PDA

View Full Version : Raulinaitis v. Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department? Good cause CGF involvement.


Gunlawyer
01-08-2013, 11:54 PM
I do not see any comments or following of this big case concerning LA County good cause statements. This seems like a big case with huge impact.

Is CGF involved with this case?

I do not have the cite but here is the opening brief to the 9th.
http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/opening_brief.pdf

Ron-Solo
01-09-2013, 12:16 AM
Meh, it is Jonathan Birdt. He's out of his league. Didn't even get to trial in US District Court. LASD has some top gun attorneys.

CGN & CGF seem to avoid any association with Birdt, for good reason.

Gunlawyer
01-09-2013, 12:26 AM
Well seems they would want to get involved as bad precedent is bad for all. I do not know Mr Birdt or his qualifactions or motives but he is going for itin LA County. I sure hope CGF is getting involved with this case. Perhaps Richards may address it. Idk. As I live in LA County I certainly feel for him and hope he prevails ultimately.

Ron-Solo
01-09-2013, 1:17 AM
I agree that bad precedents can be set, but this may be the kind of case that would be better off not getting heard by the Appeals Court, so bad case law can't be handed out in the matter.

Mr. Birdt is out of his league. Not all lawyers are created equal.

There are better cases for CGF and CGN and their legal eagles to put their time, effort, and money behind.

Gray Peterson
01-09-2013, 1:49 AM
Birdt, the guy who sends me creepy text messages every once in a while....

stix213
01-09-2013, 2:06 AM
I think CGF is hoping this case simply dies while causing the minimum amount of damage.

Also, I am no lawyer but I think it doesn't look good when you have a typo in the first sentence in your opening brief :facepalm:

BRoss
01-09-2013, 2:16 AM
Birdt, the guy who sends me creepy text messages every once in a while....


How fun.

wildhawker
01-09-2013, 2:24 AM
That case is behind Richards v. Prieto at CA9, which has already been argued. The outcome will be determined by whatever CA9/SCOTUS does in the cases farther along.

-Brandon

I do not see any comments or following of this big case concerning LA County good cause statements. This seems like a big case with huge impact.

Is CGF involved with this case?

I do not have the cite but here is the opening brief to the 9th.
http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/opening_brief.pdf

OleCuss
01-09-2013, 5:32 AM
Well seems they would want to get involved as bad precedent is bad for all. I do not know Mr Birdt or his qualifactions or motives but he is going for itin LA County. I sure hope CGF is getting involved with this case. Perhaps Richards may address it. Idk. As I live in LA County I certainly feel for him and hope he prevails ultimately.

I can understand why you would think this.

Mr. Birdt has an interesting history and although I'm generally someone who is urging that our attorneys get along and cooperate despite disagreements and histories, there are at least two where I do not.

Those two are such that I don't see any way that CGF, SAF, NRA, etc. could cooperate with them or be anything but damaged by the attempt.

So as well-meaning and such as they may be, I never urge cooperation with either Gorski or Birdt. I'm quite confident that if you did the rather lengthy searches required to pull up all the info on them on CGN from years past that you would agree.

One other well-meaning individual (but someone who does not understand or compensate for his lack of the relevant ability) is Charles Nichols. Means well (I think) but is way out of his league most of the time you hear from him and has done stuff that I thought highly unethical although I don't doubt he'd disagree with my assessment.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-09-2013, 6:52 AM
Also, I am no lawyer but I think it doesn't look good when you have a typo in the first sentence in your opening brief :facepalm:

Typos can be found in CGF briefs as well, but this brief elevates typos, bad punctuation, and improper and inconsistent capitalization to an art form. Keep in mind there is one and only one defendant in the case:

SIGITAS RAULINAITIS and RIMA RAULINAITIS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
LOS ANGELES SHERIFFS [sic] DEPARTMENT, et. al. [sic], Defendants-Appellees [sic].

No corporate Apellants [sic].

