PDA

View Full Version : Matt Corwin Update 10/30/07


WolfMansDad
10-31-2007, 11:43 AM
Last week's hearing (on 10/24) resulted in another postponement. The next hearing is scheduled for November 13th.

These are pre-prelim. conferences, for those of you who know how the process works. Matt's attorneys meet with the prosecution - in this case the DAs office - to work out which charges will go forward and which will be dropped. Both sides want to close the case without going to trial, since trials eat up huge amounts of both time and money. However, both sides also want to win, so negotiations happen. If both sides can't come to an agreement by the end of a given conference, then the case gets postponed, and they agree to meet again a few weeks hence.

Now, I'm about to bust a gut to tell you what I think this all means, but it's best if I just keep my mouth shut and let TMLLP do their job. In any event, speculating on an open forum with the case still open is a bad idea. The very best thing we can do now is keep sending money so that Matt can see this fight through to the end.

On a different note, Heidi, the person at Trutanich-Michel who has been handling Matt's funds, has experienced a tragedy in her family. If we could send sympathy cards or flowers, that would probably mean a lot to her. She's been very good to us through this whole business.

Checks for Matt's defense fund should be made payable to Trutanich-Michel Trust Fund, with "Matthew Corwin Legal Defense Fund" listed on the subject line. Mail them to

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

Cards for Heidi can be sent to the same address.

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

Clodbuster
10-31-2007, 1:07 PM
The process sounds rather open ended. Is there a limit to how many conference rounds there? You can be negotiating for years and never reach a consensus.

Clod


Last week's hearing (on 10/24) resulted in another postponement. The next hearing is scheduled for November 13th.

If both sides can't come to an agreement by the end of a given conference, then the case gets postponed, and they agree to meet again a few weeks hence.

WMD

jmlivingston
10-31-2007, 1:36 PM
Thanks for the update on Matt!

John

rkt88edmo
10-31-2007, 2:24 PM
Hey Matt, keep your chin up out there.

pnkssbtz
10-31-2007, 3:38 PM
More evidence to justify my complete lack of faith in our judicial system.

Where pompous posturing and *** covering mean more than the freedom of innocent people being wrongfully accused.

WolfMansDad
11-01-2007, 9:16 AM
It's far too early in the process to lose faith. The system works, and usually works quite well. It just takes a long time to sort things out.

MrLogan
11-01-2007, 9:25 AM
Hang in there, Matt. I know it sucks, but we're all rooting for you and are backing you.

Crazed_SS
11-01-2007, 4:40 PM
It's far too early in the process to lose faith. The system works, and usually works quite well. It just takes a long time to sort things out.

I dunno.. this seems ridiculous to me. Either the guns are illegal or they arent. If the DA believes they arent illegal, drop the charges, even the DA believes they are illegal, then get on with it. I cant imagine that in all these months one simple question couldnt be answered.

I read a quote the other day and it reminded me of this case.. Something like, "It's not the justice system, it's just a system". Wish I could remember where it came from.

AJAX22
11-01-2007, 4:51 PM
Hang Tough Matt, I don't envy you your having to go through this, but it means alot that you're standing up to them.

pnkssbtz
11-01-2007, 7:40 PM
It's far too early in the process to lose faith. The system works, and usually works quite well. It just takes a long time to sort things out.

And a LOT of money...


But the system in fact does NOT work. If it did there would be no charges to contest since they would not be brought. The weapons are not AW's. The DA is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Because the round hole is what they want.

"A long time" and "Lots of money" used in conjuction with "The system works" is an oxymoron.

MrLogan
11-01-2007, 7:44 PM
The firearms were most definitely LEGAL in every way.

troyPhD
11-01-2007, 10:03 PM
.... and I thought the Mike Nifong debacle would serve as a lesson to DAs across the nation.

duenor
11-02-2007, 12:18 AM
Trutanich-Michel Trust Fund

DOH! I've been telling everyone in the Entreprise Arms fundraiser to make checks/MO out to "Matthew Corwin Defense Fund". I don't forsee the banks having a problem with this as they have cashed checked made out to mickey mouse in my account before, but will TM accept these?

