Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 10-06-2015, 1:54 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Pacrat,

There are two very different issues here to respond to.

The vast majority of your commentary above deals with the role of the police and the quality of their interaction with the public. I actually agree with your comments and observations. There has been far too much "militarization" of law enforcement. I'd recommend that you read the recently released interim report from the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing. That group was formed following the events in Ferguson and has just made their first recommendations. A central theme is a shift from the "Urban Warrior" view of policing to the "Guardian" mode of policing. That's long overdue. I was trained in the "Urban Warrior" mode of policing and quickly found that it didn't really fit very well (rather than repeat a long post here, please refer to Post #6 in this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...light=guardian ).

The main problem with the "war on (fill in the blank)" approach to law enforcement is that wars tend to impose a lot of collateral damage (yesterday we bombed a hospital in Afghanistan). Wars also tend to have a winner and a loser, or two losers. Wars just don't have two winners. The "Guardian" approach to police problem-solving can produce two winners if everyone lives up to their social contract.

I very much like your quoting of Sir Robert Peel. His ideas remain very relevant today. I'd also point out the Mr. Peel often spoke and wrote of the need for the public to be involved in law enforcement. The role of the constable was to facilitate better law enforcement, not to assume all responsibility for law enforcement.

If your purpose is to seek such change, please continue the effort and count me among your supporters.

But that wasn't my purpose in making the post that you responded to.

Earlier in this thread you took "Junkie" to task for using the word "civilian" correctly according to it's meaning, but in a way that you personally disapproved of (as you've explained above). That's just plain wrong. He has the right to use the word according to its meaning. I've read his posting several times, he spoke respectfully and provided his opinion. You criticism was undeserved. He is entitled to his opinion, just as you are entitled to yours.

If your purpose is to condemn law enforcement militarization, then please simply preach that message and I think that you'll find a lot of supporters, just don't try to rewrite the English language in the process.
I haven't placed much credibility with the recent agenda claims of the likes of Obumma, Sharpturd, and J Jackoffson regarding police "militarization". I have always been much more concerned with the insiduous slip from, citizen police, to state police. Making them an enforcement arm of the state. Not the protection arm of the citizens, that they traditionally were. Which started back in 1977 here in Ca. When as newly unionized employees they started bowing to the wishes of the legislators that control the purse strings. Rather than the safety of citizens. That is when the invasive seed of "Us v Them" first germinated.

SCOTUS ruling that it is OK for the police to lie to citizens in order to con them into saying something incriminating. And ruling that it is not the police's job to protect citizens. Didn't do the cops image much good either.

I may be a naieve old fart, but I still choose to believe that what Sir Peel said still has not only relevance, but at least some credence left. Hopefully that credence can grow into the "trust" it once was between citizens and our police.

My best friend is a LASD. He has a wife, and two lovely little daughters that call me "Uncle Cracker". I want him to come home safe everyday. I want him to have a Lenco Bearcat and body armor if he needs them to take down a bad guy safely.

If some "protestor" that just happens to be commiting arson, looting, assault, and any number of felonies, and their outspoken camera hog pimps like Sharpturd. Don't like it, well them maybe they should urge their constituents to not loot and riot.

On the other hand. Because I firmly believe that should anyone in LE, such as C. Beck knowingly step over the line and start enforcing agendas instead of laws such as he did in this thread. They should be made a public example of, same as any OTHER CIVILIAN.

I can't read post #6 of the link you posted. A certain Mod. here is of the opinion that I'm a cop basher and undersirable presense on OT because when someone intentionally and repeatedly lies about me, or something I said, I have a tendency to verbally embarrass them by pointing out their errors in blunt yet accurately descriptive ways.


I feel I should point out that I believe you are incorrect regarding "Junkie's" post #49, and my response to it. Junkie used the word "civilian" in a facetious, yet absolutely correct manner. And I made no response to it. Let alone take him "to task" for it. On the other hand, if per chance "Junkie" is a cop, and I missed it. Rest assured, My Bad.

Quote:
Junkie said

There are enough people who think civilians shouldn't have guns that I'm not sure I'd want a jury trial, going before a judge might be better (or might not, depending on the judge).
In yours and others C&P definitions of "civilian" from RECENT dictionaries.

