PDA

View Full Version : Team Billy Jack Approach


Glock22Fan
08-28-2007, 1:23 PM
TBJ has been criticised in another thread by a person who thought that TBJ should have given more support to their position. So, let me tell you what TBJ's approach is, and isn't (and we are referring only to California).

For the foreseeable future, TBJ does not expect to win any battle fought on the grounds "This is my 2nd Amendment right." We may have sympathy for that view, but, in the light of California court decisions, it simply won't fly. If people want to get involved in movements to alter the California constitution, we wish them well, but will not put any resources into that area.

We have a similar attitude to the belief that California should be "Shall Issue." Yes, of course it should, but again, anyone thinking that that will solve their immediate problems is urinating against the wind.

"You have denied me because I'm green!" That maybe possible, but unless we can demonstrate that Mr. Green has just as good a case as, say, Sylvester Stallone, it's going to be hard to prove. ("We didn't deny you a CCW because you are green, we denied you because your Good Cause wasn't good enough.") And if he has got just as good a case as people who have been granted a CCW, then his color becomes immaterial.

Where we can win considerable ground is fighting the policies of certain Sheriffs and Police Chiefs who think that they can apply the law the way it suits them, to the disadvantage of many of their "less-connected" residents. Sheriffs are required to have a policy for CCW issuance, and they are expected to use it impartially. Our research indicates that many are not impartial, and give preference to their supporters, city managers, prominent people, celebrities and politicians (shock, horror!).

We have several court cases that should be served in Federal Court fairly soon. Preparing these cases has involved a lot of work, much of it from professionals such as private investigators and attorneys. (Paid and volunteer) TBJ associates have spent weeks sitting in law enforcement offices reading through file after file.

This preparation is not cheap. However, the many thousands of pages of information that we have acquired presents compelling evidence that the departments in question are rolling roughshod over the 14th rights of our clients with regard to CCW issuance. With precedents such as Guillory v. Gates, CBS v. Block, Pitchess v. Salute, we have the groundwork that should overwhelmingly lead to decisions in our clients' favor in Federal courts.

We made an announcement earlier this year that we were about to serve a department in central California. This was delayed by the discovery of more and more damning evidence of total misconduct by that department. However, it is certainly getting closer now and there should be an announcement in the not too distant future (no, after last time, I'm not promising dates). We anticipate that at least two other cases will follow fairly shortly thereafter.

We are firm believers in the domino effect. Each and every decision in our favor will rock the establishment. Sheriffs in the more retrenched areas will be forced to think "Will I get away with it if that spotlight is turned on me here?"

Personally, I live in Los Angeles County. No chance whatsoever of getting a CCW. Yet, if I lived a few miles north, or south, or east, or even, maybe, west, I would have a very reasonable chance of getting one. This is what we want to change. Consistency within the law. If Mr "I gave a lot of money to the Sheriff's campaign" can get a CCW for the reason "My Personal Protection," then so should I. This is achievable near term. Other hopes, while laudable, are longer term. We are concentrating our resources on the near-term achievable.

Are there other options? Heck, yes. Feel free to follow your own furrow. We are in a broad and catholic movement. We will eat this whale one bite at a time. Some of us are starting at one end, some at the other. One day we will meet in the middle.

Hope this clarifies our position.

bwiese
08-28-2007, 1:52 PM
TeamBilly,

Good post. This is applicable in a variety of areas, not just CCW.

Dozens of boneheaded idiots keep 'tilting at windmills' in CA trying do defend things or accomplish things based on 2nd Amendment grounds.

[That may be useful in the future, but not until after Parker=>Heller and other subequent cases that are in turn built upon that one.]

Otherwise we end up with travesties (near disasters!) like Silviera with that idiot Gary Gorski (rugby-playing mall lawyer who files cases on the weekend after drinking beer). Gorski's involved in a Sacto equal-protectiion CCW case - and whatever the merits the the case, the wrong person's on the job.

Using 2nd Amendment/RKBA is simply NOT A DEFENSE FOR FIREARMS CHARGES IN CALIFORNIA. Anyone using that as a basis for defense will end up guilt of charges.

