PDA

View Full Version : Teixeira v. Alameda (FFL Zoning)


fizux
08-22-2013, 4:12 PM
Teixeira v. Alameda
Issue: FFL Zoning Restrictions

Current Status:
As of 12/11/2013 - Opening Brief at 9CA due 1/29/2014, Answer due 2/28/2014, Reply due 14 days after Answer.

10/23/2013 - Docketed with 9CA (Case No.: 13-17132); Briefs due: Opening 1/29/2014, Answer 2/28/2014, Reply 14 days after Answer.
10/21/2013 - Notice of Appeal filed with Trial Court.
9/23/2013 - Judgment for Defendants.
9/9/2013 - Motion to Dismiss granted with prejudice (order (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.256462/gov.uscourts.cand.256462.56.0.pdf)).
8/2/2013 - Reply iso MTD.
7/19/2013 - Response to MTD.
7/8/2013 - MTD reset for 9/4/2013 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick.
5/28/2013 - Motion to Dismiss FAC.


Trial Court: N.D. Cal.
Case No.: 4:12-cv-03288
Docket: http://ia600408.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256462/gov.uscourts.cand.256462.docket.html

Appellate Court: 9CA
Case No.: 13-17132
Docket: http://ia601900.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.ca9.13-17132/gov.uscourts.ca9.13-17132.docket.html


Links:
Alameda County Zoning Ordinance: http://library.municode.com/HTML/16425/level1/TIT17ZO.html
Alameda County Land Use Planning Guides: http://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/ordinance/forms.htm
CGF Wiki for this case: (none)
CGF Wiki Litigation page: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Litigation_Past_and_Present

eville
09-05-2013, 7:19 PM
Anyone in court yesterday?

Tincon
09-09-2013, 9:56 PM
Looks like another failure to get past the pleadings stage, congratulations Hokanson/CGF. :facepalm:

eville
09-09-2013, 10:30 PM
Link? Details?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
09-10-2013, 9:37 AM
This case is factually identical to Ezell and is headed for the 9th circuit where the anti-gun decision of the district court judge will either be overturned, or it will create a circuit split which will lead to Supreme Court review and a major 2A victory. Go CGF lit team! :laugh:

taperxz
09-10-2013, 10:19 AM
Looks like another failure to get past the pleadings stage, congratulations Hokanson/CGF. :facepalm:

PERFECT, everything is going as planned then?

NewGuy1911
09-10-2013, 10:33 AM
Thanks FB,

Hope you are with Calguns, that is to say with the firearms sports people.

Tincon
09-10-2013, 11:25 AM
This case is factually identical to Ezell and is headed for the 9th circuit where the anti-gun decision of the district court judge will either be overturned, or it will create a circuit split which will lead to Supreme Court review and a major 2A victory. Go CGF lit team! :laugh:

Go "Plan B"! I think I just figured out that what the B stands for.

wolfwood
09-16-2013, 3:57 PM
This case is factually identical to Ezell and is headed for the 9th circuit where the anti-gun decision of the district court judge will either be overturned, or it will create a circuit split which will lead to Supreme Court review and a major 2A victory. Go CGF lit team! :laugh:

I actually have a fact pattern in Kaui arguably better than Ezell that I can not do due to fiances. I am hopeful for the day that the promised moment arrives when both gun lobbies bring properly plead, financed and proof read cases to Hawaii.

Tincon
09-16-2013, 4:03 PM
I actually have a fact pattern in Kaui arguably better than Ezell that I can not do due to fiances.

Thank your fiance(s) for me, I shudder to think of you filing another abortion like Baker.

wolfwood
09-16-2013, 4:20 PM
Thank your fiance(s) for me, I shudder to think of you filing another abortion like Baker.

Tincon find a single attorney that thinks the Ninth Circuit will find a rifle, shotgun and knife not protected by the second amendment when Heller explicitly notes that they are protected. I will win in Baker as to CCW and I will win in Young and possibly get remanded at the discretion of the Court. Please note no one has ever asked those truly hard questions either.
Trust me I am not done I just have something else in mind after Scalia explains what dangerous and unusual means that takes precedence. I want you to tell me how I lose. Please remember you originally took the position that there was no way a knife was protected by the Second Amendment despite it being listed in dicta as a arm. Perhaps it was your position that somehow a conclusion is identical to a prayer for relief. I have arguments tomorrow and will be back on appeal promptly to be honest.

