PDA

View Full Version : 9/19/2007 Update for Matthew Corwin/BlackwaterOPS, funds still needed


WolfMansDad
08-09-2007, 5:21 PM
9/19/2007 update: OK, here's a quick update. On Sept. 10, Matt was scheduled to have a hearing to decide what to do with the rifle charges, but the prosecuting attorney didn't show up. The hearing got postponed again. I don't have the new date, but the usual procedure is to postpone for about four weeks. The new date will probably be in the middle of October. I will post the actual date when I have it.

This case is going well, but (as always) we need more money to finish the job. Calguns has raised the majority of the cost in this case, but we still have a few thousand dollars left to go. By my count, we still need about $3,000 to cover the work already done. Building up the retainer fee on top of that would, of course, help a lot.

The outcome of this case will affect all of us, not just Matt and his family. Every DA we educate about off-list rifles is one more win for us, especially those of us who live in the jurisdiction of that DA. If you live in Los Angeles county and own an off-list rifle, this case affects you.


'Original Post:


The best attorneys do most of their work outside of court, and Trutanich-Michel have been working tirelessly on Matt's behalf, first to expedite the process of posting bail and get him out of jail, and then to point out to the DA's office that 1919s are, in fact, perfectly legal and not grounds for a series of felony charges. They are currently working with the DA's office in preparation for the August 15 hearing, the details of which will be released next week.

This process, unfortunately, does not happen fast, and good lawyers are not cheap. When this began, we didn't know how much it was going to cost to fight, and we didn't know how much the calguns community could raise.

At this point, the bill looks like it's going to be about $38,000. This includes the retainer fee, so if the case is resolved soon it might end up being less. If it drags on, it could be more.

The good news is that, as of this writing, calgunners have contributed $17,665. Most of that is from a lot of guys and gals each sending in a $100 check, and most of them offered to contribute the same amount again later if it was needed.

Matt needs about $15,000 more. He has $5,000 from other sources which, added to the nearly $18,000 calgunners contributed, leaves him needing about $15,000. I am sending a second check, equal to the amount I sent in May. If everybody else here does the same and matches their May contribution, we should easily meet this goal.

Also, Matt's mom has a car she wants to sell to help cover his legal bills. If anyone is interested in a 1993 BMW 750, PM me and I will provide details.

Many thanks to all of you who contributed already! Please keep the contributions coming. There have been a lot of positive developments in this case since Matt's arrest, but it's not over yet.

Checks should be made out to "Trutanich-Michel Trust Fund," and list on the subject/memo line "Matthew Corwin Legal Defense Fund." Send them to

Trutanich-Michel LLP
180 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste 200
Long Beach, CA 90802

If you have questions, you can contact the firm at

Tel (562) 216-4444
Fax (562) 216-4445
www.tmllp.com

You can also make contributions through paypal. PM user 69Mach1 for details on that.

WMD

sammy
08-09-2007, 6:22 PM
Would you give an address to send funds. Good luck, we need to have a BBQ when this crap is over.

ghettoshecky
08-09-2007, 6:56 PM
Is there any update to know what kind of configuration Matt had for his AR and AK? Whether it was said or not, I still don't know if his configuration was set to at least a mag lock. I sent money in before, but before I send again I really need to know what configuration his AR and AK were in.

derek@thepackingrat.net
08-09-2007, 7:26 PM
Thanks for the update. I'll be sending out another check shortly.

Blue
08-09-2007, 7:31 PM
Good luck, we need to have a BBQ when this crap is over.

Big +1! Maybe we can have a NorCal/Socal meetup OLL shoot once this is said and done with :D

AJAX22
08-09-2007, 7:36 PM
Sounds good ;) BYOBR (Bring Your Own Black Rifle)

Liberty1
08-09-2007, 10:23 PM
I'll send another contribution tomorrow.



Wolfmansdad,

Does Matt want us to start calling, e-mailing and writing NRA to push them to back this case as it in many ways meets their standards for assistance?

If TMLLP is already planning to request this would letters from NRA members to NRA CRDF help?

Here are NRA CRDF's requirements:

http://www.nradefensefund.org/requesting_help.aspx

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund gets numerous requests for assistance. Therefore, the Fund has a procedure for determining whether to fund a court case. The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund has guidelines for submission of cases for the trustees' discretionary review. Cases presenting compelling unsettled or new issues of law are of special interest to the Fund. The Trustees normally meet three times a year: in the late spring, fall, and winter. A request for litigation funding should be submitted to the secretary not later than 30 days prior to the meeting in which the request is to be considered. Late submissions will be considered only upon emergency.

Applications for financial support must be submitted by an attorney. Requests should include, at a minimum, the following information:

Legal or constitutional issue to be resolved and how it would have a widespread favorable impact;


Summary of the facts;


Background of the litigants or other parties;


Summary of past and projected administrative and legal proceedings;


Projected costs of litigation for the different stages of the case and an explanation of the basis for such projected costs, including hourly attorney fees and projected number of hours;


Other sources of funding and amounts received and requested;


Probability of obtaining a favorable result and basis for conclusion; and


Probability of obtaining an award of attorney's fees and costs should this applicant prevail in the litigation.

