-gun group from bringing a 2A case in order to purposely argue it in the most asinine way possible, all for the purpose of setting precedent against the thing they argued for under a false flag? Not saying that's what happened here, just wanting to know what recourse we have if a total retard is on "our team".

wolfwood
12-11-2012, 12:21 AM
Edify me. What's to stop an anti-gun group from bringing a 2A case in order to purposely argue it in the most asinine way possible, all for the purpose of setting precedent against the thing they argued for under a false flag? Not saying that's what happened here, just wanting to know what recourse we have if a total retard is on "our team".

The attorneys would be potentially facing a host of ethics violations if they brought a suit knowingly under false pretenses. I think the Bar handles it in Cali. In Hawaii it is a branch of the Supreme Court. However, every state has adopted a ethical code its lawyers must abide by and bringing a suit under false pretenses would violate among many other things your candor to the court. I represented the Hawaii ODC my first year in practice. Represent as in 15 bucks an hour working in the office as everyone else taking care of trusteeships that by law only a attorney can deal with. I know the ins and outs of it. If you were to happen to get a judge ticked off you'd be seeing at the very least your malpractice insurance skyrocket due to a public censure if not outright suspension. CA seems to be different since there are literally 25 times more lawyer in the state. However, you tick off a judge you are going to be in for a treat wherever you are. Especially a article III judge.

press1280
12-11-2012, 2:52 AM
What a mess. I did hear a number of issues (the mental condition of Gorski's clients) that may lead the court to want to boot this case. Chuck did a good job in trying to limit what could be fatal damage to Peruta/Richards.

voiceofreason
12-11-2012, 6:59 AM
the female voice/judge didn't seem interested in hearing and listening, but seemed to be arguing against CCW; whenever the argument wasn't going in the direction of pro-CCW, she shifted to a new ?

from my layman's ear

pointedstick
12-11-2012, 7:41 AM
Oh my god, listening to Gorski was painful. PAINFUL. This man has no business arguing cases before a court. He was abrasive, argumentative, inarticulate, unprepared, and comes off as not especially intelligent. He seemed out of his league at every point during his oral argument. What a train wreck.

moleculo
12-11-2012, 8:32 AM
Gary Gorski may be personally responsible for losing carry in California.

-Gene

A good strategy has contingency plans when unforeseen things come up that have the potential to derail the strategy. If CGF is really playing "chess not checkers", then they've had three years to figure out a strategy for dealing with this mess of a case.

So, we either have nothing to worry about or...???

OleCuss
12-11-2012, 9:11 AM
A good strategy has contingency plans when unforeseen things come up that have the potential to derail the strategy. If CGF is really playing "chess not checkers", then they've had three years to figure out a strategy for dealing with this mess of a case.

So, we either have nothing to worry about or...???

There is no chess strategy for dealing with having a hand grenade tossed onto the board.

hoffmang
12-11-2012, 12:52 PM
A good strategy has contingency plans when unforeseen things come up that have the potential to derail the strategy. If CGF is really playing "chess not checkers", then they've had three years to figure out a strategy for dealing with this mess of a case.

So, we either have nothing to worry about or...???

DC, Illinois, NY, NJ, MA, CO, NC.

That's chess. However, we'd prefer that a moron not require us to use a rook that we don't have to. You'll note IL has become a nice check as of this morning. You're probably not aware (because we didn't broadcast it) how much we invested in Ezell for similar reasons. There is one portable range in California and it came within a single day's drive of being put on an 18 wheeler...

-Gene

moleculo
12-11-2012, 1:11 PM
DC, Illinois, NY, NJ, MA, CO, NC.

That's chess. However, we'd prefer that a moron not require us to use a rook that we don't have to. You'll note IL has become a nice check as of this morning. You're probably not aware (because we didn't broadcast it) how much we invested in Ezell for similar reasons. There is one portable range in California and it came within a single day's drive of being put on an 18 wheeler...

-Gene


All good perspective.

hoffmang
12-11-2012, 1:38 PM
All good perspective.

Also note one very practical effect however. Absent Gorski, we could win in CA-9 in the next 4 months. It would be tremendously tactically useful to use that W to pick off the sheriffs in the squishy middle and get them issuing ahead of a coming SCOTUS decision. If Gorski F's up CA-9, then we have to wait another 18 months to kick off that part of the work ahead of all of us.

I want to get our people carrying before SCOTUS issues it's opinion and Gary Gorski is going to be solely and personally responsible unless we all get lucky and the panel realizes his case is crap and should go back down on the mental health issue.