I'd try to explain to you why a pro se litigant needed to be represented when his prayer for relief was ignored by a federal judge but I doubt you know or would even care about what that means for the state of our country when a article III judge think that will be left unchecked. What have you done for your country in your life. Anything or are you just a rich kid going to law school at UC Irvine who thinks he knows better than everyone else.

Btw here is my reply brief you can learn a little about weapons that way.b

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Young-v.-Hawaii_Appellants-Reply-Brief_37.pdf

kauaibuilt
09-16-2013, 4:22 PM
I actually have a fact pattern in Kaui arguably better than Ezell that I can not do due to fiances. I am hopeful for the day that the promised moment arrives when both gun lobbies bring properly plead, financed and proof read cases to Hawaii.

Whats going on on Kauai (unless you mean a family "Kaui").

wolfwood
09-16-2013, 4:33 PM
There are some issues with the training with rifles to my understanding. Its not that it is banned its just no one has the money for to have a business
Lanai obviously has no ranges. A few of the other small islands as wellb. Lanai is a interesting one since its all private land except for the small city it would be a case of a business (the hotel) acting as the government
I know its next to Maui but there were ranges outside of chicago. Remember you need the permit to acquire and range time to get it. Some of the other small islands are like that. The Big Island has some issues to because you have to join the NRA to go to the one private range.

wolfwood
09-16-2013, 5:04 PM
Come on Tincon I am waiting. How do I lose? I am not even going to attempt to explain to you what I did to get a supplemental brief. A few typos perhaps when rule 52a explicitly addresses that? You keep saying I will lose. I want to know how I lose. I politely ignored your mistaken belief regarding the impact of asking for a directed verdict and whether knives are protected by the Second Amendment. Do you have any other grounds to criticize my litigation.

Moreover the fact you counted Mr. Michel's regulatory cases as Second Amendment wins means you do not even know that these are two separate bodies of law. However before you raise please note this already accorded by motion and went very badly for that group. I gave you the docket review i

kauaibuilt
09-16-2013, 5:45 PM
There are some issues with the training with rifles to my understanding. Its not that it is banned its just no one has the money for to have a business
Lanai obviously has no ranges. A few of the other small islands as wellb. Lanai is a interesting one since its all private land except for the small city it would be a case of a business (the hotel) acting as the government
I know its next to Maui but there were ranges outside of chicago. Remember you need the permit to acquire and range time to get it. Some of the other small islands are like that. The Big Island has some issues to because you have to join the NRA to go to the one private range.

I dont think Kauai has a range either. IIRC PMRF stopped civilian use of their range and I dont know of any others on the island - granted Ive been gone for a while but if you want I have some hunter friends that still live there that I can check with.

wolfwood
09-16-2013, 5:58 PM
I dont think Kauai has a range either. IIRC PMRF stopped civilian use of their range and I dont know of any others on the island - granted Ive been gone for a while but if you want I have some hunter friends that still live there that I can check with.

that's who I heard it from but since I can't do anything about it right now I am not going into it to much. Don't worry the laws are going to be a lot different soon. My family can fly me out and let me stay with them but its just to much to do right now out of my pocket when I do this for free.

Tincon
09-16-2013, 6:40 PM
Damn, hit a nerve there? Tell you what, just so me this favor Gorski Beck, when you do lose, and you will, please just forget about whatever else you "have in mind".

wolfwood
09-16-2013, 6:51 PM
So you have no argument at all and are resorting to insults. Great legal education you are receiving.
If you are at all familiar with the current state of litigation it appears we will win in Baker and simply due to the presence of some issuance in California Richard/Peruta will not win there case at the Ninth. While I agree with the assessment that is not even me saying it that is wildhawker.

Tincon
09-16-2013, 6:58 PM
So you have no argument at all and are resorting to insults. Great legal education you are receiving.
If you are at all familiar with the current state of litigation it appears we will win in Baker and simply due to the presence of some issuance in California Richard/Peruta will not win there case at the Ninth. While I agree with the assessment that is not even me saying it that is wildhawker.