The Fund shall not return submitted material. Therefore, originals should not be sent. Also, privileged attorney-client materials should not be sent.

A recipient of funding shall reimburse the Fund, to the extent of fund involvement, if costs or attorney's fees are awarded. Furthermore, a recipient of funding agrees to have his or her likeness and case used for fund raising by the Fund as a condition for receiving financial support.

Submit Your Request to:
NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Va. 22030

Contact us at:
Email: nracrdf@nrahq.org
Phone: 703-267-1250
Fax: 703-267-3985

C.G.
08-10-2007, 1:04 AM
Check on the way on Monday.

Nefarious
08-10-2007, 6:01 AM
Sounds good ;) BYOBR (Bring Your Own Black Rifle)

and 1919's if you have em ;)

MrLogan
08-10-2007, 6:17 AM
Is there any update to know what kind of configuration Matt had for his AR and AK? Whether it was said or not, I still don't know if his configuration was set to at least a mag lock. I sent money in before, but before I send again I really need to know what configuration his AR and AK were in.

I can understand the reservation; trust me when I say that Matt's rifles were all legally configured.

Smokin
08-10-2007, 9:46 AM
I just joined this forum a few days ago and have finally caught myself up with this case. Reading about this case just makes me sick. I know that most here sympathize wtih Matt's predicament, but I think we should all take pause and really think about the pure disruption this has had to his life and family. This state's left-wing anti-gun crowd is again embarking on another McCarthy-like witch hunt that destroys innocent lives in its wake. Its obvious that the DOJ and anti-gun politcal zealouts are utilizing Matt as a platform to chisel away at our 2nd Amendment rights. Kudos to all that have contributed (I will soon). If it hasnt been done already someone should request aid from the NRA. It seems that a poor countcome could also affect california gun owners' rights with OLL's. Damn, I just got here and I cant wait to move back to Texas.

WolfMansDad
08-10-2007, 11:23 AM
Is there any update to know what kind of configuration Matt had for his AR and AK? Whether it was said or not, I still don't know if his configuration was set to at least a mag lock. I sent money in before, but before I send again I really need to know what configuration his AR and AK were in.

Matt's rifles were always legally configured when I saw them. I have no reason to doubt that they were also legally configured when he was arrested. More than that, I can't say until the case is resolved.

WolfMansDad
08-10-2007, 11:27 AM
I'll send another contribution tomorrow.



Wolfmansdad,

Does Matt want us to start calling, e-mailing and writing NRA to push them to back this case as it in many ways meets their standards for assistance?

If TMLLP is already planning to request this would letters from NRA members to NRA CRDF help?

Here are NRA CRDF's requirements:

http://www.nradefensefund.org/requesting_help.aspx

...

Thanks for the info! Chuck did mention it, but I didn't know about this site.

WMD

ivanimal
08-10-2007, 11:48 AM
Check sent best wishes to Matt.

Stormfeather
08-10-2007, 11:59 AM
Since this case affects so many of us, I know each and every one of us should have sent in something. it doesnt have to be $100.00, it doesnt have to be $1000, send in something people! If each and everyone of you sent in a couple of dollars we could have met this goal already! WMD, please resubmit the ways that people can donate, paypal , stuff like that, this info may help.
STEP UP TO THE PLATE OLL OWNERS,
Next Time It Could Be you

WokMaster1
08-10-2007, 2:15 PM
Since this case affects so many of us, I know each and every one of us should have sent in something. it doesnt have to be $100.00, it doesnt have to be $1000, send in something people! If each and everyone of you sent in a couple of dollars we could have met this goal already! WMD, please resubmit the ways that people can donate, paypal , stuff like that, this info may help.
STEP UP TO THE PLATE OLL OWNERS,
Next Time It Could Be you

Damn Stormfeather, my eyes are all f'ed up right now! Now if i can only see where the mailbox is. Jeez!

Hunter
08-10-2007, 7:37 PM
Damn Stormfeather, my eyes are all f'ed up right now! Now if i can only see where the mailbox is. Jeez!

:rofl2:

Maybe it's just me and the rough week I had, but that comment was worth $100 alone!

Check inbound to TM

bear308
08-10-2007, 8:30 PM
Czech inbound after next payday.

tom_92673
08-10-2007, 11:18 PM
Does anyone want to organize a shoot and fundraiser? It's always easier to get money from folks in person and then forward it on. Maybe raffle something or other or some sort of other fund raising ideas. Just a thought. I'd be up for something at Angeles or Burro.

