PDA

View Full Version : R.I.P. Nordyke v King


Lex Arma
01-07-2013, 6:54 AM
It's been a long hard fight. SCOTUS denied certiorari today on the request for a hearing on damages and attorney fees.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010713zor_5426.pdf

On the bright side, see you all at the next Pleasanton Gun Show in Alameda County.

Hopi
01-07-2013, 7:07 AM
Thanks to you and the Nordykes for all of the hard work!!

Stonewalker
01-07-2013, 7:09 AM
What a crock this has been. Thank you for your 12 (or is it 13 now?) years of blood, sweat, and tears on this case Don. Looking forward to your work ahead. Godspeed!

dieselpower
01-07-2013, 7:12 AM
It was a fight worth fighting. Thanks to all.

wilit
01-07-2013, 7:16 AM
I'll make sure to support them by attending every show possible.

Sent from the depths of the S3 Galaxy via Tapatalk 2

ptoguy2002
01-07-2013, 7:59 AM
Thank you for your work.

OleCuss
01-07-2013, 8:06 AM
The work is appreciated. The shafting by the governments is not appreciated.

My thanks to Lex Arma and the Nordykes!

fizux
01-07-2013, 8:09 AM
Thanks for your hard work on this case.

NoJoke
01-07-2013, 8:21 AM
:beer::beer:

383green
01-07-2013, 8:36 AM
Thank you and the Nordykes very much for all of your tireless work!

winnre
01-07-2013, 9:20 AM
Cliff Notes for us late comers?

IVC
01-07-2013, 9:37 AM
At least we're now done with all the "pending Nordyke" delay tactics :).

Aidenpeacemaker
01-07-2013, 10:11 AM
Will this allow future gun shows in the LA county?? Pomona?? I am sorry for noob question

CCWFacts
01-07-2013, 10:27 AM
Thanks for staying in such a long fight and never giving up. Sometimes you win, sometimes you come to a draw. IANAL but my understanding is that Nordyke ended in a draw basically? I wish you could have recovered your fees.

Everyone, this is why the gun rights orgs need our $$$. Sometimes there's a big pay-out at the end to cover all the fees, and sometimes there isn't, and these things are never completely predictable. The attorneys in this fight (on our side) are not doing it for the money.

Lex Arma
01-07-2013, 10:41 AM
Don: Please correct the title of this thread. As far as I know, Mr. and Mrs. Nordyke are alive and well, unlike Mr. Noveske. Having this title will give people an unnecessary scare.

Done. Thanx.

Window_Seat
01-07-2013, 10:41 AM
THANK YOU Don, Sallie, Russell, and everyone involved for a long hard fight.

It's priceless when we have certain rights that cannot be infringed because of your dedication.

Erik.

Librarian
01-07-2013, 10:55 AM
Cliff Notes for us late comers?

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Nordyke_v._King

Wiki will be updated later today.

Darn, that was a long slog.

bwiese
01-07-2013, 11:00 AM
Don

Thanks to you, as well as Sallie, Russel & the gang for carrying on so long.

For other readers here who may not be aware, I just want to say this case allowed Don (at least for a few
months before en banc) TO BE THE FIRST PERSON IN HISTORY THAT 'INCORPORATED' THE 2nd AMENDMENT.

I dunno if ABA has a 'badge' for that (probably not, given the subject!) but you're "In the Books".


On the bright side, see you all at the next Pleasanton Gun Show in Alameda County.

And that's what it's really all about - that's the win.

We're gonna have to mob this show "just 'cuz" - though given the last few weeks of gun purchasing context, that shouldn't be too hard to achieve.

goober
01-07-2013, 11:01 AM
Thank you Don, the Nordykes, and everyone that worked so hard on this case for so long.
Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

Gunlawyer
01-07-2013, 12:44 PM
I want to shout out a heartfelt thank you for your tireless work on this case. That is dedication to the cause indeed and its much appeciated by all. The 9th circuit denials and sidestepping of some issues not so much. However this paves the way and shows that we will not roll over so just for that alone its a win. Good job. Arms are borne so laws may rule!

tintguy
01-07-2013, 12:50 PM
Thanks Don for all the hard work you have done. Now please go take a well deserve vacation if time permits. When you get back please look into my case. I've been diligently waiting. :)

tackdriver
01-07-2013, 1:05 PM
Anyone know who attorney Huntley is (very bottom) and why he is being disbarred??