Can an elected official exercise broad discretion and rely solely on public safety concerns, unsupported by any evidence, to abrogate a residents [sic] fundamental Rights under the Second Amendment, based upon the District Courts’ [sic] determination that the Fundamental Rights protected by the Second Amendment are limited to the home?

Appellant [sic] waives [sic] oral argument and their Reply Brief due to the simple and straightforward nature of the matter and the urgency for resolution by this Court.

The District Court granted summary judgments [sic] for Defendants-Appellees [sic] (hereinafter “Appellees” [sic]), and entered judgment in their [sic] favor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on August 13, 2012.

This matter was set for Trial on September 4, 2012, but the District Court granted defendants’ [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment on August 13, 2012 precluding Plaintiff [appellant or plaintiff make up your mind] from seeking redress, despite an absence of any evidence by Defendant [appellee or defendant make up your mind] and substantial evidence presented in opposition to the motion, but not addressed in the Courts’ [sic] ruling granting the Summary Judgment. This case is unique in that Appellants did not file a motion for summary judgment, nor did the district court review or consider any evidence offered in support of or in opposition to the Defense Motion for Summary judgment, and instead relied solely upon Judicial Notice of another District Court Judge [can't judicially notice a judge lol], adopting that Courts’ [sic] finding Public Safety fears alone are sufficient to justify denial of Plaintiffs [sic] fundamental Rights.

Etc.

SanPedroShooter
01-09-2013, 7:45 AM
Did he write 'lol' in there?

Tell me I am seeing things.

Never mind, that was FGG's critique. Right?

Gunlawyer
01-09-2013, 3:09 PM
That case is behind Richards v. Prieto at CA9, which has already been argued. The outcome will be determined by whatever CA9/SCOTUS does in the cases farther along.

-Brandon

Yes that was my thought as well Bradon that I think Richards may likely deal with some of the same issues. We shall see. Putting presurre on LASD is good for me as Im in LAC. Ill follow it along and see where it goes.

To others-Im not going to search the past threads on Mr. Birdt. I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and I dont see anything awefully bad in what he is arguing. I did see some very good depo transcript from the undersheriff from LA saying that he had no evidence that less guns equals less crime so that is very good to pull out.

Thanks for answering.

wildhawker
01-09-2013, 5:08 PM
Richards going our way means that the Birdt cases are remanded. Richards not going our way means the Birdt cases are held on Richards (and Richards may be held on <some other case, Kachalsky perhaps>).

-Brandon

Yes that was my thought as well Bradon that I think Richards may likely deal with some of the same issues. We shall see. Putting presurre on LASD is good for me as Im in LAC. Ill follow it along and see where it goes.

To others-Im not going to search the past threads on Mr. Birdt. I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and I dont see anything awefully bad in what he is arguing. I did see some very good depo transcript from the undersheriff from LA saying that he had no evidence that less guns equals less crime so that is very good to pull out.

Thanks for answering.

Gray Peterson
01-09-2013, 5:53 PM
Yes that was my thought as well Bradon that I think Richards may likely deal with some of the same issues. We shall see. Putting presurre on LASD is good for me as Im in LAC. Ill follow it along and see where it goes.

To others-Im not going to search the past threads on Mr. Birdt. I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and I dont see anything awefully bad in what he is arguing. I did see some very good depo transcript from the undersheriff from LA saying that he had no evidence that less guns equals less crime so that is very good to pull out.

Thanks for answering.

Mr. Birdt was banned from this forum for repeatedly attacking Gene & myself, as well as sending disgusting private messages to me, basically saying that I am or should be performing sexual acts on certain other people. :rolleyes:

As Fabio pointed out (wow, Fabio & me agreeing on something? *looks out the window for flying pigs*), the guy doesn't know civil rights appellate work very well. His entire plan was to somehow leap ahead of Richards by attempting to waive oral argument. Mr. Birdt is under the mistaken belief that Richards would get remanded in light of further proceedings due to the handgun UOC ban. I don't think the 9th Circuit panel of Callahan, O'Scannlain, and Thomas considered that seriously.