Kestryll
08-11-2007, 12:14 AM
As far as I know Tenpercent is still doing the donation to the legal fund for every Spikes Calguns lower purchased.
Check the link HERE (http://www.tenpercentfirearms.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=9&products_id=296) and double check with Wes but as I recall it was $50 out of every purchase goes to the fund.
Heck, buy Matt a lower for when he is done with this crap! ;)

armspin
08-11-2007, 9:26 AM
If I could somehow donate using PayPal, that would be perfect. I don't even know if I still have any checks, I've been paying everything with online banking for so many years now... any one know if this is possible? Or I guess I could set up a check to go out from my online banking [the mouse in my head is getting on the treadmill now], but PayPal is much easier.

edit: nevermind, just used the online banking method and sent $200 (I didn't donate in May, wasn't logging on, so I had to make up for it I guess). I wish I could get some of those magnets though, sounds like fun! ha

aileron
08-11-2007, 9:43 AM
Check on the way, I'll be sending again too. :D

Red_5
08-11-2007, 10:09 AM
Thank for the update. I'm in for another donation.

As has already been said, we all need to contribute something. No matter how large or small a contribution we can each make as individuals, our combined strength will get ALL of us through.

Every little bit helps.

creampuff
08-11-2007, 10:30 AM
edit: nevermind, just used the online banking method and sent $200 (I didn't donate in May, wasn't logging on, so I had to make up for it I guess). I wish I could get some of those magnets though, sounds like fun! ha

There is an online method? How do we go about sending funds this way?

Hunter
08-11-2007, 2:41 PM
There is an online method? How do we go about sending funds this way?

Thru his bank account. I use my B of A account to have them issue a check directly to the payee. Otherwords I electronically tell BofA to issue a papercheck to XYZ and they cut it and mail it out. Takes about 4 days for the check to physically show up at the destination from the date requested...at least with BofA.

armspin
08-11-2007, 2:41 PM
There is an online method? How do we go about sending funds this way?

I bank through UBOC; so I just add a payee (name, address, phone) and list the account # (with the payee) as the Corwin Defense Fund (i worded it exactly as was told in reality). I schedule the payment for the next business day. Then, on Monday, UBOC will print and mail a check for me. I don't even have to pay postage. When the lawyers get the check, the envelope will look like it comes from my bank, and then on the check and check stub it will show my name & info, the Corwin memo, etc. They deposit it just like a regular check. What bank are you with? Most I have seen can do the same, though most charge a small fee per payment (like 50 cents) to cover postage etc.;)

C.G.
08-13-2007, 3:49 PM
Check sent.:)

guns_and_labs
08-13-2007, 4:24 PM
Second check inbound.

torsf
08-13-2007, 5:46 PM
sent...

calAWBsux
08-13-2007, 5:57 PM
I'll be sending in $100 for sure, but I might be able to do $150.

duenor
08-14-2007, 1:14 AM
im stark out of money right now, but when i get paid next month ill send my ammo money for the month.

ps: people need to get the word out.

I'll go post on thr.

69Mach1
08-14-2007, 8:04 AM
If anyone would like to donate via their PP account, please PM me for the account email. The funds will go into my account and then I'll cut a check and send it to Trutanich-Michel, LLP just like before. I'll pay the fees.

For LA county calgunners, this is our "back yard". If this is adjudicated or dismissed accordingly, it will benefit us directly.

For the rest of CA, LA county will probably lead the way.

sen24
08-14-2007, 9:32 AM
You can count me in for $100.
Good luck, Matt.

KDOFisch
08-15-2007, 9:53 AM
Just sent a Franklin! Good luck!:chris:

wilit
08-15-2007, 11:59 PM
I've got a lot of stuff going on, including an upcoming wedding. So I could only swing $50, but hopefully next payday I can do another $50.

Hang in there Matt. We're all pulling for you.

artherd
08-16-2007, 12:24 AM
69Mach1 has been gracious enough to colate PAYPAL DONATIONS for us! I'm sending another check (this will be my 3rd.)

T&M can't say much, but I can tell you that as far as I know, Matt has fully complied with all existing law regarding his firearms.

Keep it up people, if DOJ knows that anyone they maliciously prosecute has the full support of the entire Calguns.NET community behind them, then we will truely have won a victory for every law abiding man and woman in this state!

69Mach1
08-16-2007, 11:00 PM
I've had a lot of requests to donate via PP. Keep them coming.
PM me for info.

supersonic
08-20-2007, 12:14 PM
Check will go @ 1st of month. Wish I could do it now. Prayers to M.C. & family/friends.
S.S.:43:

69Mach1
08-22-2007, 9:34 AM
I'd like to cut a check or at least $1000 this coming Monday. We're at the half way point. Anyone that would like to donate through their PP account please PM me for the address. Thanks.

And thank you to those that have donated so far:
sza
sen24
Prc329
Hoop
zenthemighty

Roo
08-27-2007, 11:26 PM
Check sent out. I will send again net month.

Adog5
08-28-2007, 6:44 AM
I read through all the threads here and I must have missed something. The last thing I saw was that the hearing was scheduled for 8/15/07. Ok, so now what is happening? Can we have just 1 thread that has updates and NO comments from everyone? If you know the latest status of BWO, please post it in this thread so I can follow the case more easily.

WolfMansDad
08-28-2007, 10:46 AM
The 8/15 hearing was postponed again. I don't know the new date yet.