-Gene

HowardW56
12-11-2012, 1:54 PM
I want to get our people carrying before SCOTUS issues it's opinion and Gary Gorski is going to be solely and personally responsible unless we all get lucky and the panel realizes his case is crap and should go back down on the mental health issue.

-Gene


We can hope.....

CaliforniaLiberal
12-11-2012, 11:35 PM
Anyone else remember that Calguns thread a couple of years ago where Gorski was posting that he was "The Man In the Arena" and we were all just criticizing him while not being willing to take any actions ourselves?

I don't remember if he was getting ready to go off and litigate some pointless San Francisco case or what. We begged him, we explained patiently how he could screw it up for all California gun owners. He was offered opportunities to confer with California's finest Gun Law Legal Minds, but nooo....

Stubborn, possibly stupid SOB.

Mitch
12-12-2012, 7:04 AM
Anyone else remember that Calguns thread a couple of years ago where Gorski was posting that he was "The Man In the Arena" and we were all just criticizing him while not being willing to take any actions ourselves?

Didn't you read the letter Gene posted?

Anyone who can call Alan Gura a hack lawyer a year after the Heller decision is living in an alternate reality.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-13-2012, 8:25 AM
Edify me. What's to stop an anti-gun group from bringing a 2A case in order to purposely argue it in the most asinine way possible, all for the purpose of setting precedent against the thing they argued for under a false flag? Not saying that's what happened here, just wanting to know what recourse we have if a total retard is on "our team".


Use of the word "retard" is offensive.

That aside, I'm beginning to think that Gorski IS the "Trojan Horse" that you fear. I mean, no one who really believes in the 2A can be this willing to harm the cause, right?


The Raisuli

jar
12-13-2012, 9:54 AM
That aside, I'm beginning to think that Gorski IS the "Trojan Horse" that you fear. I mean, no one who really believes in the 2A can be this willing to harm the cause, right?

I think Hanlon's razor applies here.

rolo
12-13-2012, 9:56 AM
I think Hanlon's razor applies here.

There is strong evidence that being concussed repeatedly isn't good for the IQ.

Scarecrow Repair
12-13-2012, 10:04 AM
There is strong evidence that being concussed repeatedly isn't good for the IQ.

What, from repeatedly smacking his palm into his forehead? I didn't think he was that heavy-handed.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-14-2012, 4:18 AM
I think Hanlon's razor applies here.


Granted.

However, the full quote (according to Wikipedia) is, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice" (emphasis mine).

When the stupidity is so massive, the question must be asked, "Can he really be THAT dumb?"


The Raisuli

Paladin
12-14-2012, 7:26 AM
Also note one very practical effect however. Absent Gorski, we could win in CA-9 in the next 4 months. It would be tremendously tactically useful to use that W to pick off the sheriffs in the squishy middle and get them issuing ahead of a coming SCOTUS decision. If Gorski F's up CA-9, then we have to wait another 18 months to kick off that part of the work ahead of all of us.

I want to get our people carrying before SCOTUS issues it's opinion and Gary Gorski is going to be solely and personally responsible unless we all get lucky and the panel realizes his case is crap and should go back down on the mental health issue.

-GeneSo, if the appellate panel decides to remand/moot/determine lack of standing (i.e., a quick decision when compared to deciding case and issuing an opinion), about how long would it take for them to do that?

Window_Seat
12-14-2012, 2:13 PM
Gene, others...

Can you please explain Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Rules 34‑1 to 34‑3 and the priority issue?

The way I'm gathering it, one panel can take priority over another's similar case which has been submitted, but the question remains in my mind;

Is it that the first case submitted to the Court after oral argument takes priority over another similar case submitted after oral argument later? Or;

Is priority a moot issue because there was oral argument in both cases already, and the priority issue wasn't hashed out prior to the argument? Or something different?

If that is the case and the issue, should we still be concerned about Mr. Late Slip f#$%ing up Richards/Peruta/Baker?

It seems that the panel in Pasadena was talking about doing something for which it was too late to bring up, at least that is the way I'm looking at the Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Rules 34‑1 to 34‑3, but I'm probably looking at it wrong (and I hope not).

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/rules.htm#1270897

Erik.

BRoss
12-14-2012, 2:35 PM
Gene, others...

Can you please explain Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Rules 34‑1 to 34‑3 and the priority issue?

The way I'm gathering it, one panel can take priority over another's similar case which has been submitted, but the question remains in my mind;

Is it that the first case submitted to the Court after oral argument takes priority over another similar case submitted after oral argument later? Or;

Is priority a moot issue because there was oral argument in both cases already, and the priority issue wasn't hashed out prior to the argument? Or something different?

If that is the case and the issue, should we still be concerned about Mr. Late Slip f#$%ing up Richards/Peruta/Baker?