Quote:
2: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
It is the people that in RECENT times added the Bolded and Underlined words at the end that are "rewriting the English language". By subverting the definitaion with their addition. Not I.

Living up to my handle of "pacrat" I have many old books. Many hundreds of them actually. A lot of which are dictionaries.

Examples, Britannica World Language Dictionary 1956.... No mention of cops or firemen. Noun, "One who follows the pursuits of civil life, as distinguished from military or naval."

Webster's Handy College Dictionary 1961.... No mention of cops or firemen. Noun, "One engaged in civil, not military pursuits".

Webster's New Handy Pocket Dictionary 1965.... No mention of cops or firemen. Noun, "One engaged in civil, not military pursuits."

ETC

ETC

ETC

Not until I get to a Webster's Pocket Dictionary printed in 1993 and costing $3.95 does the definition change. At which time it becomes written as Noun, "Person not on active duty in the military, or police force." Firemen were still out in the cold until sometime AFTER 1993.

Cops got added by definition, to those other than civilian persons, in 1993, maybe a bit earlier, because I don't have ALL the dictionaries printed between 1965 and 1993. And firemen got added sometime after 1993.

So if a LEO uses the word "civilian" rather than the proper "citizen", they are using a word to draw a divisive line between themselves and the citizens they serve. Whether the word is commonly acceptable or not. Commonly acceptable, still does not mean "correct".

Cops are both Citizens and Civilians. And they should do everything possible to make that clear publicly. "Us v Them" is just another of those stupid wars you mentioned, that have no winners. so why intentionally use words to draw battle lines.

OBTW, even in the 1993 version of Webster's, "gay", still meant "Happy/Joyous" not yet any mention of homosexual.

Constantly intentionally misusing a word in order to get the masses to accept the word as commonly accepted, is an old ploy of those with agendas.

So if anyone in LE really and truly wishes to promote the "Us v Them" agenda that is being pushed by those in power, that gain power, by creating and fomenting divisiveness. Go right ahead and keep calling citizens "civilians" so you can hold yourselves apart from them.

JM2c

Last edited by pacrat; 10-06-2015 at 2:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 10-06-2015, 8:51 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dozer wright View Post
One thing the lawsuit should ask for is a warrant to seach every officers house involved in this for the distroyed firearms . Figure that out and heads will roll .
By "everyone involved" would you have warrants issued even if there be no probable cause to believe any firearm was located in an individual's home? I read posts about how a LEO shouldn't be treated any different than anyone else, but then the same people are ready to deny them their constitutional rights.

As for this complaint, I am very interested to see where it goes, but I have dealt with a few in the day, and keep in mind that allegations of a complaint are just that; allegations.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 10-06-2015, 9:19 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 4,968
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post

I can't read post #6 of the link you posted. A certain Mod. here is of the opinion that I'm a cop basher and undersirable presense on OT because when someone intentionally and repeatedly lies about me, or something I said, I have a tendency to verbally embarrass them by pointing out their errors in blunt yet accurately descriptive ways.


I feel I should point out that I believe you are incorrect regarding "Junkie's" post #49, and my response to it. Junkie used the word "civilian" in a facetious, yet absolutely correct manner. And I made no response to it. Let alone take him "to task" for it. On the other hand, if per chance "Junkie" is a cop, and I missed it. Rest assured, My Bad.

JM2c
Pacrat,

You are correct in that I mistakenly attributed a comment made by "JDay" to you earlier in this thread. That was my mistake and I've edited my post to correct the error. We still get to the same conclusion.

Here is the text of the posting that you were unable read. The context is that I was responding to Chief Beck's implementation of body cameras in the LAPD and his comments regarding the "Guardian" role of officers.
"Here's a couple of observations after more than three decades as an LEO:

1) The shift from "Warrior" to "Guardian" philosophy is long overdue. Far less than 1% of my LE service was done in "Warrior" mode, more than 50% was done in "Guardian" mode. I'll not mention the roughly 20% of my service that was done in "Secretarial" mode.