Quser.619
01-07-2013, 1:30 PM
Wow that which seemed to never end, has. May we all not live in such interesting times. Am looking forward to some of the cases that are on hold moving further up the court levels & some much anticipated victories on our side.

Thanks to all who held up the fight for way too long, your efforts were/are inspirational to us all!

trashman
01-07-2013, 1:48 PM
Thanks for all the years of hard work, Don - I look forward to attending the next show!

--Neill

vincnet11
01-07-2013, 4:39 PM
Kinda confused with the reactions, did they win or lose the case? Is there really a gun show in Pleasanton?

E Pluribus Unum
01-07-2013, 4:53 PM
Cliff Notes for us late comers?

Here is the meat (but no potatoes) of it as I understand it:

Alameda County made it basically impossible to hold a gun show. For 12 years it went back and forth in the 9th circuit court. The Nordykes temporarily "lost"... but then the Heller federal case breathed new life into the case, and they fought it out some more. The Nordykes won. Then, because of a rarely-excercised right of the court to hear a case "en banc", (more judges than the 3 judge panel that is normal), that win was vacated (set asside). Then, when it was time to re-argue the case in front of the larger panel of judges, Alameda county surrendered wihtout a fight.... in Oral arguments, they conceded their case to avoid the court ruling once again for the Nordykes, thereby gaining a case to cite in future lawsuits.

After all of this BS, the Nordykes (and Don) tried to get the court to force Alameda county to pay for some attorney fees for dragging it on for several years for no reason... the court denied the motion, so they appealed that denial and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

So... basically... a chicken-snit move by Alameda county robbed Don out of millions of dollars in lost revenue, the Nordykes out of a victory, and the entire gun community a case win that could have been cited in the future.

glock7
01-07-2013, 5:03 PM
Congrats for all of the hard work!

kcbrown
01-07-2013, 5:09 PM
Don, you and the Nordykes have my heartfelt thanks for being willing to go the distance for our right to keep and bear arms, and for the incredible effort you went through here.

That the Supreme Court declined cert sadly comes as no surprise to me, and I am quite unhappy with the implications of that for us. But it certainly wasn't for lack of trying!

Keep fighting the good fight, sir!

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-07-2013, 5:55 PM
The Nordykes won.

:laugh:

Here is a quiz, which is from 2007 and which is from 2012? This:

Additionally, the exception contains the unqualified word, “event,” that preserves the possibility that any number of events can satisfy the exception provided that the firearms are secured when not in the actual possession of the participant, including Plaintiffs’ gun shows.

or this:

Moreover, the County affirmatively asserts that Plaintiffs, when conducting a gun show, may offer firearms for sale with the requirement that, when a “firearm is not in the actual possession of the authorized participant,” the firearm must be “secured to prevent unauthorized use.”


6 years of appeals and they "won" exactly the same thing they already had when they started! :laugh:

curtisfong
01-07-2013, 6:09 PM
Fabio, any chance you'll help preserve the GCC gun show?

curtisfong
01-07-2013, 6:09 PM
Fabio, any chance you'll help preserve the GCC gun show?

Lex Arma
01-07-2013, 6:21 PM
:laugh:

Here is a quiz, which is from 2007 and which is from 2012? This:



or this:




6 years of appeals and they "won" exactly the same thing they already had when they started! :laugh:

That was neither my take, nor Judge O'Scannlain's (the judge who presided over the the case since 1999) take on when the County capitulated.

Of course you are entitled to enjoy the taste of government boot polish. I never acquired the taste myself.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-07-2013, 6:22 PM
Fabio, any chance you'll help preserve the GCC gun show?