Yeah, a guy with another stellar track record. :facepalm:

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-18-2014, 8:39 AM
Can someone upload the latest filing in the Teixeira appeal where CGF attorney HokeySon begs the 9th circuit not to dismiss the appeal because he filed the opening brief late, after receiving two prior extensions of time?


Will the 9th circuit give HokeySon a break because (1) he had the flu (2) at the last minute he realized he forgot to make certain legal arguments and (3) co-counsel uses a different word processing program?

Librarian
03-18-2014, 12:01 PM
Sigh. Some kids always wait until the last minute to do their papers.

Relying on the benevolence of the court seems a rather weak practice.

Crom
03-18-2014, 12:02 PM
Fabio,

It's attached. :D

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-18-2014, 12:13 PM
Fabio,

It's attached. :D

lol. The title says it all doesn't it?

APPELLANTS’ APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM
FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE OPENING BRIEF AND
DECLARATION OF CHARLES HOKANSON

Hanse Davion
03-18-2014, 1:59 PM
Ignore the stupidity of my original post. Would the Calguns foundation like to share their opening brief with the forum? XD

Tincon
03-18-2014, 2:47 PM
If the court believes that some penalty is necessary here, it should impose sanctions upon Mr. Hokanson.

Damn right.

taperxz
03-18-2014, 2:47 PM
lol. The title says it all doesn't it?

What kind of sanctions would they impose on Hokanson for this? Will it fly?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-18-2014, 3:16 PM
What kind of sanctions would they impose on Hokanson for this?

Nothing. Unless they are sufficiently annoyed with his lame excuses lol.

duckman45
03-18-2014, 8:17 PM
For a while now I though FGG was being too hard on the Lawyers. But after seeing this late filing... WTF? Come on let's not lose our rights due to this nonsense.

Tincon
03-18-2014, 9:02 PM
For a while now I though FGG was being too hard on the Lawyers. But after seeing this late filing... WTF? Come on let's not lose our rights due to this nonsense.

It isn't the first one from this lawyer either....

moleculo
03-18-2014, 9:36 PM
For a while now I though FGG was being too hard on the Lawyers. But after seeing this late filing... WTF? Come on let's not lose our rights due to this nonsense.

Remember, it's the person(s) that hire the lawyer that are ultimately responsible for the attorney's actions. The responsibility to make sure that the attorney is meeting the required deadlines rests squarely on the party that hires and manages that attorney. While it is completely irresponsible and unprofessional for the attorney to miss deadlines, the person paying the bills should never just assume that their "employee" is doing the job right.

wolfwood
03-19-2014, 2:05 AM
No its not. When you hire it is not on you to manage his work product. When he takes your money he has given his word as a man he will ethically defend you. If he does not do that then its on him and the ethic office.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-19-2014, 8:33 AM
One warning.

The next little dig or snarky comment WILL get you removed from the discussion.
Heed the warning or ignore it, the choice is yours.

K.

moleculo
03-19-2014, 10:54 AM
No its not. When you hire it is not on you to manage his work product. When he takes your money he has given his word as a man he will ethically defend you. If he does not do that then its on him and the ethic office.

I agree that there is certainly a boat-load of responsible that rests on the attorney. However, in the non-attorney, "real world", the person in charge is responsible for the actions of his employees or contractors. For example, if I'm responsible to my company for delivering a new marketing website and I hire a company to do the work that fails miserably, I'm still the guy held accountable to my company. The situation in this litigation action isn't much different, in my point of view.

Kestryll
03-19-2014, 11:03 AM
Any more digs, insults or snarky comments are going to result in a ban and loss of access to the entire 2A section upon return.

You have been warned.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-19-2014, 11:30 AM
One warning.

The next little dig or snarky comment WILL get you removed from the discussion.
Heed the warning or ignore it, the choice is yours.

K.

lol. No snark, just the facts to present a counter-argument to wolfwood's assertion that the client never bears any responsibility to ensure that filing deadlines are met:

1) CGF's attorney has a history of blowing filing deadlines.
A couple historical examples were provided months ago in this thread (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=810293).