69Mach1
08-29-2007, 7:02 AM
Check goes out in the mail today.
Thanks guys.
sza
sen24
wilit
Prc329
Hoop
zenthemighty
24thMED
gazzavc

xdimitrix
09-02-2007, 7:16 PM
I sent 100 bucks.

Creeping Incrementalism
09-10-2007, 7:19 PM
I have a lower that was seized in the Milpitas bust, and I just mailed a check for $50, something I've been meaning to do for a while but never got around to. A friend of mine has a lower that originated from the same group buy (didn't get seized), and I'll see if I can get him to donate the same amount.

wilit
09-10-2007, 8:07 PM
Okay, I just searched all the BWO threads and there's still no update!!! When did the hearing date get moved to since the Aug. 17 one was postponed.

spgk380
09-11-2007, 12:08 AM
Okay, I just searched all the BWO threads and there's still no update!!! When did the hearing date get moved to since the Aug. 17 one was postponed.

From reading all of these legal case threads over the months, I have learned that the legal process is even slower than I had imagined. I am extremely glad I did not go into law, as I do not think I have the patience to wait months and months while nothing happens....

On the other hand, I suppose it means Matt's lawyers have ample time to prepare while he, a supposedly horrible, violent, baby killing monster (in the eyes of the DA) does just fine out on bail. This flies in the face of their assertion that anybody with these guns must be some horrible maniac.

WolfMansDad
09-11-2007, 9:10 AM
The hearing was yesterday (Sept. 10). There is news, of a sort, but I need to check with Chuck or Joe to see what I can release.

Short, minimal answer is this: The hearing was again postponed, and Matt needs more money. So far, we at calguns have raised about $20,000. Before yesterday's business, the bill came to about $26,600, so he "only" needed $6,600. That total will be a little higher today, but I don't yet know by how much.

Yesterday's developments were very interesting, but I don't want to post anything without checking with counsel. If you've been following the Modesto case, you will be tempted to speculate on this one. Please don't, at least not on this public forum!

Chuck, Joe, or I will post details as soon as possible.

thedrickel
09-13-2007, 5:13 PM
The hearing was yesterday (Sept. 10). There is news, of a sort, but I need to check with Chuck or Joe to see what I can release.

Short, minimal answer is this: The hearing was again postponed, and Matt needs more money. So far, we at calguns have raised about $20,000. Before yesterday's business, the bill came to about $26,600, so he "only" needed $6,600. That total will be a little higher today, but I don't yet know by how much.

Yesterday's developments were very interesting, but I don't want to post anything without checking with counsel. If you've been following the Modesto case, you will be tempted to speculate on this one. Please don't, at least not on this public forum!

Chuck, Joe, or I will post details as soon as possible.

Any updates to this update?

wilit
09-13-2007, 7:25 PM
Any updates to this update?

2 weeks! :D

When I get paid next, I'll see what I can do to send off some more $$$ for the fund. Thanks to 69Mach1 for doing the paypal thing.

stealthmode
09-17-2007, 11:41 AM
is there a paypal account we can send money to?

C.G.
09-17-2007, 4:21 PM
is there a paypal account we can send money to?

Yes, Mach69 has been gracious enough to let people go through his account.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=65673&page=4

E Pluribus Unum
09-19-2007, 1:13 AM
Yes, Mach69 has been gracious enough to let people go through his account.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=65673&page=4

Well poop.... I'll be "gracious" too... send me money! :)


Updates people... I was promised an update 8 days ago... with nothing.... :)

Just release the stuff that is a matter of public record... the court transcripts could be purchased... please save me the cost of doing so.

WolfMansDad
09-19-2007, 7:27 AM
OK, here's a quick update. On Sept. 10, Matt was scheduled to have a hearing to decide what to do with the rifle charges, but the prosecuting attorney didn't show up. The hearing got postponed again. I don't have the new date, but the usual procedure is to postpone for about four weeks. The new date will probably be in the middle of October. I will post the actual date when I have it.

This case is going well, but (as always) we need more money to finish the job. Calguns has raised the majority of the cost in this case, but we still have a few thousand dollars left to go. By my count, we still need about $3,000 to cover the work already done. Building up the retainer fee on top of that would, of course, help a lot.

The outcome of this case will affect all of us, not just Matt and his family. Every DA we educate about off-list rifles is one more win for us, especially those of us who live in the jurisdiction of that DA. If you live in Los Angeles county and own an off-list rifle, this case affects you.

rkt88edmo
09-19-2007, 7:47 AM
Bump up, I edited the title and added the new info to the first post.

mcubed4130
09-19-2007, 7:49 AM
... im thinking melons would be good stress relief right about now.

If it works for the “Gunny”, it should be good... think I'll go watch the machine gun meetup from the Season 7 DVD. :D

-M3

WolfMansDad
09-19-2007, 10:27 AM
Just got the update from Trutanich-Michel. They have received from calgunners $21,615.00, and the remaining balance due is $9,599.00. I know of at least $4,000.00 that is in the mail, which brings the totals to $25,615 and $5,599.

