View Single Post
  #162  
Old 06-03-2012, 8:30 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
So a rehearing is possible?
No possibility whatsoever. The case is a joke now, especially with the hilarious bickering in the post-hearing declarations about passive aggressive emails, the county attorney calling the plaintiffs' attorney from his car on the cell phone and the plaintiffs' attorney getting pissy and hanging up on him:

Quote:
The second item that the Plaintiff/Appellants would like this Court to consider is an email that was sent to the County’s outside litigation counsel on September 22, 2010 which requested that they retract the false statements of fact in Docket Entry 167. (They did so in Docket Entry 168.)

The last paragraph of the letter from Plaintiff/Appellants’ counsel states: “With respect to gun shows qualifying for an exception to the ordinance, we should begin discussing the terms of a stipulation to that effect. I’ll let you start.

A true and correct copy of the entire email is set forth in the attachment to this motion. Just like the letters sent to County Counsel in 1999 attempting to open a dialogue for interpretation of the ordinance, the County’s outside litigation counsel never responded to this communication by the Plaintiffs/Appellants.
Quote:
On September 22, 2010, I received and read the email sent by Mr. Kilmer, a copy of which is attached to appellants' motion to supplement the record. I was alarmed by the accusation that I had misrepresented the record with respect to whether appellants were eligible to conduct a gun show within the Ordinance's exception. I remember telephoning Mr. Kilmer from my cellular telephone in the car that same afternoon (which I confirmed today by reviewing my timesheet for that day). During the call, I reminded Mr. Kilmer that the County has consistently taken the position throughout the litigation that gun shows are eligible to operate under the Ordinance's existing exception, and that appellants are free to submit a plan to the Fair Association explaining how they would comply even though they previously refused to do so. I explained that there was no need for a new, additional exception only for gun shows, as Mr. Kilmer was suggesting. Mr. Kilmer vehemently disagreed and accused the County of changing its position. He then told me he was disappointed in me and he hung up.
Quote:
I honestly did not remember the September 22, 2010 phone conversation recounted in Mr. Pierce’s declaration until reading it refreshed my recollection. To the extent the Mr. Pierce considers his statements during that call – that no stipulation is required because the County had reinterpreted its ordinance – I suppose it is fair that Mr Pierce considers that his call was a response to my email. To the extent that the County still refused to put their money where their lawyer’s mouth was (i.e., open an earnest dialogue about a stipulation about how gun shows might qualify for the Ordinance’s exception), I still consider Mr. Pierce’s phone call non-responsive to the email.
Could this be any more embarrassing? "I sent an email to the county attorney but he never responded." "Oh yeah, I forgot about that phone call, but it wasn't really a response." The audience here is a 9th circuit en banc panel for christ's sake, who a few days earlier was told "today is the first time I've ever heard this!" (In case anyone missed it, the plaintiffs' attorney is admitting that the county was taking this position before the March en banc hearing...he just forgot about it. Oops!) Is this sounding like it's a still a case presenting questions of exceptional importance for which the 9th circuit is going to order an unprecedented en banc rehearing of an en banc rehearing? I don't think so, lol.

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 06-03-2012 at 8:57 PM..
Reply With Quote