2) As noted in a calguns thread months ago, CGF's attorney failed to pay his bar dues on time and was suspended from the practice of law because of it. Click here (http://feeds.www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=11850942&postcount=973).

3) CGF's attorney recently blew a filing deadline in a CGF-sponsored case, SF v 44mag. Click here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=12121042&postcount=62). Curiously, two motions that were calendared to be filed by the end of 2013 in that case have not yet appeared on the docket, but I won't speculate about why.

4) hoffmang, who is a $750 an hour litigation consultant (no snark, just taking his word for it), reads calguns.net and presumably is aware of all of the above. He has been managing litigation for 19 years, is presumably involved in managing SF v 44 Mag and the Teixeira appeal, and in the retention of HokeySon to prosecute these cases.

In light of all of the above non-snarky facts, I believe the sophisticated client in question had ample and fair warning of its attorney's chronic late-filing problem and definitely shares responsibility for the late filing of the opening brief in the Teixeira appeal.

Kestryll
03-19-2014, 11:37 AM
lol. No snark, just the facts to present a counter-argument to wolfwood's assertion that the client never bears any responsibility to ensure that filing deadlines are met:

1) CGF's attorney has a history of blowing filing deadlines.
A couple historical examples were provided months ago in this thread (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=810293).

2) As noted in a calguns thread months ago, CGF's attorney failed to pay his bar dues on time and was suspended from the practice of law because of it. Click here (http://feeds.www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=11850942&postcount=973).

3) CGF's attorney recently blew a filing deadline in a CGF-sponsored case, SF v 44mag. Click here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=12121042&postcount=62). Curiously, two motions that were calendared to be filed by the end of 2013 in that case have not yet appeared on the docket, but I won't speculate about why.

4) hoffmang, who is a $750 an hour litigation consultant (no snark, just taking his word for it), reads calguns.net and presumably is aware of all of the above. He has been managing litigation for 19 years, is presumably involved in managing SF v 44 Mag and the Teixeira appeal, and in the retention of HokeySon to prosecute these cases.

In light of all of the above non-snarky facts, I believe the sophisticated client in question had ample and fair warning of its attorney's chronic late-filing problem and definitely shares responsibility for the late filing of the opening brief in the Teixeira appeal.


See, look, you CAN do it without all the little cutesy smiley faces and digs!

we're all so proud...

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-19-2014, 11:46 AM
it's so boring doing it that way lol. :yawn:

hardlyworking
03-19-2014, 12:25 PM
it's so boring doing it that way lol. :yawn:

A-HA! A rabble of rousers you are!

wolfwood
03-19-2014, 12:33 PM
lol. No snark, just the facts to present a counter-argument to wolfwood's assertion that the client never bears any responsibility to ensure that filing deadlines are met:

1) CGF's attorney has a history of blowing filing deadlines.
A couple historical examples were provided months ago in this thread (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=810293).

2) As noted in a calguns thread months ago, CGF's attorney failed to pay his bar dues on time and was suspended from the practice of law because of it. Click here (http://feeds.www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=11850942&postcount=973).

3) CGF's attorney recently blew a filing deadline in a CGF-sponsored case, SF v 44mag. Click here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=12121042&postcount=62). Curiously, two motions that were calendared to be filed by the end of 2013 in that case have not yet appeared on the docket, but I won't speculate about why.

4) hoffmang, who is a $750 an hour litigation consultant (no snark, just taking his word for it), reads calguns.net and presumably is aware of all of the above. He has been managing litigation for 19 years, is presumably involved in managing SF v 44 Mag and the Teixeira appeal, and in the retention of HokeySon to prosecute these cases.

In light of all of the above non-snarky facts, I believe the sophisticated client in question had ample and fair warning of its attorney's chronic late-filing problem and definitely shares responsibility for the late filing of the opening brief in the Teixeira appeal.