And as for the justice system - bah. I once had to sue a lady for damages after I was injured as a passenger in a collision. It took well over three years, numberless visits to numberless doctors, and three lawyers to conclude. In the end, I gave up on ever getting actually completely well, and just lied and told the doctors that I was fine now because bills had gone over 13K and if I lost there would be no way for me to pay it back.

What was my share of the settlement after all this anguish and suspense? $1,900. I would have gladly paid that much many times during those three years to simply end it.

I do not envy Corwin's position. However, we as gun owners must do everything we can to support him - winning this case will set a precedent for DAs in the future, that the law abiding OLL is not to be called into question.

Kev

Shotgun Man
11-03-2007, 12:50 PM
I dunno.. this seems ridiculous to me. Either the guns are illegal or they arent. If the DA believes they arent illegal, drop the charges, even the DA believes they are illegal, then get on with it. I cant imagine that in all these months one simple question couldnt be answered.

I read a quote the other day and it reminded me of this case.. Something like, "It's not the justice system, it's just a system". Wish I could remember where it came from.


I have to agree with this poster's statement.

The guns are either on the list or they have the qualifying characteristic to be deemed illegal, or they're not. This is a purely technical, legal issue that would be routinely sorted out at a preliminary hearing.

The DA throws up their witnesses to testify about the make and model of the firearms and their characteristics and concludes that they're illegal. A monkey could do it.

The judge holds the defendant to answer or doesn't. It doesn't seem too complicated.

A first-year public defender doing a little research could handle the case readily.

Of course, the lawyers are no doubt privvy to more info that they can't share, so it's not fruitful to second-guess them.

SteveH
11-03-2007, 3:52 PM
Only half this case is about firearms. Hopefully the defense is trying for a complete dismissal.

Sam Hainn
11-03-2007, 4:31 PM
I have to agree with this poster's statement.

The guns are either on the list or they have the qualifying characteristic to be deemed illegal, or they're not. This is a purely technical, legal issue that would be routinely sorted out at a preliminary hearing. The DA throws up their witnesses to testify about the make and model of the firearms and their characteristics and concludes that they're illegal. A monkey could do it. The judge holds the defendant to answer or doesn't. It doesn't seem too complicated.

Yeah, but you're asking for common sense in a state where most people scream 'BLOODY MURDER! AK-47! AK-47!!!!' when they see a guy out in a field who is simply minding his own business, hunting with his 20 year old Winchester Model 70. Fools rush in and they call 911.

Take the same guy carrying a gripless RAA Saiga & that lone hunter is suddenly a terrorist spending 6 weeks in jail just because the local DA was the same kind of person that would've also thought the Winchester Model 70 was an AK-47 if you told him it was.

Remember the OLL letters? - 'One of the 58 DAs might.....BS, etc., BS, etc.' This is just one of those DAs. :rolleyes:

In a 'system' that is also willing to spend a year on driving-under-suspended-licenses cases this is nothing different. Matt's guns were fully legal. The DA is probably stalling to see what they can get without admitting being wrong.

bwiese
11-03-2007, 4:44 PM
It is not at all unusual for DAs to hold out on a case to see if a plea pops up - ones charges are filed.

DAs hate to drop charges. The time to stop BS charges is at time of filing - once thing progress beyond that, the fight continues for an extended time.

I was somewhat involved in the San Jose Saiga case that ran its course thru 2006 and into 2007. While it had some separate non-gun 'color' that dissipated, the female junior DAs kept pursuing the AW charges even after DV stuff dropped, figuring she could get a felony plea (even after AB2728 in force). This DA also even appears to have suppressed exculpatory (or, at worst, neutral) evidence from the crime lab regarding the rifle's legality and I think these issues are still open and being explored.

One of the early 2006 Orange County OLL cases - a "perfect defendant" and "clean case" - went on for some time too, roughly a year. The DAs stopped talking to defense after plea offers rejected, and it wasn't until trial day when the defense attorney had several phone books of material (much of it NRA prepared/supplied) to be submitted to the Court that the DA dropped charges.