2) It's a real mistake to present the "Warrior", "Guardian" and "Secretarial" components of the job as being mutually exclusive of each other. They're not. They're complementary to each other. A successful officer must be able to master all three. The consequence of failing in the "Guardian" mode is that you get disciplined and then fired. The consequence of failing in the "Secretarial" mode is that you get assigned to report writing car, and then fired. The consequence of failing in the "Warrior" mode is that you get injured or killed. You've got to master all three and keep a proper sense of balance.

3) I like body cameras. I 've done many complaint investigations where there was video available. In more than 75% of the cases, the video was supportive of the officer's conduct. And that is irrespective of who took the video. In the remaining cases, the video often mitigated the level of misconduct that found to exist. That fact also became pretty well known to the officers. When video cameras first became available, officers were pretty much opposed to their use. When I retired, nearly all of my officers were carrying audio recording equipment and about 25% were carrying video recorders that were purchased with their own money (my agency had not yet formally adopted their use).

4) I've also noted that video camera have a certain way of calming tense field situations. Once the camera's presence is known. Everyone is on their best behavior. There's a certain amount of "posturing" for the camera, often to the point of nuisance, but the violence seems to stop. That alone is a big advantage.

5) I've been really concerned about the amount of weight and bulk of gear that officers carry (and the corresponding back injuries). The new gear is small, but still is an added burden. We're getting to the point that a new recruit must enter the profession being very physically fit, but still have a 40 inch waist to carry all the gear that goes on the duty belt. "
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 10-07-2015, 4:51 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Rick said,

Quote:
We still get to the same conclusion.
I don't believe we do "get to the same conclusion".

I completely resist and condemn the recent bastadization of the word "civilian". And it's improper usage. When used to denote a difference between LE and all other citizens. Because it only serves to act as a verbal wedge between the two. And in so doing promotes "them v us". Since it is a word that before this recent bastardization. Was only used solely to denote a difference between military and civilian pursuits. Now that some are using it to denote LE as other than civilians, yet they are not military.

Where does that leave the LE job description? If not a member of the civilian class of citizens, and not a member of the military class of citizens, that leaves LE between the two as their own "Special Class" of citizens.

Which BTW is just exactly what many citizens have begun to percieve them as. Especially when the legislature has given them "Special Class" status exemptions where many firearms laws are concerned.

From what you say, you are against the "militarization" of LE. So why are you not against the "militarization", of the LE job description? Through the misuse of the word "civilian".

Thank you for the C&P from post #6 of the link.

Very astute and well thought out. I also am against the actual "militarization" of LE. But want them to have the advantage of military type safety equipment to protect themselves and the public when necessary.

As well as the "Warrior/Guardian/Secretary" functions of being a cop. There is one that emcompasses all a cop does in public. I would add "Public Relations Rep" to the list. Because everything a cop does is under public scrutiny in this age.

Many times the Warrior and the Guardian are one entity. As well as going warrior mode to protect themselves from injury. There are times an officer must go warrior mode in the line, to act as guardian of others.

All citizens will never be happy with LE performance. No matter how good of a job they do. Ferguson for example. Police form Phalanx to push rioters/looters from a locale and disperse the riot.

Rioters/Looters backed by camera pimps like Sharpton will proclaim "Militarization" of LE to deny civil rights of "PROTESTORS".

Business and home owners who have their property stolen and destroyed. Want to know what took so long to intervene.

That is just one of the Wars you mention where there are no winners. Only losers. It is a war that LE does not start, or relish intervening in. But it is a war they are tasked with ending.

Hundreds of officers from multiple agencies called in to end the riots. And the one guy in uniform who lost his cool and pointed a rifle and cussed. He is the ONE out of hundreds, that gets his face plastered on TV screens. And used as an example by the Anti_Cop pimps.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 01-01-2016, 2:14 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Any recent movement on Wright v Beck?
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 01-01-2016, 2:41 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,868
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Any recent movement on Wright v Beck?
Case Dismissed on 12/14/15
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 01-01-2016, 5:04 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
Case Dismissed on 12/14/15
what happened? The case is password protected on the michel backpage. Was there some sort of procedural screw up.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 01-01-2016, 6:18 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,868
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
what happened? The case is password protected on the michel backpage. Was there some sort of procedural screw up.
Sorry Calguns wouldn't let me upload the order as an attachment....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i30ouhdrzsaz931/Microsoft%20Word%20-%2015-CV-5805%20Wright%20v.%20Beck%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss. pdf?dl=0
__________________

Last edited by HowardW56; 01-01-2016 at 6:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 01-01-2016, 8:42 PM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 922
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

"Without prejudice" means the case can be filed again I believe.
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG.
Buy or sell a home.
Property management including vacation rentals.
We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG.