In the very small world of planned special interest litigation you may have a small point. However normal people have jobs, families and are not familiar with the law. I don't like reading blanket statements that a client is responsible for his attorney's conduct.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-20-2014, 11:59 AM
Big win today in Teixeira...the court ordered the clerk to file the late opening brief! :laugh:

IVC
03-20-2014, 12:11 PM
Big win today in Teixeira...the court ordered the clerk to file the late opening brief! :laugh:

Look, it's funny, but if you piss off Kestryl and he bans you we lose on amusing commentary...

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-20-2014, 12:21 PM
:laugh:

Calplinker
03-20-2014, 1:27 PM
Look, it's funny, but if you piss off Kestryl and he bans you we lose on amusing commentary...

Aaaannnddd..... just like that Fabio has been banned. :rolleyes:

taperxz
03-20-2014, 1:34 PM
Aaaannnddd..... just like that Fabio has been banned. :rolleyes:

Look at the bright side. Now no one will be able to have both sides of a story. At least not with the knowledge that was available from FGG.

Since some of the posters constantly complained, now they will never have a point counter point understanding of certain cases.

Its to bad too. Most of them already didn't understand what the cases meant anyway. Their admission to such a problem.

goober
03-20-2014, 1:47 PM
c'mon, man... you guys know it's just a temp ban :rolleyes:

taperxz
03-20-2014, 1:53 PM
c'mon, man... you guys know it's just a temp ban :rolleyes:

Is it? I try to assume nothing. :laugh:

Kestryll
03-20-2014, 1:56 PM
It is a temp ban.

Crom
03-20-2014, 2:37 PM
I don't think Fabio should be banned. Give him a 24 hour rest if you must. The criticisim he lays down for CGF cases, would seem well deserved at times.

taperxz
03-20-2014, 2:45 PM
I don't think Fabio should be banned. Give him a 24 hour rest if you must. The criticisim he lays down for CGF cases, would seem well deserved at times.

Yes and! Others that file a 2A suit will check it twice for fear of the FGG scornful :laugh:


:p

Kestryll
03-20-2014, 3:19 PM
I don't think Fabio should be banned. Give him a 24 hour rest if you must. The criticism he lays down for CGF cases, would seem well deserved at times.

Fabio was not banned due to his criticism, he was banned because I warned him last night and again this morning to knock off the insults, condescension and snarkiness.

He chose not to heed those warnings and getting banned is the result.

Crom
03-20-2014, 3:22 PM
Thank you, Kestryll.

Rossi357
03-20-2014, 3:58 PM
Temporary could be till all the 2A cases are decided?

Hanse Davion
03-20-2014, 4:58 PM
:twoweeks:

Gray Peterson
03-25-2014, 8:35 PM
"Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LKK): Appellants’ motion for leave to file a late opening brief is granted. The Clerk shall file the opening brief received March 15, 2014. The answering brief is due April 14, 2014. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. [9023749]--[Edited 03/20/2014 by BJB] (BJB)"

hoffmang
03-28-2014, 6:47 PM
CCRKBA and Alan Gura filed this Amicus last week in Teixeira:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/teixeira/Amicus-CCRKBA-2014-03-21.pdf

-Gene

Librarian
03-28-2014, 7:01 PM
CCRKBA and Alan Gura filed this Amicus last week in Teixeira:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/teixeira/Amicus-CCRKBA-2014-03-21.pdf

-Gene

What a timely addition to the documents for the Pleasant Hill Planning Commission and it's April 1 meeting. Thank you.

wolfwood
03-28-2014, 7:18 PM
Did the Jackson decision which held the right to buy ammunition falls inside the Second Amendment right effectively bind the Teixeira panel to find selling arms is protected?

Is this case now about forcing the Court to define the term "sensitive place"? It seems like you get remanded with instructions to apply intermediate scrutiny. Or am I missing something.

Can you link the Opening Brief.

hoffmang
03-28-2014, 9:01 PM
Did the Jackson decision which held the right to buy ammunition falls inside the Second Amendment right effectively bind the Teixeira panel to find selling arms is protected?

Is this case now about forcing the Court to define the term "sensitive place"? It seems like you get remanded with instructions to apply intermediate scrutiny. Or am I missing something.

Can you link the Opening Brief.