BTW there's so much material available in assembled format now that the cost of defending a clean OLL case - one without publicity/drama/news - has dropped quite a bit as a regular, competent criminal defense lawyer can now handle the bulk of it, with may a few words thrown in by Good Friendly People. Either the case will be dropped due to lack of time/staff/costs when they realize the fight gets technical, or it'll be an AB2728 resolution, or the DOJ will not be able to provide any backing or useful testimony ;) Since Hoffman got the proposed regs pulled from the DOJ website and an interesting letter signed by AG, that's even of further use.

Clodbuster
11-05-2007, 12:13 PM
Wasn't this the one where the DA asked to keep the rifle in exchange for the charges being dropped?

Clod


One of the early 2006 Orange County OLL cases - a "perfect defendant" and "clean case" - went on for some time too, roughly a year. The DAs stopped talking to defense after plea offers rejected, and it wasn't until trial day when the defense attorney had several phone books of material (much of it NRA prepared/supplied) to be submitted to the Court that the DA dropped charges.

bwiese
11-05-2007, 12:16 PM
Wasn't this the one where the DA asked to keep the rifle in exchange for the charges being dropped?

Yes, and that was a good deal. A $600 trade - to get to the next logical stop-off point in the case might've been another $2500 in legal fees.

People slammed that dude for doing that, but f'em - they weren't in his shoes.

BTW, that DA also knew that the defendant indeed had another identical OLL at home.

pnkssbtz
11-05-2007, 1:35 PM
BTW, that DA also knew that the defendant indeed had another identical OLL at home.
Then why was the offer made?

I ask this question, not to put down the person who made such a decision in the aforementioned case; because I would honestly make the same decision given the circumstances.

I ask to understand the mindset or intent of the DA in making such a request.

Grouch
11-05-2007, 1:40 PM
I ask to understand the mindset or intent of the DA in making such a request.

maybe he just wanted his own oll?

bwiese
11-05-2007, 1:42 PM
Then why was the offer made?

I ask this question, not to put down the person who made such a decision in the aforementioned case; because I would honestly make the same decision given the circumstances.

I ask to understand the mindset or intent of the DA in making such a request.

As I understand it, it was not an offer made by defense. When the defense dropped 2 phone books' worth of "what is/isn't an AW" on court day - the bulk of what appear to be NRA/Trutanich-Michel materials - the DA and defense lawyer took a smoke break. "I'll drop the charges if the rifle is surrendered" seems to be the deal.

Happens because the DA needs to get some 'token' to not act like it's a total surrender: "We got a gun off the street that can now never be used to hurt anyone."

Defense/defendant weren't gonna worry about a ~$600 rifle as that can always "Rinse, lather & repeat."

Also AB2728 had just come into play. That would have been the next thing to exploit in the case, which woulda had the same end result.

WolfMansDad
11-05-2007, 1:57 PM
There is, as you all know, more to this case than just the rifles. Chuck and co. are doing a great job defending Matt, and to do that job properly requires a lot of time. I wish I could tell you all the whole story, but that will have to wait until the case is closed.

I will say two things here, though. First, if I ever get arrested, I want Trutanich-Michel in my corner. They have done a first-class job of defending Matt, often thinking things through much farther ahead than the rest of us. Yes, they are expensive, but you get what you pay for. They are also proactive, lobbying Sacramento on our behalf rather than just playing defense all the time.

Second, if you are currently enjoying a legally-configured rifle, or if you are thinking of building one, go ahead. Don't let this case frighten you. Matt's case has been colored by many things, among them campus politics and false accusations. Matt's only crime, really, was to be open about his beliefs in an intolerant society. The more of us that stand with him on this, either by contributing to his defense fund or by joining him in the off-list movement, the sooner that tyranny will fall.

scootergmc
11-05-2007, 2:03 PM
There is, as you all know, more to this case than just the rifles.

I think I said that a few months ago. I would have to think the biggest issues are the 12020 charges. Anyway, back to Matt. Good luck.

