PDA

View Full Version : Santa Maria Case


zok
04-09-2008, 7:09 AM
Has anyone heard the latest update on the CCW case in Santa Maria?

Glock22Fan
04-09-2008, 9:15 AM
The latest is that the judge strongly rejected the defense's suggestion that there was no case to answer and that the plaitiff had no standing. The judge repeatedly mentioned Guillory v. Gates and Salute v. Pitchess, and even found another case that supported our claims. So, the case moves forward.

Furthermore, the judge ruled that McCloud formed a perfectly reasonable "Class of one" and was therefore entitled to bring action under the 14th.

If anyone wants to get a copy of the 13 page ruling, the case number is CV07-05895SVW (JCx)

The judge did dismiss the mayor and council members on the grounds that they were not personally liable, but said that the Chief and possibly the city were on the hook.

The next step is the deposition of the Chief.

BTW. Any readers that are qualified California attorneys and want to join in the fun, the attorneys we already have on board could use some (billable) help with cases in preparation. Contact us if you are interested.

Billy Jack
04-10-2008, 4:41 AM
Barring any startling disclosures in the Chief's Deposition, we will have completed our Santa Maria Discovery after he has been deposed and defense counsel acknowledges all exhibits submitted are true copies of those records and files under his control. There may be one other matter that we will ask the court to resolve. You will have to continue reading our Register of Actions and Billy Jack's Blog to find out more about that. Billy Jack learn not to show all cards to strangers. After all, a surprise is not a surprise unless, well unless it is a surprise.

TBJ has new CCW policy information about America's favorite Chief of Police, Homeland Security Director wantabee and Special Order 40 proponent. It is truly amazing what you can get for a $.41 stamp.

Stay safe Kemo Sabe.

Billy Jack

californiaconcealedcarry.com



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

zok
04-12-2008, 12:59 PM
This is great news. Thank you. I am looking forward to reading more. I hope this will be a wake up call for LLEA who violate our rights.

team06
10-29-2008, 2:52 PM
Word is, that the case was dismissed today.

WokMaster1
10-29-2008, 3:27 PM
What? So TBJ lost? C'mon, details!!!!!

retired
10-29-2008, 4:19 PM
This is the latest I found on BJ's site about this case. It doesn't mention anything about a dismissal, but of course, that doesn't mean it has not been I guess.



"It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority." -- Lord Acton (More Quotes)

Register of Actions: a Calendar (or Timeline) of Court Filings.

McCloud v Santa Maria -- Case NO. CV07-05895SVW (JCx)

Register of Actions

Date

Action

September 11th, 2007 Complaint and exhibits filed in United States District Court, Central District
September 18th, 2007 Chief Danny Macagni, City Council and City Served with Complaint and related Documents.
October 8th, 2007 Defendantís Answer due.
October 9th, 2007 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss received.
November 19th, 2007 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss heard and taken under submission.
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 The Judge released his written Opinion on the Motion to Dismiss.
August 28th, 2008 Date set for deposition of Chief Macagni.
September 18th, 2008 Defense Motion of Summary Judgment was filed.
November 3rd, 2008 Defense and Plaintiff Motions for Summary Judgment will be heard.
November 18th, 2008 Trial starts.

yellowfin
10-29-2008, 4:43 PM
Wow, 45 days between motion field and heard...and to think my wife says it takes me a while to get what she's saying.

Glock22Fan
10-30-2008, 8:44 AM
Word is, that the case was dismissed today.

If this is so, then TBJ has not been informed. UPDATE: We have now been informed, see next post.

Glock22Fan
10-30-2008, 9:36 AM
Apparently your information is correct, but the news had not trickled through to us as the lead attorney is away from his office. However, we believe that an appeal is worthwhile and we propose to file one. However, I have been advised not to discuss the reasons for the appeal at this time.

It is unusual for decisions to be made like that, but it can happen.

E Pluribus Unum
10-30-2008, 10:20 AM
Apparently your information is correct, but the news had not trickled through to us as the lead attorney is away from his office. However, we believe that an appeal is worthwhile and we propose to file one. However, I have been advised not to discuss the reasons for the appeal at this time.

It is unusual for decisions to be made like that, but it can happen.

That sucks... and the judge appeared to be pro-second based on his rulings before....:confused:

Sig226
10-30-2008, 10:29 AM
It is unusual for decisions to be made like that, but it can happen.

What were the grounds to dismiss?!

Glock22Fan
10-30-2008, 12:04 PM
That sucks... and the judge appeared to be pro-second based on his rulings before....:confused:


Yes, but this is a new judge :(

The grounds were Due Process (or lack thereof, I'm not an attorney, perhaps one of them can explain it better than me).

Don't lose hope, we aren't finished yet.