Serving the greater San Diego area.

Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640
CA Broker
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 01-01-2016, 9:15 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd View Post
"Without prejudice" means the case can be filed again I believe.
this case is done. The Court is allowing in theory an amendment but I don't see them being able to allege "that the state court violated his rights under the United States Constitution or federal statute, and that he has exhausted state court remedies for the correction of any such alleged violations".
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 01-01-2016, 10:34 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
this case is done. The Court is allowing in theory an amendment but I don't see them being able to allege "that the state court violated his rights under the United States Constitution or federal statute, and that he has exhausted state court remedies for the correction of any such alleged violations".


Quote:
(1) VIOLATION OF FEDERAL
CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER
COLOR OF LAW
(42 U.S.C. §1983)

(a) VIOLATION OF
FOURTH
AMENDMENT;

(b) VIOLATION OF FIFTH
AMENDMENT;

(c) VIOLATION OF
FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT;

(2) STATE LAW TORTS OF
CONVERSION & TRESPASS
TO CHATTELS; AND

(3) VIOLATION OF RACKETEER
INFLUENCED AND
CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
ACT
(18 U.S.C. §1961, et seq.)

(4) CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE
RACKETEER INFLUENCED
AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT
(18 U.S.C. §1962(d))
So the crooked LAPD Chief, His crooked lackey "Gun Goon Squad". The crooked LA City Attorney. And the crooked Judge they got to sign the crooked ex-parte destruction order.

All get off scott free. And solid citizen Mr Wayne Wright's entire life is screwed over by the system previously known as the Justice System. [which was originally supposed to protect people like him from criminals] Which is now obviously nothing but a Crooked Legal System.

I tried to download the pdf and couldn't. Not that I would understand more than 1/4 of it anyway. Would some of the legal guru types here at CG explain how this atrocity is allowed under the law?

Last edited by pacrat; 01-01-2016 at 11:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-01-2016, 11:06 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

basically this case was already filed and lost in state court in 2011
the federal court is saying that since you already had a chance to litigate your case in one court you can't get a redo in this court

Last edited by wolfwood; 01-01-2016 at 11:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-03-2016, 4:33 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

OMG, how can such egregious violations of a law abiding citizens rights, just be dismissed?

I can only guess, that I guessed right a couple of posts ago.

Quote:
So the crooked LAPD Chief, His crooked lackey "Gun Goon Squad". The crooked LA City Attorney. And the crooked Judge they got to sign the crooked ex-parte destruction order.

All get off scott free. And solid citizen Mr Wayne Wright's entire life is screwed over by the system previously known as the Justice System. [which was originally supposed to protect people like him from criminals] Which is now obviously nothing but a Crooked Legal System.
Is it any wonder that more and more citizens are looking at what used to be "Our Police, and Protectors". With suspicion, fear, and even loathing. They have morphed into the "States Police" tasked with not protection, but fulfilling the agendas of their political masters. By persecuting honorable citizens for fabricated crimes.

LAPDs motto [To Protect and Serve] is a LIE. "Protect" was removed from honest usage by SCOTUS. And proven true during the last LA riots. And now "SERVE" should be replaced by the more discriptive "STEAL".

How did this happen in America? Can anyone explain what went wrong in this case?
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-03-2016, 8:32 PM
BrokerB's Avatar
BrokerB BrokerB is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Folsom , outside the walls
Posts: 2,641
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Disgusting.
__________________
Beans and Bullets
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-03-2016, 8:36 PM
eaglemike eaglemike is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,332
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
basically this case was already filed and lost in state court in 2011
the federal court is saying that since you already had a chance to litigate your case in one court you can't get a redo in this court
I'm starting to look for a ride on the KC bandwagon....
__________________
Don't be a Jake!

It's a muzzle BRAKE, not a muzzle break. Or is your muzzle tired?