Addax
11-05-2007, 9:06 PM
[QUOTE=Second, if you are currently enjoying a legally-configured rifle, or if you are thinking of building one, go ahead. Don't let this case frighten you. Matt's case has been colored by many things, among them campus politics and false accusations. Matt's only crime, really, was to be open about his beliefs in an intolerant society. The more of us that stand with him on this, either by contributing to his defense fund or by joining him in the off-list movement, the sooner that tyranny will fall.[/QUOTE]

+1

You hit the bullseye!

Wulf
11-10-2007, 9:34 AM
"I'll drop the charges if the rifle is surrendered" seems to be the deal.

Happens because the DA needs to get some 'token' to not act like it's a total surrender: "We got a gun off the street that can now never be used to hurt anyone."

I swear to God if I ever find myself in that position, immediately after I agree to surrender the gun, I'll whip out my cell phone, right there at the negotiation table, and give my order and credit card number to my FFL so he can get a replacement moving towards me.

bwiese
11-10-2007, 1:22 PM
I swear to God if I ever find myself in that position, immediately after I agree to surrender the gun, I'll whip out my cell phone, right there at the negotiation table, and give my order and credit card number to my FFL so he can get a replacement moving towards me.

Good man.

People excoriated one of the early-in-2006 dudes who was popped for an OLL rifle. The case folded before trial when presented with a mound of paperwork (much from NRA & its lawyers Trutanich-Michel) - the deal was charges were dropped if the rifle was not returned. That was a good trade - $600 rifle, vs $2K of legal fees to get to the next stopping point.

The guy went home and got his other OLL setup working - and the DA knew that one existed.

As we move down the road few if any of these cases will exist. BWO and another case in SoCal had a lot of media attention that an average Joe won't have.

troyPhD
11-11-2007, 9:53 AM
I swear to God if I ever find myself in that position, immediately after I agree to surrender the gun, I'll whip out my cell phone, right there at the negotiation table, and give my order and credit card number to my FFL so he can get a replacement moving towards me.

I wonder if you could surrender just the lower receiver and ask for everything else back? ;)

I mean, it would suck if you had at a $1000 optic attached to an assembled OLL that was wrongfully confiscated. This is one of the reasons why I travel with the upper and lower dis-assembled. At least it gives me a chance to not surrender a complete firearm if, god forbid, I'm ever in such a situation.

KDOFisch
11-12-2007, 9:04 AM
I wonder if you could surrender just the lower receiver and ask for everything else back? ;)

I mean, it would suck if you had at a $1000 optic attached to an assembled OLL that was wrongfully confiscated. This is one of the reasons why I travel with the upper and lower dis-assembled. At least it gives me a chance to not surrender a complete firearm if, god forbid, I'm ever in such a situation.

I've actually wondered that myself. I mean, my uppers are worth in some cases eight to ten times the price of a lower. I'm not high on a horse, I'm just saying I've put some cash into rails and optics. Losing those would suuuuuck. Upon surrendering a 'firearm' to police custody, what do 'they' consider a 'firearm'?

JCG
11-12-2007, 1:14 PM
The Santa Clara DA's office tried the same with me, wanted to destroy the Saiga's (and everything else, such as M1 Garands, M1 Carbines,) to drop my charges. We said no way.

But to put it in perspective my legal fees (including all my divorce issues, custody issues etc,) just broke $200k today with another payment to my family law attorney(my family law issues have been going on since 11/05)....... so spending a little extra to get the guns out was not a deal breaker.

But as Bill said, everyone needs to make their own decision, and I would never look down on someone for doing what was best for their budget.

virulosity
11-12-2007, 4:27 PM
Am I the only one that thinks something is wrong with our system when you have to foot the bill for a false charge that you win?

JCG
11-12-2007, 5:16 PM
No, I think it's wrong too. Unfortuneatly until we get it changed it is the system we are stuck with

Paratus et Vigilans
11-12-2007, 5:34 PM
Am I the only one that thinks something is wrong with our system when you have to foot the bill for a false charge that you win?