I had forgotten to upload - thanks for the reminder.
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/teixeira/14-0314-Opening-Brief-2014-03-14.pdf

The ruling in Jackson helps some, but frankly, the intervening decision in Chovan is all that's needed to send this case back to the District for discovery - which is where it should be.

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
04-09-2014, 3:49 PM
Now that Charlie HokeySon has been fired, can Kilmer prevent Teixeira from being dismissed because of HokeySon's screw ups? :shrug:

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
04-09-2014, 4:04 PM
Plaintiff/Appellants do not dispute that prior lead appellate
counsel failed to notify the County which portions of the trial court
transcripts he intended to order and that he failed to serve the
“Statement of Issues.”

The email exchange submitted as part of the Appellees’ Motion to
Dismiss is embarrassing for its lack of cooperation in the collegial spirit
normally associated with appellate practice. Appellants have
remedied the unfortunate choices made by their original (lead)
appellate counsel by replacing him with backup counsel.

An extension of time for Appellees to review the late transcripts,
rather than a dismissal of the appeal is the more proportionate remedy
that will prevent a miscarriage of justice to clients who should not be
penalize [sic] for the boorish behavior of their former attorney.

All of this was entirely predictable and the warnings were sounded right off the bat right here in this forum: HokeySon's inability to meet deadlines, failure to follow procedural rules, and the simple fact that he behaves like an unprofessional buffoon. Why in the world did CGF ever hire this clown? :shrug:

Tincon
04-09-2014, 4:11 PM
I'm just glad they terminated him, so that the RKBA community can close that embarrassing chapter.

Hopefully better choices are made in the future.

Librarian
04-09-2014, 4:52 PM
Now that Charlie HokeySon has been fired, can Kilmer prevent Teixeira from being dismissed because of HokeySon's screw ups? :shrug:

Would you please point out the document that contains this news?

I don't doubt it, but it is helpful to have the information at hand.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
04-09-2014, 4:55 PM
I don't have the pacer docket open right now, but there was a notice of substitution of attorney filed on 3/31 I believe (same day that the county filed its motion to dismiss) and the quotes above are from CGF's Kilmer-drafted opposition to the motion, referring to Charlie as CGF's "former attorney."

moleculo
04-09-2014, 5:47 PM
All of this was entirely predictable and the warnings were sounded right off the bat right here in this forum: HokeySon's inability to meet deadlines, failure to follow procedural rules, and the simple fact that he behaves like an unprofessional buffoon. Why in the world did CGF ever hire this clown? :shrug:


See, this is the kind of insight we just don't get when FGG goes missing (gets himself banned).

FGG, some of us appreciate your contributions, so please try to stay on Kestryl's good side :)

chainsaw
04-09-2014, 5:53 PM
Yay! Fabio is back! Welcome, and thank you for bringing us insights again.

See, this is the kind of insight we just don't get when FGG goes missing (gets himself banned).

Anyone can get a Pacer account. As long as you read mostly judge's opinions (and no more than 100 pages of other stuff per quarter), it's free. And even if it is not free for downloading documents, anyone who cares deeply (one way or another) about gun rights should consider the small cost to be a good investment, a kind of charitable contribution.

So if someone here actually cared about the Teixeira case, they could have looked up what's happening in Pacer anytime, without waiting for Fabio to return. If they had found any interesting documents, they could have posted them here (publishing material obtained from Pacer is obviously legal). Matter-of-fact, if the people funding or organizing this case cared about informing their supporters and the public, they should have been doing that.

But it is great to have Fabio do the work for us, and quote exactly the right snippets from the cases.

taperxz
04-09-2014, 6:15 PM
I believe there is more to the story than just this.

I am not going to bash Hokanson from the perceptions I tend to believe.

dantodd
04-09-2014, 7:08 PM
I don't have the pacer docket open right now, but there was a notice of substitution of attorney filed on 3/31 I believe (same day that the county filed its motion to dismiss) and the quotes above are from CGF's Kilmer-drafted opposition to the motion, referring to Charlie as CGF's "former attorney."