Only if they sell beanie babies there! :seeya:

thedrickel
01-07-2013, 8:27 PM
RIP

When is the show?

Steyr_223
01-07-2013, 8:43 PM
Congrats! I remember the Alameda county fairgrounds shows well. Now let's bring back the San Mateo fairgrounds gun shows too.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-07-2013, 9:04 PM
That was neither my take, nor Judge O'Scannlain's (the judge who presided over the the case since 1999) take on when the County capitulated.

Well I think it can be safely said that after 6 plus years of appeals and nearly a million dollars in fees and lost profits, it has been conclusively determined that both of you were wrong.

wildhawker
01-07-2013, 9:16 PM
Well I think it can be safely said that after 6 plus years of appeals and nearly a million dollars in fees and lost profits, it has been conclusively determined that both of you were wrong.

Right. Because every petition not granted had no merit.

nicki
01-07-2013, 9:17 PM
It was a crap shoot to go to the SCOTUS and sometimes the "dice" just don't roll your way, but if you don't try, the dice will never role your way.

Right now our side is going through a filtering process where we are seperating the "civil rights folks" from the "hobbyists and sportspersons".

Don took the case on principle, something that many people sadly are lacking.

Don, I know this is a huge letdown, but you did what few others would do because unlike others, you are a pitbull and you stick with your principles and your beliefs.

Don just got beaten down really bad, as a community our response should be supportive because if any of us got beaten down, we would want people to help us up.

Nicki

E Pluribus Unum
01-07-2013, 9:20 PM
Well I think it can be safely said that after 6 plus years of appeals and nearly a million dollars in fees and lost profits, it has been conclusively determined that both of you were wrong.


http://s3.amazonaws.com/poopsign/1poop.jpg

trashman
01-07-2013, 9:43 PM
Well I think it can be safely said that after 6 plus years of appeals and nearly a million dollars in fees and lost profits, it has been conclusively determined that both of you were wrong.

Congratulations on your .... Uh....your...efforts to.....advance the cause of legal snark! You have really worn out the sidelines on this one.

Any chance you might pitch in to help the overall RKBA movement now that the case is done?

--neill

mud99
01-07-2013, 10:43 PM
Someone should start one of those whitehouse.gov petitions to get scotus to reconsider this.

E Pluribus Unum
01-07-2013, 11:34 PM
Someone should start one of those whitehouse.gov petitions to get scotus to reconsider this.

Whether the SCOTUS hears it or not will not effect gun rights. The appeal was on the denial of attorney's fees.... a win at SCOTUS would only insure the good guys get paid for over a decade of hard work. The title is correct: RIP because people could care less if an attorney gets paid... even if he is a really cool guy, and especially if tax money is going to pay him...

Lex Arma
01-08-2013, 4:52 AM
Well I think it can be safely said that after 6 plus years of appeals and nearly a million dollars in fees and lost profits, it has been conclusively determined that both of you were wrong.

Again, I am amazed that you find "safety" in the lack of due process for the "determination" that Judge O'Scannlain and I were wrong. Furthermore, the case went on for 12 years, while your theory of the case is that the county capitulated after 6. So why did the court deny a hearing for losses during those first six years?

Finally, losing a court case is not the same as being wrong.

GM4spd
01-08-2013, 5:13 AM
:




6 years of appeals and they "won" exactly the same thing they already had when they started! :laugh:


I thought he was right about this. I never understood this case going forward. Pete

billmaykafer
01-08-2013, 5:21 AM
makes me glad to have Don on our side. pitbull.

vmwerks
01-08-2013, 5:35 AM
Again, I am amazed that you find "safety" in the lack of due process for the "determination" that Judge O'Scannlain and I were wrong. Furthermore, the case went on for 12 years, while your theory of the case is that the county capitulated after 6. So why did the court deny a hearing for losses during those first six years?

Finally, losing a court case is not the same as being wrong.

Please use small words.. may I suggest anything under 3 letters?