You only have to do so initially. If they charge you falsely, your civil remedy is an action for false arrest. It would be best used as a bargaining chip when they want to keep and destroy your legal firearms. Thusly:

DA: Let us keep and destroy all the firearms we confiscated from you, and we'll drop the charges.

You: Really? What a lovely offer. Here's my counter offer. Drop the charges and return my 100% legal firearms today, and I'll waive my false arrest claim against the PD and my malicious prosecution claim against the county. How does that work for you? No good? Let's set a trial date, then, and get it on! :D

JALLEN
11-12-2007, 10:19 PM
Well, for the truly innocent, you might aim a little higher. "Here's my offer... return the weapons, clean and spotless, pay my attorney's fees in full, and drop the charges "in the interests of justice" (not for lack of evidence or other nonsense) and we will waive all other claims. Otherwise I intend to sue!"

But, in keeping with my policy of never making a threat I am not willing to immediately and enthusiastically carry out, be prepared to go to trial, take your chances on a proper result, then sue for full damages, etc. It'll be an ordeal, lots of nervousness, sleepless nights, uncertainties, doubts, fears and second guesses, but that's how it is with "Remember the Alamo!"

You remember the Alamo, don't you? Victory or Death!

aileron
11-13-2007, 5:22 PM
Am I the only one that thinks something is wrong with our system when you have to foot the bill for a false charge that you win?

You would think the courts could get past their prejudice and "In the interest of Justice" make recompense for injuries to the slighted and innocent party. Especially considering that this IS a financial hardship for most folks.

Though I immediatly grow sour when I hear a judge say "In the interest of Justice." They have long ago lost my belief that there is any such thing in our system of law. It is, from my very limited knowledge and experience with it, sorely abused.

artherd
11-15-2007, 12:08 AM
While I understand the logic behind a purely financial decision that many make, I am glad I have made the illogical decision here, and spent many more than the cost of property illegally taken, in order to see it justly returned.

Sometimes principle is worth fighting for, even when it is not $worth fighting for.

Frankly, those who would abuse the law for their own gain are counting on cold financial logic, they're counting on it being 'too risky' or 'too expensive' to own an OLL. They're doing so because it is ostentiably legal, and they simply do not like it.

Don't play into their game.

As I understand it, it was not an offer made by defense. When the defense dropped 2 phone books' worth of "what is/isn't an AW" on court day - the bulk of what appear to be NRA/Trutanich-Michel materials - the DA and defense lawyer took a smoke break. "I'll drop the charges if the rifle is surrendered" seems to be the deal.

Happens because the DA needs to get some 'token' to not act like it's a total surrender: "We got a gun off the street that can now never be used to hurt anyone."

Defense/defendant weren't gonna worry about a ~$600 rifle as that can always "Rinse, lather & repeat."

Also AB2728 had just come into play. That would have been the next thing to exploit in the case, which woulda had the same end result.

69Mach1
11-15-2007, 7:59 AM
Eagerly waiting for an update from the 11/13/07 hearing.

Jicko
11-16-2007, 9:23 AM
Same here!

Addax
11-17-2007, 7:34 PM
Would your case and other similar cases set some sort of legal precedent for future illegal seizure cases by LE and DOJ?

Can your case be used as an example in other legal cases similar to this sort of illegal seizure in the future, where cases like yours could easily be dismissed since a well educated defense council could argue that illegal seizure by LE or DOJ is a huge no no?

Sorry to hear that you spent allot more $$ than what the property was worth, but I would have done the same exact thing, so I could set a legal precedent to make a point for future cases...

I am no legal expert, but more cases like yours and MC's and a few others could help future cases to show that LE and or DOJ conducted themselves in an illegal manner, and this could help those who are worried about OLL cases and financial hardship legally, since with cases that have been won or dismissed from court, could be used in future situations where it would apply.

Am I off base on this? My attorney does not think so, he says that by having more cases won in court or thrown out of court, you could even go through arbitration, skip court and costly fees, and show a judge that other legal cases have been won, thrown out of court or have shown where LE and the DOJ have tripped all over themselves and the law...

