|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
||||
|
||||
Have a look at the prayer for relief of the first amended complaint, the MSJ briefs, and the appellant's opening brief for starters, and see if you can come up with a counter argument. Not trying to be a dick here, just trying to steer you in the right direction.
Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-02-2012 at 5:14 PM.. |
#82
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#83
|
||||
|
||||
[QUOTE=Meplat;9836481]Has esqappellate ever had to deal with the 9th circus?[/QUOTE]
Yes: http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.p...&postcount=125 I have been before Judge Thomas twice and won twice (once quite recently). He adhered to the letter of the law both times. He resisted the "feel good" result advocated by liberal groups and the state of California. He will play it straight. More than that, one cannot reasonably ask. Last edited by Gray Peterson; 12-02-2012 at 5:47 PM.. |
#84
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Thanks for the breakdown Gray!
__________________
My AR is 7.62x39, so that if/when we get invaded, I can shoot their ammo back at them! Quote:
Own An 80%? CLICK HERE! Kevin de Leon, on minority women and profiling. |
#85
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It still doesn't change the fact that neither Neuharth nor Michel/Associates didn't file the notice. I trust esqappellate on the matter because I know his qualifications, which corrected some of my own: http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.p...0&postcount=19 It would be fair to say that my stance has moderated on the issue hearing from esqappellate, who has a lot more experience with federal appellate procedure doing what he does than you do, or Michel for that matter. |
#86
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Absent some indication of harm or prejudice to the State's opportunity to fully present its views however, belated certification, while not ideal, is sufficient to honor the purpose of the federal statute. Furthermore, there is general agreement that rule 5.1 should not be ignored, but, at least where the constitutionality of the statute has been upheld, there is no practical purpose to be served in remanding. Merrill v. Town of Addison, 763 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1985). This makes sense when you consider the purpose of the rule. If the constitutionality was upheld it makes for a very difficult argument that the government's position was not well represented. Since both Peruta and Richards are appealing a loss there is almost no chance at all of a remand, regardless of a failure by both plaintiffs and (apparently?) both district courts to notify/certify. |
#87
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
How about putting your money where your mouth is on the claims in your chicken little post? How much do you want to bet that there is no remand on 2403/5.1? |
#88
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#89
|
||||
|
||||
How about this. I know one case will absolutely be heard, because we have nothing to do with this State notification issue lol.
__________________
Lawyer, but not your lawyer. Posts aren't legal advice. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that all three will be heard - the court was not canceling oral arguments, they were telling the litigants to be prepared to argue the issue of notification. So I'm personally very certain that both Peruta and Richards will be heard - the disposition after the orals is what I have questions about. But it could be that I'm misunderstanding - wouldn't be the first time.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#91
|
||||
|
||||
Ask a mod to hold the money, I'll send a money order. Your "horror show" isn't going to play out I'm afraid lol.
|
#92
|
||||
|
||||
There will be impact to all three cases though as Paul Clement and Alan Gura will have to devote precious time to addressing this issue when it should have been spent on the substantive issues. I just wonder what Paul Clement is saying to the rest of the counsel on his team right now.
|
#93
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'm no expert on such stuff, but some time ago I came to the conclusion that orals at the circuit and SCOTUS levels are mostly window dressing. But they perpetuate the myth that the orals are very important and people are continually suckered.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#95
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead. My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer. |
#96
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Excellent!!!
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#98
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, of course. While the United States legal system is derived from that of the British commonwealth and its oral adversarial traditions, I think you will find almost universal agreement among practicing attorneys today that written briefs usually determine the outcome of cases in modern courts, particularly appellate courts considering constitutional questions.
|
#99
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead. My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer. |
#100
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As I said before, absent some tactical reason for not giving notice (as has been alleged to exist), it is my opinion that it should have been given. It is not however, a significant factor in either case. Interestingly, the worst case scenario seems to have been achieved in the Richards case, where notice was given (possibly eliminating any theoretical tactical advantage), but the notice was materially deficient (possibly precluding compliance with rule 5.1). |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If it were "worst case" I'd imagine that you expect dire consequences for the deficiency but you indicated previously that you didn't think the issue would be significant in either case. I suspect (and hope) it was just a typo.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
If the Peruta case never should have happened in the first place, why are we mad that it is now out of the way Gene, Gray, and Brandon?
Without a compelling and specific answer to that question, this whole thing smacks of a smear campaign or some kind of personal vendetta. |
#103
|
||||
|
||||
Perhaps, or perhaps I'm simply highlighting the deficiencies in your original inquiry.
-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead. My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer. |
#104
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As I mentioned earlier, when FGG shows up, the battle of egos starts raging from all sides. While there is an undeniable entertainment value in it, the informative value tends to go down with all "oh, yeah, tell me this" and "are you saying that." Most of us are just trying to figure out what the status is and whether there are any serious procedural issues that can lead to long delays. Anything else that we can learn about the process is a pure bonus.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#105
|
||||
|
||||
Well, you should at least get some credit for sounding logical!
Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-02-2012 at 9:42 PM.. |
#106
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The effect of the "worst case scenario" however, given rule 5.1 and those facts, is unlikely to have any significant effect on the outcome of the case, for the reasons I already mentioned. |
#107
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
2. If it were, who said I'd be "mad that is is?" I'm sorry your plaintiff handed your organization's opportunistic [and perhaps too anxious] lawyers the case he did. -Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead. My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer. |
#108
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1. The notice must state the constitutional question raised and; 2. The notice must identify the paper that raises it. If you carefully examine the notice linked to in the OP, as sent by certified mail, you will see that it fails to meet the second requirement. As an aside, I'm not sure what all the chest thumping around here is about, it seems clear to me that we are all on the same side. |
#109
|
||||
|
||||
I'm not in the business of doing work for you, "Fabio". I don't do proxy bets with someone anonymous.
|
#110
|
||||
|
||||
It's ok, I wouldn't take the bet if I were you either. Please mind the forum rules by the way lol.
|
#111
|
||||
|
||||
Which rule is that? You're the one who started asking for bets, and then you took the anon coward route.
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Guys, this is all some personal agenda crap. This is some kind of smear campaign. The evidence is that the first 4 posts on this thread were from Gene, Brandon, and Gray, all three of them are hanging in there to do nothing more than trash a couple people (who you'd think would be considered all on the same progun team), they aren't giving all the facts, this Fabio guy has a whole different story...
I don't know what is going on here, but it is all someone's agenda. Don't let them make you part of their agenda. I only know what is on this thread, but I can smell the BS right through the computer screen. Disregard this entire thread and move on. We could use far fewer jr-wanna-be-lawyers and Hoffman sycophants and far more activists. Back away from the calguns and go teach some people how to shoot and/or volunteer for a pro-gun politician or candidate. The rest of this is all a waste of time. |
#113
|
||||
|
||||
I need to be careful, last time I tried to defend myself against this kind of forum rule violation I got banned! If you change your mind and want to put money on whether your dire predictions will come through, just say the word, pick your escrow agent, and I will send a money order ASAP. lol.
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Spare us the conspiracy theories. You say talking about the facts surrounding a case that is public record and asking questions about it is a smear campaign, and then proceed to talk trash. You obviously need to follow your own advice... |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
is "solipsist" latin for brain surgeon?
clearly i am not disputing the facts of this. of course it actually happened. i am dismissing the opinions and insults in the comments that followed. and suggesting time is better spent for our cause by bringing new people into the fold rather than sitting around reading internet gossip and getting caught up in the agendas of three men. |
#117
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#118
|
||||
|
||||
You nailed it. This is exactly what most of us are trying to figure out. If you can shed some light, that'd be great.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#119
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The Imp of the Perverse is also exemplified in The Bad Glazier, a prose poem by Charles Baudelaire. The concept also figures prominently in the motives of Jack Shaftoe, a swashbuckling protagonist in Neal Stephenson's trilogy The Baroque Cycle: But here was a rare opportunity for stupidity even more flagrant and glorious. Now, Bob, who'd been observing Jack carefully for many years, had observed that when these moments arrived, Jack was almost invariably possessed by something that Bob had heard about in Church called the Imp of the Perverse. Bob was convinced that the Imp of the Perverse rode invisibly on Jack's shoulder whispering bad ideas into his ear, and that the only counterbalance was Bob himself, standing alongsides counseling good sense, prudence, caution, and other Puritan virtues. But Bob was in England.
__________________
Quote:
|
#120
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
When it comes to litigation, NRA-ILA aligned persons such as Chuck Michel, Paul Clement, and Steven Halbrook has done a tremendous amount of professional discourtesy, and done terrible jobs at protecting 2A-related civil liberties. From the beginning, NRA-ILA aligned civil litigators did everything possible to keep what was to become District of Columbia v. Heller (it was called Parker v. District of Columbia at the time), including filing sham litigation that was Seegars v. Ashcroft. That was Stephen Halbrook. They then later twice tried to get Congress to repeal the DC handgun ban, mooting the case. Only Virginia Tech stopped that train. Fast forward a year. They (NRA-ILA) file unnecessarily duplicative litigation against the city of Chicago, using themselves as the lead plaintiffs, interfering at every step with McDonald v. City of Chicago Paul Clement, in professional discourtesy, told the Supreme Court, in his position as former Solicitor General of the United States, now on behalf of the NRA, that Gura did not argue enough on substantive due process, which was provably false. The NRA's view did not gain them 5 votes in the Supreme Court, as Justice Thomas would not have joined a substantive due process ruling and we would have lost. It is believed that certain personalities that control the NRA was afraid of the penumbras of civil liberties that a resurrected P&I clause in the 14th amendment would engender. NRA ILA against the 18-21 year old bans on purchasing handguns from an FFL, and carry between 18-21, before even the carry issue was resolved. These cases should have never been pursued. They get the rare wins, like Shawn Gowder in Chicago, which netted the NRA lawyers $125K. When NRA-ILA got a check from the City of Chicago for $1.3 million dollars, they got it because Gura made the argument that got the magic 5th Justice that was needed in McDonald (That would be Justice Thomas). Benson v. City of Chicago, total handgun sales ban & 8 other things. Mr. Gura & Mr. Sigale were able to get the total range ban tossed and give strong precedent in the 7th Circuit. NRAILA's Bensen litigation is still in a quagmire down below. ILA generally doesn't know how to litigate, because they are the institute for LEGISLATIVE action. When you have a long history of litigation failures, it only informs what is going on with the Peruta litigation. Also, litigation in re the state AB962 litigation. Yes we as gun owners won the preliminary injunction, but there was such sloppiness after the injunction that despite usually getting attorneys fees under the California fee recovery statute, Michel & Associates did NOT get their fees back, which means the money doesn't go back to the NRA-ILA & CRPAF. Unfortunately, the NRA-ILA does stupid things for fundraising purposes, and continually rewards failure. It's no wonder they parachuted in Clement. Last edited by Gray Peterson; 12-02-2012 at 11:38 PM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|