Don thank you for all your hard work, SOME of us appreciate your efforts and regret your lack of well earned fees.

Mute
01-08-2013, 6:59 AM
Thanks to all those who endured this travesty of the legal system for our 2A rights. This is disgraceful.

sfpcservice
01-08-2013, 8:22 AM
Any way to find out how much the county spent on this fiasco, only to say at the last minute that "we never said they couldn't be tethered..."

Could be useful in the next election cycle?

SWalt
01-08-2013, 8:50 AM
Thanks for all the hard work!

Crom
01-08-2013, 8:55 AM
Regardless of the final outcome the case, it is historic nonetheless. The case has survived all this time during which the entire body of modern 2A law was developed. It's remarkable in its own right. And let's not forget that it was Don who argued successfully and helped incorporated the 2A right through the due process clause of the 14 Amendment in Nordyke v. King, 563 F. 3d 439 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2009. This gave rise to many of the CGF cases which are still ongoing. The path forged was the same that was followed succesfully in McDonald.

I think it can be said that only two lawyers in American history can say that they have done that.

My hat is off to you Don. :)

fizux
01-09-2013, 6:05 AM
:laugh:

Here is a quiz, which is from 2007 and which is from 2012? This:



or this:




6 years of appeals and they "won" exactly the same thing they already had when they started! :laugh:

Fabio,

It's been a little while since I've seen you post. Welcome back from the holidays.

Your quotes are readily distinguished.
Before:
"... the unqualified word, “event,” that preserves the possibility ... including Plaintiffs’ gun shows."

After:
"... the County affirmatively asserts that Plaintiffs, when conducting a gun show ..."

The difference would be clearer if you included this language in the latter:
"The County represents that a sturdy cable attaching the firearm to a fixture, such as a table, would suffice ..."
This is a gross departure from the county's prior stance. You wouldn't buy a beanie baby if you couldn't see it first because it was offsite in a DOJ approved opaque container, would you?

The plaintiffs got the relief they wanted. The county is now required to interpret their own ordinance in such a manner as to allow gun shows to be conducted with firearms available to be fondled by prospective customers. I would call that a "win."

The attorney fees are only at issue after the merits are decided. If you "win" a personal injury case but don't get attorney fees, is that suddenly a loss?

You are welcome to criticize, but many of us realize this wasn't a victory by default in a super gun-friendly jurisdiction. Lex Arma did a phenomenal job on a protracted nightmare of a case, battling Sauron in the depths of Mordor.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-09-2013, 6:59 AM
The difference would be clearer if you included this language in the latter:
"The County represents that a sturdy cable attaching the firearm to a fixture, such as a table, would suffice ..."
This is a gross departure from the county's prior stance.

Not at all. Refer to the laundry list here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8299625&postcount=830).

The plaintiffs got the relief they wanted.

Strangely, the plaintiffs never argued "gun shows ok with guns secured," they appealed that very determination in 2007, and fought that interpretation to the bitter end lol. If they really wanted gun shows with guns secured, this case could have been over 13 years ago with a simple declaratory relief action. This was a farce and collossal waste of judicial resources IMO.

fizux
01-09-2013, 11:06 AM
Not at all. Refer to the laundry list here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8299625&postcount=830).

Strangely, the plaintiffs never argued "gun shows ok with guns secured," they appealed that very determination in 2007, and fought that interpretation to the bitter end lol. If they really wanted gun shows with guns secured, this case could have been over 13 years ago with a simple declaratory relief action. This was a farce and collossal waste of judicial resources IMO.

Just because it is proposed in an oral argument or a brief does not make it so. Despite your laundry list, Alameda County's implementation of their ordinance did not allow the Nordyke's to reserve the fairgrounds unless they agreed that the gun show would take place with "no guns present." They argued on January 15, 2009, that the actual transfer of firearms could take place off county property, which of course violates the requirement that transfers take place on premises or at licensed gun shows. It is common practice to cable guns to the table at quite a few gun shows that I have attended, but that was not acceptable to Alameda until after the oral argument.