Last edited by eaglemike; 01-04-2016 at 8:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-05-2016, 12:56 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglemike View Post
I'm starting to look for a ride on the KC bandwagon....
Welcome aboard! There's plenty of room! The sooner you get on, the sooner we can look for other remedies than the continued failure of judicial remedies!
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 01-05-2016, 12:03 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

In the instance of Mr Wright. The Judiciary is definitely part of the problem from the get go.

Judges signing "orders" just because some City Attorney or Da sticks it in front of them without due diligence is BS of the smelliest type.

Our entire nation is built on "checks and balances". When the Judiciary, Prosectors, and LE band together to subvert those checks and balances by forming "Good Ole Boy" clubs.

That is just wrong.

JM2c
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 01-05-2016, 2:56 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'd personally like to know what happened in the first case. Assuming the federal court's facts are accurate, its opinion seems to be reasonable enough.
Seems like the state court decision should have been appealed. Again that's without knowing exactly what happened there.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 01-05-2016, 4:34 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I'd personally like to know what happened in the first case. Assuming the federal court's facts are accurate, its opinion seems to be reasonable enough.
Seems like the state court decision should have been appealed. Again that's without knowing exactly what happened there.
As would I. Maybe some of the legal guru types involved can answer.

I would also like to know why the "City Attorney" was involved in the confiscation and destruction of Mr Wright's property? Would that not fall under the purvue of the District Attorneys office?

Maybe Beck's Gun Squad ran it past the DA and got laughed at.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 01-18-2016, 4:41 PM
JDale@Michel&Associates's Avatar
JDale@Michel&Associates JDale@Michel&Associates is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 6
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We appreciate your continued interest in this case.

To clarify the current status, the federal matter was dismissed on December 14, 2015 following the trial court’s grant of the City’s Motion to Dismiss. The court believed and adopted the City’s characterization that a 2011 ruling from the criminal matter in Ventura County was a final and appealable ruling on Mr. Wright’s interest in his firearm collection still in LAPD’s possession at that time.

The 2011 criminal court order itself only stated that 26 identified firearms were to be returned to Mr. Wright. It was silent on the disposition of the remaining 300-plus firearms of Mr. Wright’s collection also still in LAPD’s possession at that time, which firearms were subsequently destroyed three years later. Notwithstanding the brevity of the 2011 written order, in ruling last month on the City’s motion to dismiss Mr. Wright’s federal lawsuit, the federal court found the 2011 order contained implied findings with regard to the entirety of Mr. Wright’s collection. The federal court found that, because the criminal court refused to affirmatively order the return of the entirety of Mr. Wright’s firearm collection when asked to do so by Wright in 2011, and only ordered the return of 26 firearms at that time, the criminal court must have dispositively and with prejudice held that Mr. Wright had no further right to return of his firearms.

Per our briefing on these issues, we disagree with the court’s application of the implied findings doctrine in a manner that enhances the 2011 criminal court order to have such a broad conclusion. More importantly, the circumstances of the 2011 motion and ruling specifically evidence that no such implied finding was ever reached by the criminal court with regard to Mr. Wright’s remaining firearms. During the 2011 motion, the criminal court judge explicitly instructed the parties during oral argument to continue to negotiate over the remaining firearms and come back to the court for further law-and-motion proceedings if the parties couldn’t work the issues about return of those remaining firearms. It was with these specific instructions and understanding that the parties thereafter continued to negotiate over the remaining firearms for several years thereafter.

Further evidence of the criminal judge’s intent in the 2011 order is evident in the relief he refused to grant the City at that time. As part of the 2011 motion, the City expressly asked at that time for a ruling that Mr. Wright was no longer entitled to the remaining firearms in LAPD’s possession and that they be ordered destroyed. The criminal court refused the City's request.

Not only is the application of the implied findings doctrine squarely at odds with the history of the 2011 ruling, it is also contradicted by the subsequent behavior of the parties after that ruling. As noted above, following the 2011 order, the City never treated the 2011 order as broadly or dispositive as they began to contend it was following the filing of the federal action in 2015. Instead, LAPD continued to return firearms to Mr. Wright for more than three years after the allegedly dispositive 2011 ruling, including returning many firearms not on the list of 26 identified to be returned in the 2011 criminal court order. Thus, although the City now claims that it understood the 2011 order to conclusively divest Mr. Wright of any right to return of his remaining firearms at that point-in-time, LAPD spoke and acted in a manner completely at odds with this purported understanding until mid-2014.