We're winning, but the fight ain't over yet.

StukaJr
09-19-2007, 10:56 AM
Good news - I'll make sure to send out a second check (once I figure out my budget) :) Keep on chipping away!

niceguy
09-19-2007, 5:02 PM
Could the case be dumped by the court if the prosecutor keeps doing no-shows?

I'm no expert by any means, but it seems to me that the best outcome would be a RULING in favor of the good guys. Bugs me that the prosecutor could do this, and stretch out the tension for you guys.

When it's over, can YOU sue THEM?? IF this is supposed to be a fair society, it seems a little "turnabout" is in order!!

69Mach1
09-19-2007, 8:01 PM
I'm sorry ladies and gentlemen. I've been very busy putting together a PSL group shoot and I haven't been able to keep up on this, but now that the shoot is planned, I'm back on top of it. Anyone wishing to donate to the Matt Corwin Defense Fund via PP, just PM me for the email address.

There were two members who PM'ed me earlier this month, but I lost the PM's. Could you please PM me again. Thanks all.

LAK Supply
09-19-2007, 9:37 PM
Could the case be dumped by the court if the prosecutor keeps doing no-shows?

I'm no expert by any means, but it seems to me that the best outcome would be a RULING in favor of the good guys. Bugs me that the prosecutor could do this, and stretch out the tension for you guys.

When it's over, can YOU sue THEM?? IF this is supposed to be a fair society, it seems a little "turnabout" is in order!!

Yes..... this could have an impact on the case. In the Modesto case the judge finally became tired of the fact that nobody could show up and explain why the defendant's behavior was illegal, so he finally tossed the case. In that particular instance the DDA showed up every time, but the DOJ "expert" couldn't seem to get there or submit any kind of proof, and the DDA couldn't seem to come up with any evidence of criminal action or intent.

mcubed4130
09-19-2007, 10:54 PM
The question still remains, can we counter-sue. In any or all of these cases, where the accused - has their case dropped, but obviously has had their livelihoods messed with, as well as the massive legal bills to boot.

-M3

E Pluribus Unum
09-20-2007, 12:24 AM
The question still remains, can we counter-sue. In any or all of these cases, where the accused - has their case dropped, but obviously has had their livelihoods messed with, as well as the massive legal bills to boot.

-M3

Short answer... No

I was arrested for something that was perfectly legal... lost $2500 in legal fees eventhough it was all dismissed.... asked about suing and found out about "Mistake of law" protection.... they only have to establish that it was reasonable that the officer THOUGHT the law was being broken... whether it actually was or not.


As far as malicious prosecution.... if it is established that a DA is filing charges knowing that said charges are unfounded... that is malicious prosecution.... VERY hard to prove on a single case... all these cases are in different jurisdictions.... theoretically they are given an oops but once it is established they know the law it might be easier to prove the case...


this of course is my ignorant opinion.

E Pluribus Unum
09-20-2007, 12:29 AM
The hearing was yesterday (Sept. 10). There is news, of a sort, but I need to check with Chuck or Joe to see what I can release.

Short, minimal answer is this: The hearing was again postponed, and Matt needs more money. So far, we at calguns have raised about $20,000. Before yesterday's business, the bill came to about $26,600, so he "only" needed $6,600. That total will be a little higher today, but I don't yet know by how much.

Yesterday's developments were very interesting, but I don't want to post anything without checking with counsel. If you've been following the Modesto case, you will be tempted to speculate on this one. Please don't, at least not on this public forum!

Chuck, Joe, or I will post details as soon as possible.

This was a week ago... you are basically saying "It was postponed, he needs money...... something really cool happened but let me talk to them.

OK, here's a quick update. On Sept. 10, Matt was scheduled to have a hearing to decide what to do with the rifle charges, but the prosecuting attorney didn't show up. The hearing got postponed again. I don't have the new date, but the usual procedure is to postpone for about four weeks. The new date will probably be in the middle of October. I will post the actual date when I have it.

Now you say, "The cool thing I told you about is this: It was postponed, and he needs more money"


Am I the only one that thinks something is missing? :)

E Pluribus Unum
09-20-2007, 12:33 AM
Oh yeah people.... WE DO NOT WANT THIS TO BE DISMISSED!!

Matthew Corwin may want it to just go away... WE do not... we want Matt to FIGHT IT TO THE END AND WIN... that is the ONLY way it helps us. If the charges are dropped... the DA is free to do this to someone else and the $30k is wasted. This is not about saving Matthew... if it were about saving Matthew then he would have taken a plea deal.

This is about saving EVERYONE..... Matthew is like Jesus... he is puting his FUTURE on the line to insure the gun rights of EVERYONE in California.

How many of you would be willing to do that?

Thank you Matt for risking your arse to make it better on all of us!

P.S.
Please stay dedicated.... stay on top of this thing.... beat it and earn your legacy for future gun owners everywhere.

hoffmang
09-20-2007, 10:06 AM
EPU,

Relax. The right outcome here is for charges to be dropped. Please think through what all these cases (with charges dropped) add up to?