Kudos to you for your efforts.









While I understand the logic behind a purely financial decision that many make, I am glad I have made the illogical decision here, and spent many more than the cost of property illegally taken, in order to see it justly returned.

Sometimes principle is worth fighting for, even when it is not $worth fighting for.

Frankly, those who would abuse the law for their own gain are counting on cold financial logic, they're counting on it being 'too risky' or 'too expensive' to own an OLL. They're doing so because it is ostentiably legal, and they simply do not like it.

Don't play into their game.

WolfMansDad
11-19-2007, 3:07 PM
Eagerly waiting for an update from the 11/13/07 hearing.

I'm pretty sure it was another continuation. If I find out anything different, or if there are any new developments, I'll post.

artherd
11-20-2007, 12:39 AM
I feel there is tangible, albit very limited, future value to others re: the milpitias OLL issue. There is no real binding citable precedent gained, but as you mention, possibly another feather in the cap chock FULL of tossed cases; which eventually compel notice be taken.

The largest benefit may end up being a reminder to certain agents who would throw their weight around a little bit more than the law allows, expecting the populace to bow down, or make the 'right' financial decision.

Now they must beware someone willing to make the 'wrong' financial decision, and the right ethical and legal decision.

That sort of thing can be pretty scary to anyone contemplating using color of authority to violate the law.

-Ben.

Would your case and other similar cases set some sort of legal precedent for future illegal seizure cases by LE and DOJ?

Can your case be used as an example in other legal cases similar to this sort of illegal seizure in the future, where cases like yours could easily be dismissed since a well educated defense council could argue that illegal seizure by LE or DOJ is a huge no no?

Sorry to hear that you spent allot more $$ than what the property was worth, but I would have done the same exact thing, so I could set a legal precedent to make a point for future cases...

I am no legal expert, but more cases like yours and MC's and a few others could help future cases to show that LE and or DOJ conducted themselves in an illegal manner, and this could help those who are worried about OLL cases and financial hardship legally, since with cases that have been won or dismissed from court, could be used in future situations where it would apply.

Am I off base on this? My attorney does not think so, he says that by having more cases won in court or thrown out of court, you could even go through arbitration, skip court and costly fees, and show a judge that other legal cases have been won, thrown out of court or have shown where LE and the DOJ have tripped all over themselves and the law...

Kudos to you for your efforts.

RP1911
11-21-2007, 6:03 PM
Any news on his defense fund status?

jbsocal
11-24-2007, 11:20 PM
Where can one find a summary of what occurred? Guess I'm out of the loop on this one. One of the posts links to a newspaper story, but it is no longer listed.

It appears Matt is being charged with some questionable gun charges. I would like to read more about it. :confused: Thanks.

WolfMansDad
11-26-2007, 8:32 AM
Last hearing was a continuation. Next hearing is scheduled for this Friday, Nov. 30.

aileron
11-26-2007, 5:09 PM
Where can one find a summary of what occurred? Guess I'm out of the loop on this one. One of the posts links to a newspaper story, but it is no longer listed.

It appears Matt is being charged with some questionable gun charges. I would like to read more about it. :confused: Thanks.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=56684

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=56722

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=56827

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=57003

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=57189

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=57623

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=57972

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=58355

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=58899

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=65673

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=72038

That should do it. Good luck reading. You probably can get the gist of it all just from reading the first page of each thread.

Boomer1961
11-28-2007, 8:29 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=56684

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=56722

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=56827

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=57003

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=57189

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=57623

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=57972

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=58355

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=58899

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=65673

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=72038

That should do it. Good luck reading. You probably can get the gist of it all just from reading the first page of each thread.


Seems to me that most calgunners have a job during the day to pay the bills and to save for their next OLL purchase and don't have an extra NINE AND A HALF WEEKS to spend reading those threads for 14 hours a day.

Maybe someone should keep make a readers digest abridged version thread that has read all those posts and can whip such out rather quickly. Think how much the GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT would increase with all that time spent by Calgun members reading all those 25 page threads instead freed up with a one page thread and now spent on important things like following Al Gore's Green advice and reloading instead. Think how much more ammo will be available to our troops in Iraq as Calgun members spend time reloading instead of reading all those threads and buying up all the ammo on the Internet.