If, as the City now claims, Mr. Wright had been divested of ownership in 2011, LAPD detectives apparently thereafter illegally transferred dozens of firearms to a non-owner in express violation of a court order and a law enforcement agency’s obligations under the Penal Code. Moreover, during the time these transfers were occurring, LAPD detectives continued to represent to Mr. Wright and his counsel that they had the authority to negotiate for these transfers and that Mr. Wright still had an ownership interest in these firearms such that he had a right to their return once he furnished LAPD with further sufficient “proof of ownership.”

The first time anyone at LAPD or the City took the position that the 2011 order was dispositive of Mr. Wright’s interest in the remaining firearms was after the federal lawsuit was filed in 2015. We think the incongruity between this new position and the well-documented history of the City’s 2011-2015 dealings on the return of Mr. Wright’s firearms will come back to haunt the City in subsequent legal proceedings, and we are taking steps to address the City’s convenient change in position and the federal court’s resultant and unfortunate ruling.

Foremost, we are appealing the federal court’s dismissal order on the grounds that it erred in its application of the implied findings doctrine, especially in light of the unambiguous allegations in the complaint about the ambit of the criminal court’s 2011 order, its instructions at oral argument, and the parties’ subsequent dealings consistent with their mutual understanding of the limited scope of that order.

Second, last week we formally asked the federal court for clarification as to whether state claims asserted in the federal court case under the court’s supplemental jurisdiction were disposed of by the court’s dismissal order. In response, the court clarified its order by stating that the merits of the state claims were not ruled upon in dismissing the federal claims and could therefore be reasserted in a state court action.

Finally, last week we filed a state court lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the City, the involved LAPD Gun Unit detectives, and the involved deputy city attorney, realleging the state claims of conversion and trespass to chattels asserted in the dismissed federal case as well as asserting new claims based upon the apparently fraudulent post-2011 actions of the City’s employees.

The basis of these new state law claims arise from the City’s as-of-late representations about what it understood the 2011 criminal court order to mean. If the City’s new position is to be believed, for three years after the 2011 ruling, LAPD detectives allegedly committed a blatant and ongoing fraud against Mr. Wright. They apparently acted outside their express and implied authority by making ongoing and repeated misrepresentations to Mr. Wright and his counsel about the effect of the 2011 ruling and Mr. Wright’s ability to continue to recover his firearm collection. Based on the City’s new claim about its understanding of the 2011 ruling, those LAPD detectives purportedly had no basis in fact for continuing to negotiate with Mr. Wright after the 2011 order to review receipts and other proof of ownership submitted by Wright to the LAPD. Treating the City’s new claims as true, these detectives apparently lacked any basis or authority for representing to Mr. Wright that he still had a right to retrieve those firearms he further proved he owned. Those detectives also apparently acted well outside their authority in ordering the LAPD Property Department to actually return many of the firearms to Mr. Wright that the City now claims Mr. Wright stopped having a legal right to recover back in 2011. Taking the City’s new claims as true, these actions and representations by LAPD detectives for years after the 2011 order took effect are all alleged in the new lawsuit as patent acts of fraud on the part of the involved detectives.

To be clear, after the 2011 order which the City now claims decided the issue of Mr. Wright’s ownership, LAPD detectives were in active, ongoing negotiations with Mr. Wright and his counsel over the types of proof Mr. Wright would have to furnish in order to recover additional firearms. During this time period, once these detectives were satisfied with this additional proof, they released some of the remaining firearms to Mr. Wright. If the City knew in 2011 that Mr. Wright’s ability to recover his firearms had been cut off by the criminal court’s 2011 order, then LAPD detectives could not have lawfully and in good faith engaged in these ongoing negotiations for years thereafter.