For instance, if an attorney representing an official of the State of California indicates in oral argument that part of the "very meaningful" ability to exercise 2nd amendment rights includes the right to carry on private property that I own or have permission of the owner, does that suddenly mean I can carry in publicly accessible private property like my front yard, or in HOA common areas where I am a part owner, or a parking lot with permission?

Your position necessarily eliminates all "as applied" challenges, because the challenged ordinance/statute could be applied in a constitutional manner; however, we should disregard that it is applied unconstitutionally in practice until after the oral argument.

It is unrealistic to imposing some sort of requirement that Plaintiff should have somehow divined that cables would be acceptable in light of Alameda's position that nothing short of "off site" was acceptable in practice. Even if they had asked that exact particular question, the response in 2007 would have been something similar to "what part of 'NO' don't you understand?"

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-09-2013, 1:13 PM
Just because it is proposed in an oral argument or a brief does not make it so.

When you argue an interpretation in a motion for summary judgment, and the court grants the motion and adopts your interpretation, it kinda does lol.

Despite your laundry list, Alameda County's implementation of their ordinance did not allow the Nordyke's to reserve the fairgrounds unless they agreed that the gun show would take place with "no guns present."

When, in August 1999 before the ordinance was amended to include the secured guns exception?

They argued on January 15, 2009, that the actual transfer of firearms could take place off county property, which of course violates the requirement that transfers take place on premises or at licensed gun shows

You might want to quote what was actually said with a little more precision, and in context (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8254829&postcount=587), i.e., answering a direct question posed by one of the panel judges who had bought into the plaintiffs' "no guns, no exception" interpretation. The county consistently argued during that hearing that the Nordykes could have guns shows with guns secured, which means, obviously, gun shows with guns present and secured if not in the immediate possession of participants.

It is common practice to cable guns to the table at quite a few gun shows that I have attended, but that was not acceptable to Alameda until after the oral argument.

Which oral argument? It was the county that said, at the first en banc hearing, that cabling guns to the table would meet the secured guns exception. Perhaps you meant that guns cabled to the table were not acceptable to the Nordykes lol:

"The answer is no, we cannot conduct a gun show with guns tethered to the tables. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=R57JJPfTNLE#t=3539s)"

"We cannot run a gun show with guns cabled to a...to a table your honor. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=R57JJPfTNLE#t=3635s)"

If gun shows with guns cabled to tables was what the Nordykes wanted all along, that might have been an appropriate time to say so lol.

It is unrealistic to imposing some sort of requirement that Plaintiff should have somehow divined that cables would be acceptable in light of Alameda's position that nothing short of "off site" was acceptable in practice. Even if they had asked that exact particular question, the response in 2007 would have been something similar to "what part of 'NO' don't you understand?"

They never bothered to ask, did they? Nor did they take any initiative whatsoever to propose it. That was because it wasn't what they wanted, despite their now claiming that this was some big "win."

In 2010 the county attorney called the plaintiffs' attorney to talk about how the plaintiffs would like to secure guns at their gun shows but the plaintiffs' attorney hung up on him (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8694964&postcount=162). :laugh: This particular exchange in the briefs filed after last year's en banc hearing could not be any more embarassing.

Reality check: even when the original panel was sold on "no guns, no exception," this case was a loser. The Nordykes never wanted guns shows with guns cabled to the table, and nobody whose decision matters agreed that this was a "win."

Lex Arma
01-09-2013, 3:28 PM
When you argue an interpretation in a motion for summary judgment, and the court grants the motion and adopts your interpretation, it kinda does lol.



When, in August 1999 before the ordinance was amended to include the secured guns exception?



You might want to quote what was actually said with a little more precision, and in context (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8254829&postcount=587), i.e., answering a direct question posed by one of the panel judges who had bought into the plaintiffs' "no guns, no exception" interpretation. The county consistently argued during that hearing that the Nordykes could have guns shows with guns secured, which means, obviously, gun shows with guns present and secured if not in the immediate possession of participants.



