PDA

View Full Version : How to Follow the Progress of the Team Billy Jack 14th Amend Discrim CA CCW Fed Case


Paladin
10-13-2007, 11:14 AM
(For background on the case, see: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=69602
and www.californiaconcealedcarry.com.)

I was just doing my "weekend rounds" of websites and saw that Team Billy Jack now has a webpage dedicated to showing how the case is proceeding. IMO, the McCloud and Heller/Parker cases should be closely watched by all who are for RKBA, esp in CA. (Admin might want to add this thread and Heller/Parker threads to the "Current Legal Cases" subforum or rename that thread "Current Legal Cases Involving CGN Members" and make a separate one for these type of cases.)

The page can be found at: http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal/registerofactions.html You can check there anytime you're curious about what stage the case is at.

Currently, that webpage has (I've had to add a bunch of "....." below since I can't do tabs w/this forum's editor):

McCloud v Santa Maria Police Department et al

Register of Actions

Date...................................Action

September 11th, 2007..........Complaint and exhibits filed in United States
............................................Distri ct Court, Central District

September 18th, 2007..........Chief Danny Macagni, City Council and City
............................................Served with Complaint and related Documents.

October 8th, 2007.................Defendant’s Answer due.

October 9th, 2007.................Defendant's Motion to Dismiss received.

November 19th, 2007............Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

bwiese
10-13-2007, 11:32 AM
Yeah, and it'd also be interesting to see how the Sacto CCW issuance case - represented by Silviera's problematic Gary Gorski crashes and burns (unfortunate; I just think representation is very poor there).

Liberty1
10-13-2007, 11:36 AM
Wish they'd post the filings like Heller so we could read them. :(

CCWFacts
10-13-2007, 12:19 PM
Yeah, and it'd also be interesting to see how the Sacto CCW issuance case - represented by Silviera's problematic Gary Gorski crashes and burns (unfortunate; I just think representation is very poor there).

Gorski's case will certainly crash and burn. He's not satisfied with the damage he did in the Silviera case so now he's going to try to set back whatever gains we have in the CCW arena.

I wish that guy would just move to ... I don't know, some state I don't care about. Alberta maybe.

Paladin
02-23-2008, 6:50 PM
I was looking over TBJ's website and saw their latest posting on their Register of Actions page for the Santa Maria case (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal/registerofactions.html).

Here's the latest:

February 4th, 2008 ................ Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (new) hearing. Federal Judge denies Santa Maria Motion to Dismiss! City has 20 days to answer the Complaint.

February 21st, 2008 ............... City's answer filed in court.

*****

I also noticed that the TBJ Webmaster now has his own blog with his own perspective on various CCW issues. It can be found at: http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/index.php?blog=5

Billy Jack
02-24-2008, 6:56 AM
Team Billy Jack Attorneys have received the Defendants answer in the Federal suit and are reviewing it. The court will next set dates for various activities to take place. Once that is done, Discovery will go forward and Chief Macagni's Deposition will be taken.

There are additional Motions planned by the Plaintiff, that if granted will change the case dramatically to the detriment of both the city or Santa Maria and LEXIPOL.

I have read where some posters would like to see our pleadings as they are called. There is a Federal database for cases that Attorneys may access and read case Motions. All you need is a law degree and an access code.

If anyone has any substantive questions they can contact Billy Jack personally at: californiaconcealedcarry.com
We will be happy to answer any public record questions about the case.

Now about the Register of Actions, we will be modifying that very soon to add a Los Angeles County city to the list which will be followed by a Bay area city. Simply stated, we will soon be suing two more departments. Eat your heart out NRA and CRPA. You do not need the big guys to effect change.

What is this change I allude to? Well, TBJ has received Intel on departments all over California who, as a result of the Santa Maria Federal suit have modified or in some cases scrapped their CCW Policies and started from scratch or made major modifications to make them compliant with law and statute. In essence, they are making their policies fair to all who apply.

How can you find out if your department has changed its policy? Ask them! It is a matter of Public Record. A simple phone call to ask; "Hi, may I speak to your CCW Coordinator/Administrator? Hi, my name is (Your name here) can you tell me if you have made any changes to your CCW Policy in the last (indicate time frame here)?" They will answer your question. I, Billy Jack have spoken personally to several Chiefs and numerous members of Command Staff recently and asked this question. I have found the people I have spoken with to be very friendly and helpful for the most part.

When I call these departments I am not calling as Billy Jack but as myself. Most know who I am from legal staff or from information placed in the Motion to Dismiss by that fine young Attorney Bruce D. Praet. For those that do not recognize the name, he is the stellar Attorney that is both the Co-President of LEXIPOL LLC and the lead Attorney defending Santa Maria. Knowing who Billy Jack is makes the CLEOS much more willing to have a frank conversation.

For those who do not know who LEXIPOL LLC is let me recap. This is a company formed about 5 years ago by Attorney Praet to provide Risk Management, Policies and related services to law enforcement and other government agencies. The hallmark of the company is the LEXIPOL CCW Policy that is the subject of the Santa Maria Federal suit.

This is a poorly crafted Policy that is little more than a 'Firewall' that allows departments to deny most applicants for CCWS. The Policy is badly flawed and so cumbersome that it is virtually impossible for any department to follow. Every department using it whose files I have examined are violating it due to its flawed structure and use as a 'Firewall'.

Stay tuned for more information as it become public.


Billy Jack


"When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law...just a fight for survival!"