It seems that the panel in Pasadena was talking about doing something for which it was too late to bring up, at least that is the way I'm looking at the Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Rules 34‑1 to 34‑3, but I'm probably looking at it wrong (and I hope not).

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/rules.htm#1270897

Erik.


Circuit Rules 34-1 to 34-3 deal with the priority of setting oral argument dates and are irrelevant in the current situation.

See, e.g., Circuit Rule 34-3 ("Any party who believes the case before the Court is entitled to priority in hearing date by virtue of any statute or rule, shall so inform the Clerk in writing no later than the filing of the first brief. . . .").


If anything is applicable right now, it's probably Ninth Circuit General Order 4.1 which deals with preventing conflicts on issues before multiple panels. I can't say for sure, but I think that is what the Richards/Baker/Peruta panel was referring to when they were talking about hashing out priority issues.



4.1. Prevention of Conflicts
a. Questions Pending Concurrently Before Two or More Panels

Whenever an author of a proposed disposition knows that the disposition may decide a question pending concurrently before one or more other panels of the court, the author shall circulate copies of the proposed disposition to all members of such other panels. The author shall include a memorandum explaining the purpose of the circulation and setting a fourteen-day time period within which a response, if any, will be expected.

The panel which first takes the issue under submission has priority. All other panels before which the issue is pending that know of another panel's priority shall enter an order vacating or deferring submission pending a decision by the first panel. If the first panel defers or withdraws submission, the concerned panels shall confer to determine which panel will dispose of the issue.
b. Deferring Submission Pending Decision by Another Court

Whenever a panel decides to defer or vacate submission pending decision in another case before another court or administra*tive agency, the panel shall enter an order identifying the case by name and number and the court in which the decision is pending.

HowardW56
12-14-2012, 2:51 PM
Circuit Rules 34-1 to 34-3 deal with the priority of setting oral argument dates and are irrelevant in the current situation.

See, e.g., Circuit Rule 34-3 ("Any party who believes the case before the Court is entitled to priority in hearing date by virtue of any statute or rule, shall so inform the Clerk in writing no later than the filing of the first brief. . . .").


If anything is applicable right now, it's probably Ninth Circuit General Order 4.1 which deals with preventing conflicts on issues before multiple panels. I can't say for sure, but I think that is what the Richards/Baker/Peruta panel was referring to when they were talking about hashing out priority issues.



4.1. Prevention of Conflicts
a. Questions Pending Concurrently Before Two or More Panels

Whenever an author of a proposed disposition knows that the disposition may decide a question pending concurrently before one or more other panels of the court, the author shall circulate copies of the proposed disposition to all members of such other panels. The author shall include a memorandum explaining the purpose of the circulation and setting a fourteen-day time period within which a response, if any, will be expected.

The panel which first takes the issue under submission has priority. All other panels before which the issue is pending that know of another panel's priority shall enter an order vacating or deferring submission pending a decision by the first panel. If the first panel defers or withdraws submission, the concerned panels shall confer to determine which panel will dispose of the issue.
b. Deferring Submission Pending Decision by Another Court

Whenever a panel decides to defer or vacate submission pending decision in another case before another court or administra*tive agency, the panel shall enter an order identifying the case by name and number and the court in which the decision is pending.

If I am intrepreting this correctly, wouldn't the Peruta/Richards/Hawaii panel have priority?

Kukuforguns
12-14-2012, 3:37 PM
If I am intrepreting this correctly, wouldn't the Peruta/Richards/Hawaii panel have priority? That is not how I read the rule. There is an August 2012 Order (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/35-Mehl-v.-Blanas_Order-re-Case-is-Resubmitted.pdf) from the Mehl panel stating that the case is resubmitted as of that date. From this it is clear that the Mehl matter was submitted to the panel prior to August 2012 (during Nordkye pendency), and then resubmitted in August 2012. My reading of Rule 4.1 is that the Mehl panel's withdrawal of submission during the pendency of Nordyke requires the two panels (Mehl and Richards/Peruta) to confer to determine who will dispose of the issue. Accordingly, the Mehl panel could agree that the Richards/Peruta panel should resolve the issue. Given that the Mehl panel couldn't identify what Gorski wants during oral argument, this is a possibility.

dantodd
12-14-2012, 3:40 PM
unless we all get lucky and the panel realizes his case is crap and should go back down on the mental health issue.


Gorski's or his client's? :shrug:

hoffmang
12-14-2012, 4:12 PM
When the stupidity is so massive, the question must be asked, "Can he really be THAT dumb?"
Yes. I suspect there is some underlying health issue or issues.
Gorski's or his client's [mental health]? :shrug:
This.

-Gene