What we do have going for us in a variety of areas - either to get results for a desired outcome, or for defense - are matters of equal protection, and (as some have seen) very controlled regulatory procedures. We should exploit these fully.

CavTrooper
08-28-2007, 2:31 PM
Is it possible to make these cases in such a way that a positive outcome (closer to shall issue) is likely or are you working for ANY type of outcome that results in equality (nobody gets em)?
Thank you for the work you are doing.

Glock22Fan
08-28-2007, 2:43 PM
Is it possible to make these cases in such a way that a positive outcome (closer to shall issue) is likely or are you working for ANY type of outcome that results in equality (nobody gets em)?
Thank you for the work you are doing.

Thanks for the thanks.

The courts have already ruled that "No Issue" is not acceptable, and does not express a sheriff's discretion (Salute v. Pitchess).

We are working on the premise that if "I have to attend meetings in a bad part of the city" is good enough for a city manager (real case), it's good enough for everyone who attends meetings in a bad part of town.

Earlier, I mentioned Salute v. Pitchess.(http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal/salute.html) If you substitute, say, "Celebrity" (or any other favored class) instead of (or as well as) "Elected Public Officials", then you'll get the idea we are after.

From Salute v. Pitchess.

[20] "The Sheriff's policy is not to issue any concealed weapons permit to any person, except for judges who express concern for their personal safety. In special circumstances, the request of a public office holder who expresses concern for his personal safety would be considered. . . ." and "the outstanding permits issued by the Sheriff are only 24 in number."


[21] While a court cannot compel a public officer to exercise his discretion in any particular manner, it may direct him to exercise that discretion. We regard the case at bench as involving a refusal of the sheriff to exercise the discretion given him by the statute. Section 12050 imposes only three limits on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon: the applicant must be of good moral character, show good cause and be a resident of the county. To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.


[22] The petition before us alleges that petitioners are of good moral character and are residents of Los Angeles County. It is admitted that no inquiry into the existence of good cause has ever been made in connection with the application of these petitioners, or of any other applicant outside the limited group of public officials. It is the duty of the


[23] sheriff to make such an investigation and determination, on an individual basis, on every application under section 12050

McMadCow
08-28-2007, 2:58 PM
So would it help your cause at all for me to go down to San Francisco City Hall and apply?

Glock22Fan
08-28-2007, 3:42 PM
So would it help your cause at all for me to go down to San Francisco City Hall and apply?


What we need is (one or more) good solid citizen who has a Good Cause that is completely convincing to a jury of typical citizens.

Such a citizen would need to be prepared to apply, be denied, and then fight it in Federal Court.

TBJ is willing to front some of the costs, in the expectation of a financially beneficial settlement (this is why we cannot take on weak cases). However, there will also be quite a bit of up front cost for the client (as there are expenses that have to be met, such as attorney fees and filing charges).

So, we need candidates with a first class good cause, willing to invest time and money, and be willing to go face to face with their local law enforcement.

Ideally, we would work with such a citizen from before he (or she) ever asks for an application form.

It has to be said that the bigger the organization, the more the work in the discovery phase; this is why (so far) we are concentrating on some smaller authorities. However, we do anticipate the domino effect.

We would love a Los Angeles County case, as we already have some skinny on that authority. We have some on San Francisco as well, but not quite as much.

If you think that you meet this profile, please contact us though the TBJ website (link below).

The other reason that we are pretty strict about filtering clients is that we do have limited resources and a lot of work is involved. We can only really handle 2 - 3 cases each year. We have to make sure that they are good ones.

Does this benefit only our clients? We sincerely hope not. Once a Sheriff has been told to change his policies, emphasized (we hope) with a hefty fine, it should benefit a lot more people.

Look forward to reading your email.

tenpercentfirearms
08-28-2007, 7:52 PM
Sign me up for your Kern County case. I just have to let my current permit expire before I reapply and get approved again. Oh wait...never mind, sorry. ;)

Good luck guys! :)

Glock22Fan
08-28-2007, 8:49 PM
Thanks.