Also, Damn Straight BWO needs money. Keep sending it. It would be nice to be ahead of the legal bill 8 ball instead of behind it. Dropped charges here cement the legality of bullet buttons and a whole lot else. Yes its not prudential, and no that doesn't matter. Other DA's will not prosecute when they're handed the thicker stack of paper with yet another "charges dropped" in it.

There are other ways that will be pursued to make these prosecutions stop.

-Gene

mcubed4130
09-20-2007, 5:23 PM
...

There are other ways that will be pursued to make these prosecutions stop.

-Gene

Personally I don't care how they stop but they need to stop.

And methods to take care of those of us who have had to fight the system alone - need to be helped by all of us - as we are all at risk with a corrupt government.

Payday is soon - more $$ for Matthew will be sent as soon as I get it.

-M3

E Pluribus Unum
09-20-2007, 6:38 PM
EPU,

Relax. The right outcome here is for charges to be dropped. Please think through what all these cases (with charges dropped) add up to?

Also, Damn Straight BWO needs money. Keep sending it. It would be nice to be ahead of the legal bill 8 ball instead of behind it. Dropped charges here cement the legality of bullet buttons and a whole lot else. Yes its not prudential, and no that doesn't matter. Other DA's will not prosecute when they're handed the thicker stack of paper with yet another "charges dropped" in it.

There are other ways that will be pursued to make these prosecutions stop.

-Gene

If charged are dropped... then any other DA in any other court could file the charges against someone else... if he fights it and wins... his case can be used elsewhere to stop charges before it goes to trial.

bwiese
09-20-2007, 6:47 PM
If charged are dropped... then any other DA in any other court could file the charges against someone else... if he fights it and wins... his case can be used elsewhere to stop charges before it goes to trial.

Not true whatsoever.

Even when BWO prevails, other DAs in other areas could file. It's unlikely post-BWO that we'll have another one of these. Prosecutions that don't pan out into convictions burn time and $$$, and those won't be repeated (at least to this duration/extent).

For example, I'm pretty confident San Jose won't have another OLL case after the Saiga drama and swimmingpoolguy. But they had to experience that "themselves" and not hear about it from another county. Same way as Modesto: junior DA was left hanging by DOJ and judge kicked it; they won't waste time again.

Trial court decisions are not published. If one county's junior DA hears of something happening in another county, it's simply by accident. Given DA offices spend a very short time on each case, especially perceived 'run of the mill' ones, it's hardly likely they go poking their nose into other counties' results intentionally.

Richie Rich
09-20-2007, 6:59 PM
I will go ahead and kick in a few more $ to the cause..

One thought that has crossed my mind. I would imagine that his lawyers charge him each time that they have to set foot in the courtroom.

Do prosecuters use this as a tactic? Not showing up, delaying, asking for more time etc... Knowing that they could the costs are racking up. Then offer him a plea once they have broken his back financially ?

(Not that we would let that happen in this case)..

Just wondering out loud.....

JALLEN
09-20-2007, 7:27 PM
I will go ahead and kick in a few more $ to the cause..

One thought that has crossed my mind. I would imagine that his lawyers charge him each time that they have to set foot in the courtroom.

Do prosecuters use this as a tactic? Not showing up, delaying, asking for more time etc... Knowing that they could the costs are racking up. Then offer him a plea once they have broken his back financially ?

(Not that we would let that happen in this case)..

Just wondering out loud.....

I doubt is the primary tactic, but surely is a factor in how the prosecutors play their hand. Not showing up is probably not deliberate, at least for the purpose of racking up costs for the defendant... maybe but it doesn't seem likely. Sometimes you find yourself having to be two places at once, etc.

Do they try to break his back, morale and every otherwise? Sure.

When you set out on a case, you can never be sure just how hard and how long the other side can fight, or will. Folks come in hollering "Victory or Death!" then when they see what it costs, change their minds sometimes. Expediency is powerful force. Even the government is not immune and will sometimes conclude that the game isn't worth the candle.

E Pluribus Unum
09-20-2007, 11:42 PM
Not true whatsoever.

Even when BWO prevails, other DAs in other areas could file. It's unlikely post-BWO that we'll have another one of these. Prosecutions that don't pan out into convictions burn time and $$$, and those won't be repeated (at least to this duration/extent).

For example, I'm pretty confident San Jose won't have another OLL case after the Saiga drama and swimmingpoolguy. But they had to experience that "themselves" and not hear about it from another county. Same way as Modesto: junior DA was left hanging by DOJ and judge kicked it; they won't waste time again.

Trial court decisions are not published. If one county's junior DA hears of something happening in another county, it's simply by accident. Given DA offices spend a very short time on each case, especially perceived 'run of the mill' ones, it's hardly likely they go poking their nose into other counties' results intentionally.


First you say I am wrong, and then you offer evidence that proves what I am saying.

Information is not shared between counties... so if one DA has a case flop, other counties never hear about it.