Such a person making an abridged version would be helping make the planet greener and help with the war effort!:D

hoffmang
11-28-2007, 8:46 PM
Boomer,

I think what's subtly being pointed out to you is that you have the power to use the search button to quickly come up to speed. Unless you happen to be interested in compensating the valuable time of someone else doing the summarization for you, I think people are recommending that you spend your own time scanning through....

-Gene

wilit
11-28-2007, 9:28 PM
Last hearing was a continuation. Next hearing is scheduled for this Friday, Nov. 30.

WTF? I thought attorneys were only allowed so many continuances? Hasn't the DA asked for like 10 already?

artherd
11-29-2007, 1:10 AM
(drill sgt voice) CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST VOLUNTEERED! ;)


Maybe someone should keep make a readers digest abridged version thread that has read all those posts and can whip such out rather quickly.

Wulf
11-29-2007, 7:08 AM
WTF? I thought attorneys were only allowed so many continuances? Hasn't the DA asked for like 10 already?

Seems like. At least it seems like the postponements are getting shorter.

StukaJr
11-30-2007, 11:25 AM
Today is the day... waiting, waiting, waiting...

Whitesmoke
11-30-2007, 2:40 PM
Today is the day... waiting, waiting, waiting...

:lurk5:

HKROB
12-02-2007, 10:18 AM
Any news:confused:

daskraut
12-03-2007, 7:10 AM
Well?, what has happened since the last post????.

StukaJr
12-03-2007, 6:30 PM
Let me guess...

Continuation?

5968
12-03-2007, 6:32 PM
I hope that all turned out well. Again Matt, my thoughts and prayers are with you.

WolfMansDad
12-04-2007, 4:28 PM
Continuation. Next hearing is Dec. 17.

nic
12-04-2007, 7:07 PM
Continuation. Next hearing is Dec. 17.

This is absolutely unacceptable. How long must this poor guy be dragged through this affair? Either present evidence to show he's done something wrong, or let him go. I hope that Matt is doing okay... hopefully the next hearing is the last.

spgk380
12-04-2007, 8:55 PM
This is absolutely unacceptable. How long must this poor guy be dragged through this affair? Either present evidence to show he's done something wrong, or let him go. I hope that Matt is doing okay... hopefully the next hearing is the last.

I think you forget that he waived his right to a speedy trial already. This was probably done so that his attorneys could collect enough evidence to have the DA drop charges and for both sides to prepare.

hoffmang
12-04-2007, 9:30 PM
Continuation after continuation - though frustrating - are a very good sign that this case will end up going nowhere.

-Gene

heyjak
12-04-2007, 9:37 PM
Continuation after continuation - though frustrating - are a very good sign that this case will end up going nowhere.

-Gene

I have had experience with a different (but similar) situation. The D.A. had no case to stand on so they dragged it out hoping the "accused" will make a mistake.
I know it's torture, but hang in there! It will soon be over in your favor!:)

artherd
12-04-2007, 9:46 PM
Hrm, I need to brush up on procedure, but I believe each appearance and continuance requires another explicit waiver of time.

It's a good sign, it means the prosecutor is waiting desperately for DOJ help that will never come. At the same time, I'm sure Matt needs to be over this.

tom_92673
12-05-2007, 12:49 AM
if these continuations are all being requested by the prosecution, shouldn't the judge at some point simply tell them they're out of time and chances, and to either make their case or drop it? I would assume based on the fact that similar cases have been thrown out in other courts, the judge could be swayed to understand that this is not a good case for prosecution, and that they're unduly inconveniencing a solid citizen. And I say inconveniencing because I can't use profanity in these forums.

bwiese
12-05-2007, 12:59 AM
if these continuations are all being requested by the prosecution, shouldn't the judge at some point simply tell them they're out of time and chances, and to either make their case or drop it?.