Through the Billy Jack website, and exchanging emails regarding Kern County, I am on first name terms with Sheriff Donnie Youngblood.

He invitited me to move north so he could give me a permit.

Solid citizens have few problems up there, I wish that were the case everywhere.

John

CavTrooper
08-28-2007, 8:58 PM
Its a shame that everyone cant afford equality. Someday.... maybe someday.

SensFan
08-28-2007, 9:05 PM
not worth my time

Glock22Fan
08-28-2007, 11:37 PM
Sens Fan,

You'll just have to be patient, and you'll find out when everyone else does.

We've said all along that we need well-qualified candidates. We are picking places off as we get them.

artherd
08-29-2007, 2:07 AM
Sounds like you have some interesting efforts going. I constantly hear of Pitchess type violations; unfortunately a creature wealthy enough to fund a cause of action, yet not well connected enough to 'sneak' a CCW in behind the scenes, is a rare bird.

Annie Oakley
08-29-2007, 6:59 AM
This just sounds too good to be true. I was just wondering, have you successfully litigated any cases? And if so, when and where? It's really nice to know a persons track record of successes when they make such huge claims. I was also wondering, how long have you been doing this? Some people have been trying to change the laws for a very long time and have only scratched the surface. The reason I'm asking is I was accepted at UCLA and I want to work toward firearm law reform once I graduate. In fact, I intend to speak to Eugene Volokh once I get there and get some input from him.

Cheers

Glock22Fan
08-29-2007, 9:25 AM
This just sounds too good to be true. I was just wondering, have you successfully litigated any cases? And if so, when and where? It's really nice to know a persons track record of successes when they make such huge claims. I was also wondering, how long have you been doing this? Some people have been trying to change the laws for a very long time and have only scratched the surface. The reason I'm asking is I was accepted at UCLA and I want to work toward firearm law reform once I graduate. In fact, I intend to speak to Eugene Volokh once I get there and get some input from him.

Cheers

Yes, Billy Jack has made a good living for over twenty years doing this (although we have stepped up the scale somewhat recently as expertize grows). However, we don't discuss details in a public forum. As a would-be lawyer, you will realize, I hope, why. However, I can tell you that we will be serving at least two, maybe three lawsuits between now and Christmas. These will be publicised, we have our clients' agreements for that. It is our firm belief that the counsel for at least one of these departments is ready to roll over in the face of the evidence we have collected.

Anyone who thinks that this might be a con can be assured that Billy Jack won't take any money from you until he is certain that you have a winning case. By that time, you will have made your own mind up whether he is genuine or not.

Most people we help, we help for free, as all they often need is advice and information.

However, our aim is to help people get CCW's, not to justify our existence. Billy Jack doesn't waste time chitty-chatting with timewasters, idiots, people who haven't done their homework or no-hopers.

Python2
08-29-2007, 9:42 AM
We've said all along that we need well-qualified candidates. We are picking places off as we get them.

Just wondering if Team BJ consider this guy(State of Calif. registered professional) in San Mateo County as a qualified candidate. BJ know him, has been in touch with him by phone and email, guided him with his correspondence with his PD and SO. Based on paper trail the guy kept and made available to BJ, he believe and said so himself that PD and SO appear to engaged in dual policy practices.
If this guy is not qualified, I doubt anybody will. I know for a fact that this guy is just waiting in the wings to join a civil rights class action suit and offer his paper trail for evidence.

Annie Oakley
08-29-2007, 9:44 AM
Yes, Billy Jack has made a good living for over twenty years doing this (although we have stepped up the scale somewhat recently as expertize grows). However, we don't discuss details in a public forum. As a would-be lawyer, you will realize, I hope, why. However, I can tell you that we will be serving at least two, maybe three lawsuits between now and Christmas. These will be publicised, we have our clients' agreements for that. It is our firm belief that the counsel for at least one of these departments is ready to roll over in the face of the evidence we have collected.

Anyone who thinks that this might be a con can be assured that Billy Jack won't take any money from you until he is certain that you have a winning case. By that time, you will have made your own mind up whether he is genuine or not.