If this case goes to trial, he is found guilty... and then it is overturned in appeal then his case can be used by every other person who gets charged to make the DA drop the charges...

I agree that an acquittal would be similar to a dismissal however.

FreedomIsNotFree
09-21-2007, 12:10 AM
Not all appelate cases are published.

hoffmang
09-21-2007, 1:06 AM
EPU,

The only way to get an appellate decision directly from BWO's case is for him to lose at the trial level.

That's not a good strategy and there are other avenues to take his likely dismissal and use it to spend less legal fee dollars with more impact on all counties in California.

-Gene

artherd
09-21-2007, 2:03 AM
Matt would have to loose at trial at least once, better twice, to achieve precedential status out of his case.

While I think I speak for just about all calgunners in saying that we have Matt's back both financially and spiritually, in seeking no other plea bargin than full dismissal with expungement, I think going any furthur than that without quite a few hundred grand to burn isn't a great plan.

Then again, DOJ should be very careful whom they pick on, many of us have that several hundered grand and a bad taste for law violators.

mcubed4130
09-21-2007, 8:47 AM
Hmm... So...

The LEO is protected; unless they overstep their authority.

The DA is protected; unless they knowingly are trying to prosecute something they know to be legal - in theory due to having been through it before; or being put on notice - i.e. our memo I believe we still haven't sent to the 58 DA's. (no dig, just stating the facts).

This in my mind begs the question of - if it's the CA BOF (DOJ)'s job to train the LEOs; and they don't. And therefore the LEOs act as they think they should; and the DAs act as they think they should. This implies; some number of cases within the state; could be tallied up and a case made directly against the CA BOF; correct?

-M3

Rob P.
09-21-2007, 9:31 AM
Hmm... So...

The LEO is protected; unless they overstep their authority.

The DA is protected; unless they knowingly are trying to prosecute something they know to be legal - in theory due to having been through it before; or being put on notice - i.e. our memo I believe we still haven't sent to the 58 DA's. (no dig, just stating the facts).

This in my mind begs the question of - if it's the CA BOF (DOJ)'s job to train the LEOs; and they don't. And therefore the LEOs act as they think they should; and the DAs act as they think they should. This implies; some number of cases within the state; could be tallied up and a case made directly against the CA BOF; correct?

-M3

In a word - No.

DOJ doesn't do the training and they're not responsible for it. Each county is responsible for training their DA's and county LEO. Each individual city is responsible for training their city LEO. There are stds that they must conform to but the training and cert is up to the individual entities.

Finally, there's a qualified immunity for State officials who are performing their job duties. Even if they do so in a negligent, careless, or stupid manner, they're still immune from suit. They have to step outside the scope of their duties before they become liable. Outside the scope of their duties requires that they KNOWINGLY arrest or prosecute for known legal acts.

Being unskilled/untrained is not "knowingly". It's only negligent, careless, and stupid.

WolfMansDad
09-21-2007, 9:43 AM
I will go ahead and kick in a few more $ to the cause..

One thought that has crossed my mind. I would imagine that his lawyers charge him each time that they have to set foot in the courtroom.

Do prosecuters use this as a tactic? Not showing up, delaying, asking for more time etc... Knowing that they could the costs are racking up. Then offer him a plea once they have broken his back financially ?

(Not that we would let that happen in this case)..

Just wondering out loud.....

When the prosecuting attorney doesn't show up it wastes everybody's time, and it does indeed cost money for the defense. When you hire an attorney, you have to pay for their time even if the other guy doesn't show up. That's standard practice. The no-show the other day cost Matt a few thousand dollars.

Are they doing it on purpose, just to try and burn through Matt's funds? I doubt it, given how damaging a no-show usually is to the prosecution's case.

Now, before we get too excited over the prosecution's failure to appear, a single no-sho doesn't automatically kill their case. On the day of Matt's hearing, the prosecuting attorney was in another trial that went into overtime. While this doesn't look good for them, it won't necessarily lead to a dismissal, either. The modesto case was thrown out, as I understand it, after a PATTERN of no-shows and failure to present evidence.

As I said, we're winning, but the fight isn't over yet.

E Pluribus Unum
09-21-2007, 10:55 AM
In a word - No.

DOJ doesn't do the training and they're not responsible for it. Each county is responsible for training their DA's and county LEO. Each individual city is responsible for training their city LEO. There are stds that they must conform to but the training and cert is up to the individual entities.

Finally, there's a qualified immunity for State officials who are performing their job duties. Even if they do so in a negligent, careless, or stupid manner, they're still immune from suit. They have to step outside the scope of their duties before they become liable. Outside the scope of their duties requires that they KNOWINGLY arrest or prosecute for known legal acts.

Being unskilled/untrained is not "knowingly". It's only negligent, careless, and stupid.


I went through this discussion with another member.... think of it this way:

An officer thinks it is illegal for you to carry a concealed unloaded handgun without a CCW on your way to a hunt. It is actually perfectly legal. The officer sees the gun and tries to arrest you for something that is perfectly legal. Can you resist the arrest?