Which oral argument? It was the county that said, at the first en banc hearing, that cabling guns to the table would meet the secured guns exception. Perhaps you meant that guns cabled to the table were not acceptable to the Nordykes lol:

"The answer is no, we cannot conduct a gun show with guns tethered to the tables. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=R57JJPfTNLE#t=3539s)"

"We cannot run a gun show with guns cabled to a...to a table your honor. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=R57JJPfTNLE#t=3635s)"

If gun shows with guns cabled to tables was what the Nordykes wanted all along, that might have been an appropriate time to say so lol.



They never bothered to ask, did they? Nor did they take any initiative whatsoever to propose it. That was because it wasn't what they wanted, despite their now claiming that this was some big "win."

In 2010 the county attorney called the plaintiffs' attorney to talk about how the plaintiffs would like to secure guns at their gun shows but the plaintiffs' attorney hung up on him (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8694964&postcount=162). :laugh: This particular exchange in the briefs filed after last year's en banc hearing could not be any more embarassing.

Reality check: even when the original panel was sold on "no guns, no exception," this case was a loser. The Nordykes never wanted guns shows with guns cabled to the table, and nobody whose decision matters agreed that this was a "win."

Just like the County, you are cherry picking facts. The JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS for the summary judgment stipulated that County Counsel (Richard Winnie) was the only Alameda official authorized to interpret the ordinance. His interpretation in 1999 (after the amendment for secured guns), which has never been modified, was that no guns could be present at gun shows held at the fairgrounds.

That is a completely different set of facts from the Court holding a party to an interpretation of the law made by outside counsel in the Court of Appeals after the close of evidence.

This is simple, the Ninth Circuit hated this case. The County gave them an excuse to shut it down and they took it.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-09-2013, 3:46 PM
The JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS for the summary judgment stipulated that County Counsel (Richard Winnie) was the only Alameda official authorized to interpret the ordinance.

i'll bet you 5 bucks it doesnt say that lol.

Blackhawk556
01-09-2013, 3:48 PM
Fabio is the smart annoying child you love to hate. Is it still a mystery who he is?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-09-2013, 4:49 PM
It's becoming even more clear how weighty a role the super lame "county counsel said this in 1999 and he is authorized to interpret the ordinance and its in the joint statement so the county is stuck with that interpretation forever" argument played in the decision to litigate this stinker for more than a decade. It's the fallback in every discussion on calguns and also when the case was circling the drain at the en banc hearing. The judges were like "so what?" lol. Which is the response that any judge in their right mind would have.

putput
01-09-2013, 4:57 PM
And you got your clients their gun shows back. With guns. Nice work and thanks.


Just like the County, you are cherry picking facts. The JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS for the summary judgment stipulated that County Counsel (Richard Winnie) was the only Alameda official authorized to interpret the ordinance. His interpretation in 1999 (after the amendment for secured guns), which has never been modified, was that no guns could be present at gun shows held at the fairgrounds.

That is a completely different set of facts from the Court holding a party to an interpretation of the law made by outside counsel in the Court of Appeals after the close of evidence.

This is simple, the Ninth Circuit hated this case. The County gave them an excuse to shut it down and they took it.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-09-2013, 5:04 PM
And you got your clients their gun shows back. With guns. Nice work and thanks.

The clients had this if they wanted it in 2006. They had it again in 2012, after 6 more years of litigation and about a million dollars in fees and lost profits (and don't forget that nearly all that time they didn't have gun shows with guns lol). Not what I would call a good bang for your buck! :laugh:

putput
01-09-2013, 5:13 PM
But now they're going to have their gun shows with guns. Aren't they?



The clients had this if they wanted it in 2006. They had it again in 2012, after 6 more years of litigation and about a million dollars in fees and lost profits (and don't forget that nearly all that time they didn't have gun shows with guns lol). Not what I would call a good bang for your buck! :laugh:

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-09-2013, 5:20 PM
Cant argue with that observation lol!