That's approx. what happened in the Sierra Sports/Dave Lake case in Modesto.

Judge got tired of DA/DOJ delay ("we're waiting for more technical info") and kicked it.

WolfMansDad
12-05-2007, 10:21 AM
These continuations are frustrating, but Matt seems to be holding up well and is definitely still in the fight.

It ain't over till it's over.

Ford8N
12-05-2007, 10:39 AM
I think the good folks of Los Angeles county should ask to see how much money this prosecution has cost the tax payers of the county. Or ask your elected county board of supervisors. Possibly the Grand Jury of Los Angeles county. This is an example of politics costing lots of hard working peoples money wasted.

IAmASensFan
12-05-2007, 11:19 AM
Can't the trial be forced? Whatever happened to the right to a speedy trial?

Or are folks just hoping it gets dropped?

Not that I have a right to play puppetmaster in Corwin's life, but this HAS to go to trial so there can be a decision on the issue, otherwise, the threats will never go away.

Stay tough, Matt. There is a saying, in for a penny, in for a pound. It means if you're gonna be in this fight a little, you might as well be in it a lot. Give it 100% and stay the course.

pnkssbtz
12-05-2007, 11:22 AM
I think the good folks of Los Angeles county should ask to see how much money this prosecution has cost the tax payers of the county. Or ask your elected county board of supervisors. Possibly the Grand Jury of Los Angeles county. This is an example of politics costing lots of hard working peoples money wasted.

I wonder if we could FOIA the expenses for this case incurred by the DA?

bwiese
12-05-2007, 11:26 AM
Can't the trial be forced? Whatever happened to the right to a speedy trial?

Time was waived. Defense likes that. It's onerous, but best in the long term.



Not that I have a right to play puppetmaster in Corwin's life, but this HAS to go to trial so there can be a decision on the issue, otherwise, the threats will never go away.

Whether it does or doesn't go to trial does not mean a true 'use this-in-other-cases' decision will result. Trial court opinions are not formally published (as mentioned in Harrott, and one of the reasons for Harrott).

A dropped case with months of time & expenditure, or a successful outcome (either is likely) will, however, send a practical message.

LA DA office already doesn't honor any filings from DOJ BOF after the DOJ Pomona gunshow debacle a few years ago.

Wulf
12-05-2007, 5:06 PM
I wonder if we could FOIA the expenses for this case incurred by the DA?

That would certainly be good info to have.

That information paired with any Prosecutor/DOJ correspondence we could get our hands on from the Corwin case would make a nice package to submit in future cases. If you cant establish legal precedence based on this case perhaps a little practical precedence (perhaps "wisdom" would be a better word for it) could be developed; give future DA's a peek behind the curtain earlier in the process, before the abuses and defense counsel fees pile too high.

MikeK
12-05-2007, 5:09 PM
I wonder if we could FOIA the expenses for this case incurred by the DA?
FOIA is federal. You'll need the California Public Records Act. It's a bit different, so you need to bone up on it.

pnkssbtz
12-05-2007, 5:47 PM
FOIA is federal. You'll need the California Public Records Act. It's a bit different, so you need to bone up on it.

Ah ok. I knew there was a CA and a Federal one. I was just kicking out ideas. I'll read up on it though, as I love reading up on stuff like that ^_^.


One catch, is that sending such a request to a DA office has to be worded VERY carefully, as they are all attorneys and most likely can dance around any requests.

JCG
12-06-2007, 1:00 PM
That's just the way the system works.

It went on for 13 and a half months with my case..... from arrest to "dismissed in the interest of justice"

artherd
12-06-2007, 7:27 PM
JCG; do you remember wether the moving party was DA or the Judge?

Jicko
12-17-2007, 11:01 AM
Today is the day......... has the case been *dismissed* yet?

aileron
12-17-2007, 12:02 PM
It would be nice if they dismiss it, then we could all wish Matt a merry, merry christmas. :D

DedEye
12-17-2007, 2:04 PM
It would be nice if they dismiss it, then we could all wish Matt a merry, merry christmas. :D

Ask and you shall receive (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=78984) ;).