Most people we help, we help for free, as all they often need is advice and information.

However, our aim is to help people get CCW's, not to justify our existence. Billy Jack doesn't waste time chitty-chatting with timewasters, idiots, people who haven't done their homework or no-hopers.

John,

Is Team Billy Jack the name of your law firm? I totally understand Attorney/Client privacy and I would never ask you to violate that confidentiality. Court cases and their outcome with the exception of juvenile cases are public information. So perhaps you could give me some cases that you have litgated so that I could read about them and learn from your successes. This would help me alot in my studies.

Glock22Fan
08-29-2007, 10:13 AM
Annie,

TBJ is a loose organization of volunteers and professionals. At the core, Billy Jack himself is a Private Investigator. You might know him better (and this is public domain knowledge) as Guillory, in Guillory v. Gates (seven figure settlement). We also have one core attorney, and others, working with Billy.More information can be found at:
http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/aboutus.html

My role is web-based, to run the website, answer queries that fall within my capabilities. IANAL. I have also done some PRAR's and deskwork, collating retreived information.

For more than this, please ask Billy off-line, through http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/feedback.html . He may not tell you any more than I do.

Annie Oakley
08-29-2007, 10:29 AM
Annie,

TBJ is a loose organization of volunteers and professionals. At the core, Billy Jack himself is a Private Investigator. You might know him better (and this is public domain knowledge) as Guillory, in Guillory v. Gates (seven figure settlement). We also have one core attorney, and others, working with Billy.More information can be found at:
http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/aboutus.html

My role is web-based, to run the website, answer queries that fall within my capabilities. IANAL. I have also done some PRAR's and deskwork, collating retreived information.

For more than this, please ask Billy off-line, through http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/feedback.html . He may not tell you any more than I do.

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood. Thank you so much for your information. So you're not an attorney or a private investigator, you work on the TBJ computers. Beside Guillory v. Gates, are there any other cases associated with TBJ, or are they available on your website?

CSDGuy
08-29-2007, 10:56 AM
Annie: Guillory v. Gates is one of the "bigger" cases for us in California. Actually, it's up there with CBS v. Block. Unfortunately, a lot of attention on this forum is geared more towards the Harrott and the Kassler cases... but then again, those cases are on a different issue.

No, Mr. Guillory didn't get a CCW out of his case, however, he DID get a very large settlement out of it and moved to a different county where he DID get a CCW. On the positive side of things, that case did establish some very important case law with regards to CCW, if I do recall correctly.

I'd expect that once the cases are filed, they would be posted on TBJ's website.

Annie Oakley
08-29-2007, 11:04 AM
Wow! Thanks CSDGuy. I guess I'll start with Guillory. Thanks for the information. Any others I should know about?

Glock22Fan
08-29-2007, 11:14 AM
Wow! Thanks CSDGuy. I guess I'll start with Guillory. Thanks for the information. Any others I should know about?

The three most important precedent cases can be found here:
http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal.html

CSDGuy. Thanks for the fair and honest assessment. Some members here seem to distort reality in their thinking.

supersonic
08-29-2007, 11:33 AM
Keep up the good work guys. You are my only hope at this point (Sac area resident).
S.S.:43:

artherd
08-29-2007, 12:09 PM
For clairification; who exactly is "Billy Jack", is that his correct name, or is his name Preston Guillory? Is TBJ a corporation? Partnership? Etc? I'm confused. Hadn't realized you guys were connected to Guillroy.

Annie,

TBJ is a loose organization of volunteers and professionals. At the core, Billy Jack himself is a Private Investigator. You might know him better (and this is public domain knowledge) as Guillory, in Guillory v. Gates (seven figure settlement). We also have one core attorney, and others, working with Billy.More information can be found at:
http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/aboutus.html

My role is web-based, to run the website, answer queries that fall within my capabilities. IANAL. I have also done some PRAR's and deskwork, collating retreived information.

For more than this, please ask Billy off-line, through http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/feedback.html . He may not tell you any more than I do.

Glock22Fan
08-29-2007, 12:22 PM
TBJ is a loose organization of volunteers and professionals.