Ferrum
01-09-2013, 5:35 PM
Regardless of the legal nuances, I respect the time you put into this.

Based on all of the posts, I am making a Summary Judgment to say it was a worth while effort (that my $2 lawyer word of the day, sponsored by Denny Crane).

Wished it would have went the other way for you! You deserve to be compensated for your time!

fizux
01-09-2013, 9:09 PM
The clients had this if they wanted it in 2006. They had it again in 2012, after 6 more years of litigation and about a million dollars in fees and lost profits (and don't forget that nearly all that time they didn't have gun shows with guns lol). Not what I would call a good bang for your buck! :laugh:

Alameda responded to spec rogs under penalty of perjury, and stipulated on 9/1/2006 in a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (fact #88) that county counsel was the proper person to interpret the ordinance. Can you point to an interpretation from county counsel in or about 2006 that contradicted the existing "no guns" interpretation? Appellate lawyer bloviations don't clear the bank when they are contradicted by the official position of the county. A lawyer's one liner hypothetical taken out of context isn't the same as reserving the fairgrounds and actually having a gun show.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-10-2013, 6:10 AM
Alameda responded to spec rogs under penalty of perjury, and stipulated on 9/1/2006 in a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (fact #88) that county counsel was the proper person to interpret the ordinance.

Maybe you can quote what the joint statement actually says lol.

jacques
01-10-2013, 7:58 AM
It was a crap shoot to go to the SCOTUS and sometimes the "dice" just don't roll your way, but if you don't try, the dice will never role your way.

Right now our side is going through a filtering process where we are seperating the "civil rights folks" from the "hobbyists and sportspersons".

Don took the case on principle, something that many people sadly are lacking.

Don, I know this is a huge letdown, but you did what few others would do because unlike others, you are a pitbull and you stick with your principles and your beliefs.

Don just got beaten down really bad, as a community our response should be supportive because if any of us got beaten down, we would want people to help us up.

Nicki

Right on nicki.

Thanks Don for all the hard work.!!!!!!! We need fighters in this battle. Not sideline critics. This is a Civil Rights movement not a soccer game.

fizux
01-11-2013, 6:07 PM
Maybe you can quote what the joint statement actually says lol.

The joint statement says: "Fabio evades answering questions when he knows he is wrong. The definitive tell is 'lol.' " (JSUF #123).

It sounds like you have nothing other than your self-serving laundry list. If you had a counterargument, you would have brought it forward. When you can convince anyone that county counsel is not the appropriate person to interpret a county ordinance (subject to judicial review), let me know.

Your beanie babies are safe due to Lex Arma's hard work. Take two seconds and say thank you.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-11-2013, 9:27 PM
The joint statement says: "Fabio evades answering questions when he knows he is wrong. The definitive tell is 'lol.' " (JSUF #123).

One thing at a time lol. First we need to see the exact language from the sacred text which, surprisingly, you haven't provided!

(While you're at it, take a wild guess who represented the county throughout the Nordyke litigation and whose name is on all the pleadings. It's a tough one, I hope you don't strain yourself trying to figure it out. :laugh:)

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-11-2013, 9:45 PM
Ahhh the elusive FGG is finally revealed?

Hmm Mr. Sayre Weaver from Yale, Ct is it. Hmmmmm.

:facepalm:

jpigeon
01-11-2013, 10:10 PM
RIP

wildhawker
01-12-2013, 10:57 AM
JSUF #88 192629.

-Brandon

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-12-2013, 11:49 AM
JSUF #88 192629.

-Brandon

Yep, there it is, in black and white: county counsel is the only official authorized to interpret the ordinance. Oh wait, the JSUF doesn't say that. :laugh: Just for fun, let's assume that's what the JSUF says. Maybe fizux can i.d. the county's attorneys of record in the Nordyke litigation so we can see whether the county's interpretation was "authorized." (By the way, you're not really arguing that the county's interpretation made during litigation was unauthorized, improper, and unofficial are you? Because if you are, it would be the most retarded argument ever made lol.)