Regardless of which set of the City’s claimed facts are believed – its earlier position that the 2011 ruling did not affect Wright’s ownership in his remaining firearms or its new position that the 2011 ruling ended Wright’s ownership interest – we are committed to fighting the City for as long as necessary to correct this monumental injustice Mr. Wright has suffered at the hands of the LAPD Gun Unit. Mr. Wright spent his entire life “playing by the rules” and a good portion of his life in faithful service to his fellow citizens. Even in retirement he donates his time to serving others. For his service and sacrifice, he should be shielded by law enforcement agencies like LAPD, not become their target based on the political beliefs of city leaders or the purported public relations benefit of gun seizure numbers.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 01-18-2016, 6:50 PM
strongpoint's Avatar
strongpoint strongpoint is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: San Fran (west side)
Posts: 3,128
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDale@Michel&Associates View Post
Regardless of which set of the City’s claimed facts are believed – its earlier position that the 2011 ruling did not affect Wright’s ownership in his remaining firearms or its new position that the 2011 ruling ended Wright’s ownership interest – we are committed to fighting the City for as long as necessary to correct this monumental injustice Mr. Wright has suffered at the hands of the LAPD Gun Unit. Mr. Wright spent his entire life “playing by the rules” and a good portion of his life in faithful service to his fellow citizens. Even in retirement he donates his time to serving others. For his service and sacrifice, he should be shielded by law enforcement agencies like LAPD, not become their target based on the political beliefs of city leaders or the purported public relations benefit of gun seizure numbers.

__________________
.
“Keep it up, America, keep telling your youth that mud and danger are fit only for intellectual pigs. Keep on saying that only the stupid are fit to sacrifice, that America must be defended by the low-brow and enjoyed by the high-brow. Keep vaunting head over heart, and soon the head will arrive at the complete folly of any kind of fight and meekly surrender the treasure to the first bandit with enough heart to demand it.” (Robert Leckie)
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-19-2016, 11:58 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Thank you for the comprehensive update and continued efforts to right this monumental injustice.

Quote:
Moreover, during the time these transfers were occurring, LAPD detectives continued to represent to Mr. Wright and his counsel that they had the authority to negotiate for these transfers and that Mr. Wright still had an ownership interest in these firearms such that he had a right to their return once he furnished LAPD with further sufficient “proof of ownership.
Ca. Evidence code says they were his property because they confiscated them from him. Goes to further show that laws only apply to law abiding citizens. Not lawless public officials with agendas.

This type blatant malfeasance angers me deeply. Just as I get angered every time I remember that Jack Booted Thug CHP in NO after Katrina attacking a little old widow woman in her kitchen.

Stick to your guns, Mr Wayne Wright deserves justice. I sincerely hope you guys make the RICO charges stick. It is past time that crooked politicians with badges pay the piper for their illegal acts.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-20-2016, 9:58 AM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 876
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Thank you for the comprehensive update and continued efforts to right this monumental injustice.



Ca. Evidence code says they were his property because they confiscated them from him. Goes to further show that laws only apply to law abiding citizens. Not lawless public officials with agendas.

This type blatant malfeasance angers me deeply. Just as I get angered every time I remember that Jack Booted Thug CHP in NO after Katrina attacking a little old widow woman in her kitchen.

Stick to your guns, Mr Wayne Wright deserves justice. I sincerely hope you guys make the RICO charges stick. It is past time that crooked politicians with badges pay the piper for their illegal acts.
In the Caswell case, I concluded that the only way to change the completely and totally corrupt practices of the PD and DA was to collect up everybody involved -- from file clerk to the DA, from the janitor to the chief of police -- and hang them in the old Tewksbury town hall. The same sort of comprehensive cleanup needs to be done in LA. Only then would true justice be served.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 07-07-2016, 11:47 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

did this ever go up on appeal?
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 07-08-2016, 5:31 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
did this ever go up on appeal?
Thuroughly disgusted, LEO atrocity hating, Constitution Loving Americans want to know.

Yeah IMO Beck and his goon gun squad, is an atrocity.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 08-02-2016, 2:01 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,885
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
basically this case was already filed and lost in state court in 2011
the federal court is saying that since you already had a chance to litigate your case in one court you can't get a redo in this court
Don't Federal courts do this all of the time (e.g. in every single death penalty case)???

The US Const. has a 2A - Ca does not.

This stinks to high heaven.