Paladin
02-24-2008, 7:19 AM
Now about the Register of Actions, we will be modifying that very soon to add a Los Angeles County city to the list which will be followed by a Bay area city. Simply stated, we will soon be suing two more departments. :party:

What is this change I allude to? Well, TBJ has received Intel on departments all over California who, as a result of the Santa Maria Federal suit have modified or in some cases scrapped their CCW Policies and started from scratch or made major modifications to make them compliant with law and statute. In essence, they are making their policies fair to all who apply.What? No more privileges for sheriffs' wealthy campaign contributors? No preferential treatment for celebrity members of a "religion" created by a SciFi author? What's a lawbreaking sheriff to do? (Uh, stop breaking the law. :rolleyes:)

How can you find out if your department has changed its policy? Ask them! It is a matter of Public Record. A simple phone call to ask; "Hi, may I speak to your CCW Coordinator/Administrator? Hi, my name is (Your name here) can you tell me if you have made any changes to your CCW Policy in the last (indicate time frame here)?" They will answer your question. I, Billy Jack have spoken personally to several Chiefs and numerous members of Command Staff recently and asked this question. I have found the people I have spoken with to be very friendly and helpful for the most part.I hope TBJ finds a good plaintiff for suing SF SO (Yes, despite the lies they'll tell you on the phone, the SF Sheriff's Office DOES ISSUE CCWs.), and SF PD (Yes, they too will lie to you and give you the run around on the phone.). I'd love to see TBJ haul Chief Fong and Sheriff Hennessey (who is NOT a LEO), into federal court just for the sake of justice.

HowardW56
02-24-2008, 9:13 AM
I have read where some posters would like to see our pleadings as they are called. There is a Federal database for cases that Attorneys may access and read case Motions. All you need is a law degree and an access code.

The public access to court records is called PACER. True it does require an account number and password, but anyone can register for an account. The courts charge an 8 cent per page fee for access to case documents. The fee is charged to offset the cost of scanning and maintaining the database for all of the cases.

To register go to http://www.pacer.uscourts.gov/

hoffmang
02-24-2008, 10:10 AM
Well, having not realized PACER access was that easy, I've signed up. Sadly the complaint and the motion for summary judgment have not been scanned in by the court from what I can tell. The defendants answer to the complaint is basically a useless document but at least it's there.

-Gene

Billy Jack
02-24-2008, 11:27 AM
Thanks to HowardW56 for the heads up on PACER. The Attorneys I work with have always provided me with copies but having just visited the site I am also going to sign up. The problem with the system is it relies on court personnel to scan initial filings into it. I encourage interested parties to drop into PACER and do some easy reading.

Expect the current case to grow in the near future. Those who take the time to read the pleadings will understand what I am alluding to.

Billy Jack


In the end "One tin soldier rides away...."

Liberty1
02-24-2008, 11:35 AM
Can someone just post the pleadings here please? I don't like using my CCard over the net.

HowardW56
02-24-2008, 5:32 PM
Can someone just post the pleadings here please? I don't like using my CCard over the net.


That is quite a bit to post here. I don't know if the forum will accept PDF document files...

HowardW56
02-24-2008, 5:38 PM
Well, having not realized PACER access was that easy, I've signed up. Sadly the complaint and the motion for summary judgment have not been scanned in by the court from what I can tell. The defendants answer to the complaint is basically a useless document but at least it's there.

-Gene


You could call Judge Wilson's clerk, Paul Cruz 213-894-2881, and ask about the documents being scanned. If they know there is public interest in the case they may make sure they are scanned....

Bill_in_SD
02-25-2008, 8:22 AM
Is there a reason why we can't track this in the 'current legal case' section of the forum?

I realize that that was initially used to consolidate the BWO proceedings, and milipitas lowers, but I think it would be easier to track and add visibility to progress.

I realize that californiaconcealedcarry will have more up to date info, but not everyone checks that as often as they check calguns. At the pace the Federal lawsuits move, it is easy to lose track.

Thanks go out to TBJ and californiaconcealedcarry for taking a lead on this important issue.

Bill in SD

hoffmang
02-25-2008, 4:19 PM
Howard - I didn't catch your most useful post until after 5pm today so I'll make a phone call tomorrow during Federal government hours :43:.

-Gene

MedSpec65
02-25-2008, 4:27 PM
Thanks to HowardW56 for the heads up on PACER. The Attorneys I work with have always provided me with copies but having just visited the site I am also going to sign up. The problem with the system is it relies on court personnel to scan initial filings into it. I encourage interested parties to drop into PACER and do some easy reading.

Expect the current case to grow in the near future. Those who take the time to read the pleadings will understand what I am alluding to.

Billy Jack


In the end "One tin soldier rides away...."You can also go to the Clerk's office and make copies of any pleadings you want from the case file itself. I doubt if there are any protective orders issued in this case, so it's accessible to any interested person.

Glock22Fan
02-25-2008, 4:50 PM
You can also go to the Clerk's office and make copies of any pleadings you want from the case file itself. I doubt if there are any protective orders issued in this case, so it's accessible to any interested person.

I can't easily get into the Clerk's office but (assuming they are not copyright) if someone can get them and scan them, I'll put them up on the TBJ site.

Thanks in advance:

CCWFacts
02-25-2008, 5:59 PM
I can't easily get into the Clerk's office but (assuming they are not copyright) if someone can get them and scan them, I'll put them up on the TBJ site.

My understanding is that court filings are generally public domain, and so can be distributed without restriction.

Glock22Fan
02-25-2008, 7:11 PM
I can't easily get into the Clerk's office but (assuming they are not copyright) if someone can get them and scan them, I'll put them up on the TBJ site.


A couple of people have PM'd me asking why I don't just simply get scans from the TBJ attorneys. The reason is simple. TBJ attorneys don't work for free. They are good people, but they have a living to earn. Some of us are purely volunteers, some aren't. Getting scans of documents to post for CalGunners and other gun enthusiasts to read is not something we should expect our clients to pay for. Hope this explains.