Theoretically it should be legal to resist any unlawful arrest even if that arrest is done by a peace officer. If I were a police officer and new that someone could legally shoot me to resist my illegal arrest I would make DARN sure what the law said.

formerTexan
09-21-2007, 12:23 PM
In a word - No.

DOJ doesn't do the training and they're not responsible for it. Each county is responsible for training their DA's and county LEO. Each individual city is responsible for training their city LEO. There are stds that they must conform to but the training and cert is up to the individual entities.

Finally, there's a qualified immunity for State officials who are performing their job duties. Even if they do so in a negligent, careless, or stupid manner, they're still immune from suit. They have to step outside the scope of their duties before they become liable. Outside the scope of their duties requires that they KNOWINGLY arrest or prosecute for known legal acts.

Being unskilled/untrained is not "knowingly". It's only negligent, careless, and stupid.

From the DOJ AG's own page (http://ag.ca.gov/ag/index.php):

The Attorney General also assists district attorneys, local law enforcement, and federal and international criminal justice agencies in the administration of justice. To support California's law enforcement community, the Attorney General coordinates statewide narcotics enforcement efforts, participates in criminal investigations and provides forensic science services, identification and information services and telecommunication support.

And from the BoFfers (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/):
The Bureau of Firearms serves the people of California through education, regulation, and enforcement actions regarding the manufacture, sales, ownership, safety training, and transfer of firearms. Bureau of Firearms staff will be leaders in providing firearms expertise and information to law enforcement, legislators, and the general public in a comprehensive program to promote legitimate and responsible firearms possession and use by California residents.

Also, from previous cases, the DOJ/BOF have left DAs hanging with regards to what/how to charge in cases where an OLL is "mistaken" for a Kali-AW. Doesn't the DA, at that point, should just drop the charges when they can't get the support they need (should get) from BOF when dealing with firearm related charges?

With all that said, isn't the DOJ then have been negligent post-Harrott?

mcubed4130
09-21-2007, 1:09 PM
...
With all that said, isn't the DOJ then have been negligent post-Harrott?

Certainly sounds like "negligent" - would be one of the nicer terms to use... in what has appeared to be a well thought out campaign of F.U.D. on the part of the CA BOF (DOJ).

I wonder if RICO statutes could be applied here... Some of the accounts of things CA BOF (DOJ) have done, would probably fit.

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

-M3

mcubed4130
09-25-2007, 5:55 PM
...
Payday is soon - more $$ for Matthew will be sent as soon as I get it.

-M3

Additional funds sent for Matt. PM'd amount to WolfMansDad

-M3

69Mach1
09-25-2007, 7:19 PM
Got a few more requests to donate via Paypal. Anyone else? Just PM if you're interested. Thanks.

artherd
09-26-2007, 8:30 PM
With all that said, isn't the DOJ then have been negligent post-Harrott?

The wrods you are looking for are: "Willful, Knowing, Overt and Egregious."

69Mach1
10-02-2007, 9:39 AM
Thanks to all that donated through paypal. I'll mail a check out this weekend. Anyone else interested in donating with their paypal account, please PM me.

pullnshoot25
10-02-2007, 2:04 PM
Can we send it right to the law firm? I have 100 smackers waiting for him.

jmlivingston
10-02-2007, 3:09 PM
On Sept. 10, Matt was scheduled to have a hearing to decide what to do with the rifle charges, but the prosecuting attorney didn't show up. The hearing got postponed again. I don't have the new date, but the usual procedure is to postpone for about four weeks. The new date will probably be in the middle of October. I will post the actual date when I have it.


Does anyone know yet what the new date is?

John

C.G.
10-02-2007, 3:30 PM
Can we send it right to the law firm? I have 100 smackers waiting for him.
Yes, you can. Here's the info:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=57189

69Mach1
10-06-2007, 7:04 PM
Combined check mailed out today.

FreedomIsNotFree
10-11-2007, 3:24 PM
In a word - No.

DOJ doesn't do the training and they're not responsible for it. Each county is responsible for training their DA's and county LEO. Each individual city is responsible for training their city LEO. There are stds that they must conform to but the training and cert is up to the individual entities.

Finally, there's a qualified immunity for State officials who are performing their job duties. Even if they do so in a negligent, careless, or stupid manner, they're still immune from suit. They have to step outside the scope of their duties before they become liable. Outside the scope of their duties requires that they KNOWINGLY arrest or prosecute for known legal acts.

Being unskilled/untrained is not "knowingly". It's only negligent, careless, and stupid.

They can still be sued in Federal Court for 1983 violations.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
MACKINNEY v NIELSEN


To succeed, a S 1983 plaintiff must show that there is a direct link between the city policy and the constitutional violation. Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). The plaintiff can show this link by proving that the policy itself is unconstitutional or that the city made a "deliberate" or "conscious" choice to fail to train its employees adequately. Id. at 389.


Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.


Not that I think BWO's case rises to this level, but with a proper legal notice given to Law Enforcement it sure could.

rkt88edmo
10-15-2007, 10:25 AM
Thread continues here:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=72038