Its very close to torch & pitchfork time
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 08-02-2016, 3:50 PM
KC_to_CA KC_to_CA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 427
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inalienable View Post
Reading the complaint has left me speechless. Everything about this case stinks to high heaven. Guns or no guns, I don't see a judge letting the LAPD off easy here.

- inalienable
First. This is LAPD. We know they do not follow the rules, they do bad things and they do wrong things, and the Judges may or may not be breaking bread with them.

Here's my question. Was there a video or other documentation to show all 400(+) firearms were destroyed? My personal opinion is that if the police takes your guns for "safe keeping", it should be prudent to declare whose "safe" they are "keeping" it in.

We can donate to the case.

Second. Whoever said they do not confiscate guns?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 08-03-2016, 5:17 AM
GM4spd's Avatar
GM4spd GM4spd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 5,084
iTrader: 99 / 100%
Default

Very good work. Pete
__________________
NRA LIFE (1974)

Since 1971 using/abusing my Colt ARs(thru thousands of rds) some Full Auto----no spares required.

I had a commission/USNR from 71-77 but neverconsider myself a Veteran.MyDad+4uncles/USMC/WW2/Korea/Vietnam. My Grandfather US Army WW1. No heroes,just regular folks--they were Veterans.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 08-04-2016, 7:12 AM
Sunday Sunday is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Shasta Co.
Posts: 5,567
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post

Its very close to torch & pitchfork time
Too late for that.
__________________
California's politicians and government employees are a criminal gang that make the MS 13 gang's crimes look like a Boy Scout troop.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-26-2017, 12:06 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Any new happenings on "Wright v Beck"?
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 04-29-2017, 8:57 PM
emgee00's Avatar
emgee00 emgee00 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Simi Valley
Posts: 2,581
iTrader: 106 / 100%
Default

Tagged!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
WTB: Taurus Tracker in .17 HMR

Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 04-29-2017, 10:48 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Any new happenings on "Wright v Beck"?
the appeal got briefed
https://www.scribd.com/document/3467...-Opening-Brief

https://www.scribd.com/document/3467...nswering-Brief
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 04-30-2017, 12:29 AM
Saym14 Saym14 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: So Cal
Posts: 7,333
iTrader: 138 / 100%
Default

drain the swamp! includes the criminal Police and DA's
__________________
AMMO FOR SALE http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1382782


Off roster handguns for sale
HK45
CZ P09 black 9mm
SA XDM OD green 9 mm
VP9 LE BNIB
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1358392
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 08-28-2017, 2:04 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like they have a oral argument


Wayne Wright v. Charles Beck - Wayne William Wright appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the Los Angeles Police Department improperly retained his lawfully owned firearms for longer than permitted by law and illegally destroyed them. [2:15-cv-05805-R-PJW]
Civil C. CA 10 min

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calenda...=6-9&year=2017
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 08-29-2017, 3:23 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Looks like they have a oral argument


Wayne Wright v. Charles Beck - Wayne William Wright appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the Los Angeles Police Department improperly retained his lawfully owned firearms for longer than permitted by law and illegally destroyed them. [2:15-cv-05805-R-PJW]
Civil C. CA 10 min

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calenda...=6-9&year=2017
Quote:
2017-11-09 9:00 am Courtroom 3, Richard H. Chambers US Court of Appeals, Pasadena
Case No. Title Nature Origin Time / Side 10 min.
16-55239
16-55984 Wayne Wright v. Charles Beck - Wayne William Wright appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the Los Angeles Police Department improperly retained his lawfully owned firearms for longer than permitted by law and illegally destroyed them. [2:15-cv-05805-R-PJW]
At this late date in these fiasco proceedings. I'm of the opinion that Beck/Feuer and the LAPD Gestapo Gun squad are trying to run out the clock on Mr Wrights life. In the hope he dies before Beck does.

It would truly warm my heart to see Chucky perp walked out of Parker Center in cuffs with the cameras rolling, for RICO violations.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 09-24-2017, 3:20 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,182
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

NEW ORALS CALENDAR LINK

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calenda...aseno=16-55239

11-9-2017...............@ 9:00AM

Last edited by pacrat; 09-26-2017 at 12:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:39 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.