Let's hope that Kilmer can get this case back on track so we can worry more about the zoning issues and less about the effectiveness of counsel and the choices that led to his hiring and firing. No person or organization is perfect and how one resolves errors and prevents their repeat is more important than the fact that an error was made.

taperxz
04-09-2014, 7:15 PM
Let's hope that Kilmer can get this case back on track so we can worry more about the zoning issues and less about the effectiveness of counsel and the choices that led to his hiring and firing. No person or organization is perfect and how one resolves errors and prevents their repeat is more important than the fact that an error was made.

:laugh: I have a hard time thinking that this was all on one person.

I just have this thing in my mind that it wasn't just the lawyer is all.

fizux
04-09-2014, 7:30 PM
:laugh: I have a hard time thinking that this was all on one person. I just have this thing in my mind that it wasn't just the lawyer is all.
You people and your crazy conspiracy theories. Next, you're going to be telling us that gun owners will have to wear RFID tags.

Gray Peterson
04-09-2014, 7:48 PM
FYI:

Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): Appellees’ opposed motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution is denied. The answering brief is due May 12, 2014. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. (Pro Mo) [9052261] (MS)

dantodd
04-09-2014, 8:52 PM
That's excellent Gray, thanks.

Librarian
04-09-2014, 11:33 PM
Small digression deleted. Carry on.

Crom
04-10-2014, 10:51 AM
Litigation Wiki updated with current status, and PACER links to docket. Gray's post was the last listed on the docket. I too am glad to see Fabio back. Welcome back. :D

thayne
04-10-2014, 4:13 PM
I too am glad to see Fabio back. Welcome back. :D
:iagree:

Drivedabizness
04-10-2014, 8:25 PM
What a timely addition to the documents for the Pleasant Hill Planning Commission and it's April 1 meeting. Thank you.

Librarian I wish you would email a copy to David Durant - with a fresh serving of crow

dantodd
05-08-2014, 11:47 AM
Bump for next Monday...

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
05-09-2014, 5:48 AM
(Nothing happening on Monday, answering brief isn't due unti July.)

Funtimes
05-09-2014, 7:00 AM
(Nothing happening on Monday, answering brief isn't due unti July.)

Darn :P I saw the name and hopped into the thread thinking I would see something interesting!

dantodd
05-09-2014, 9:12 AM
Ah. I didn't see the extension after Gray's post #70 above.

wolfwood
12-02-2014, 4:54 PM
Well I read the Answering and reply brief. How long until arguments are scheduled in this case. It seems like this case boils down to applying intermediate scrutiny to the zoning laws.

Dr.Lou
12-03-2014, 7:53 AM
Fabio was not banned due to his criticism, he was banned because I warned him last night and again this morning to knock off the insults, condescension and snarkiness.

He chose not to heed those warnings and getting banned is the result.

I thought snarkiness, insults and condescension were protected under the first amendment, like hi-cap mags and assault rifles are protected by the second. Many don't believe either are needed, but... ;)

I prefer to start my day with a cup of coffee and a few insults and some snarkiness. :D

RobertMW
12-03-2014, 8:49 AM
I thought snarkiness, insults and condescension were protected under the first amendment, like hi-cap mags and assault rifles are protected by the second. Many don't believe either are needed, but... ;)

Your first ammendment rights end at Calguns door :rofl:

fiddletown
12-03-2014, 9:17 AM
I thought snarkiness, insults and condescension were protected under the first amendment,...The First Amendment protects rights against governmental action. The First Amendment, nor the Constitution generally, does not regulate the acts of private parties -- like the owner of this Forum.

Dr.Lou
12-03-2014, 10:30 AM
The First Amendment protects rights against governmental action. The First Amendment, nor the Constitution generally, does not regulate the acts of private parties -- like the owner of this Forum.

Yes, I am very aware of that (teach the stuff), just being ironical. :D

IVC
12-03-2014, 12:01 PM
I thought snarkiness, insults and condescension were protected under the first amendment, ...

They are. The government cannot jail or fine you for it.

...like hi-cap mags and assault rifles are protected by the second. Many don't believe either are needed, but... ;)

They are too. Except that the government in CA *can* jail you for it.

See the problem with looking only at the content, but not at the scope of the amendments?

EDIT: Your response above was not there when I started typing. It's still a good reminder for those who are not too sure about government vs. private entities.