You are correct in identifying Billy Jack's real persona. This is no great secret. However, like many people on the web, we tend to use webnames rather than real names. I presume that "Artherd" doesn't appear on your passport?

Librarian
08-29-2007, 1:31 PM
You are correct in identifying Billy Jack's real persona. This is no great secret. However, like many people on the web, we tend to use webnames rather than real names. I presume that "Artherd" doesn't appear on your passport?:) Look at Artherd's sig block.

We should all remember the goal is to get laws changed. Al Capone could not be convicted of his more obvious criminal activities - but they got him for income tax evasion. Success in changing California's CCW laws will come on more indirect grounds than 2nd Amendment, even though most of us would prefer that adherence to the Constitution would guide our government.

Glock22Fan
08-29-2007, 2:01 PM
Look at Artherd's sig block.

I did. I was just trying to make the point. I'm fairly easy to identify also - that's my choice.

We should all remember the goal is to get laws changed. Al Capone could not be convicted of his more obvious criminal activities - but they got him for income tax evasion. Success in changing California's CCW laws will come on more indirect grounds than 2nd Amendment, even though most of us would prefer that adherence to the Constitution would guide our government.

+ 1000. Have lots of respect for people with the energy to work for long term liberalization (in the real sense of the word) of our laws. I am of an age that I can safely say "Probably won't see that in my lifetime." In the meantime, TBJ is chipping away to get sheriffs/chiefs to obey the laws as written. I think most of us would be reasonably happy if one could get a CCW anywhere in California by giving "Personal Protection" as a Good Cause.

elenius
08-29-2007, 2:55 PM
I think most of us would be reasonably happy if one could get a CCW anywhere in California by giving "Personal Protection" as a Good Cause.

That would be awesome. Would there be any difference between that and having a shall-issue law?

Glock22Fan
08-29-2007, 3:07 PM
That would be awesome. Would there be any difference between that and having a shall-issue law?

Not a lot. That's our aim, but there's going to be a little variation as sheriffs will still use their discretion. We want to level the playing field, but some sheriffs may want a little more than others. However, we certainly want to get to the position that ordinary citizens get treated the same way as the sheriff's best friend, who he trusts completely. If one person with a restraining order gets a CCW, then everyone with a restraining order (in that county) should also be able to get one. If the City Manager can get one because the car park is dark at night, then everyone who parks in a dark car park at night should get one. If people who live in a rural area . . . you get the picture, I'm sure.

Once we get to that point, the arguments in favor of "Shall Issue," and homogenization of laws across county lines, become far more persuasive.

elenius
08-29-2007, 3:17 PM
Not a lot. That's our aim, but there's going to be a little variation as sheriffs will still use their discretion. We want to level the playing field, but some sheriffs may want a little more than others. However, we certainly want to get to the position that ordinary citizens get treated the same way as the sheriff's best friend, who he trusts completely. If one person with a restraining order gets a CCW, then everyone with a restraining order (in that county) should also be able to get one. If the City Manager can get one because the car park is dark at night, then everyone who parks in a dark car park at night should get one. If people who live in a rural area . . . you get the picture, I'm sure.

Once we get to that point, the arguments in favor of "Shall Issue," and homogenization of laws across county lines, become far more persuasive.

I love this! It is "creeping incrementalism" in the right direction :D

artherd
08-29-2007, 4:08 PM
You are correct in identifying Billy Jack's real persona. This is no great secret. However, like many people on the web, we tend to use webnames rather than real names. I presume that "Artherd" doesn't appear on your passport?

FYI: my full name appears in my signature.

Thanks for the clairification, it would seem to me that more could be gained by not hiding behind a persona, but that's his call to make.

I for one am much more impressed with and likely to do business with Preston Guillory than I am "Team Billy Jack".

Thanks for providing a dialouge, would love to hear more.

If one person with a restraining order gets a CCW, then everyone with a restraining order (in that county) should also be able to get one. If the City Manager can get one because the car park is dark at night, then everyone who parks in a dark car park at night should get one. If people who live in a rural area . . . you get the picture, I'm sure

I couldn't agree more!