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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-14-2008, 2:54 PM
zok zok is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default LEXIPOL LLC.

I thought this was very interesting on what I found on the internet. Lexipol sent a warning to all there clients on TBJ. This is interesting reading. I think they are very concerned on how Chiefs and Sherifs follow there policy.


FERGUSON, PRAET & SHERMAN
A Professional Corporation
1631 E. 18th Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705-7101
Telephone (714) 953-5300 Facsimile (714) 953-1143
alerts@law4cops.com

CLIENT ALERT
November 8, 2007


TO: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs

FROM: Bruce D. Praet, Attorney at Law

1. Update to: WARNING! Beware of “Set Ups” With CCW Applicants – Federal Lawsuit May Soon Follow.

Hopefully, you all read (and recall) our October 10, 2007, Client Alert on “Team Billy Jack” and their (semi)organized effort to target California law enforcement agencies for litigation in federal court over CCW permits. While we have attached a reprint of the October 10th Client Alert below as a reminder, I’ll bring you up to speed on a few new developments you should be alert to in your own agency:

1. Because these guys are encountering the Lexipol CCW policy in the pending Santa Maria case as well as other agencies, they are now desperate to determine how wide spread this (very solid) policy might be throughout the state. Most of you (if not all) have already received or will be receiving a very simple Public Records Act (PRA) request from Preston Guillory simply asking if your department is currently utilizing the Lexipol CCW policy.

a. Frankly, this question is a matter of public record (as is your actual CCW policy) and there is really no reason you shouldn’t answer the question. [You really should visit their website at www.clueseau.com as they actually outline their tactics and even list all “known” Lexipol subscribers.]
b. However, be alert to the next tactic(s) which may include sending a “ringer” to your agency applying for a CCW permit to be followed by a PRA request for all other CCW permit applications. [NOTE: Certain aspects of these applications will also be subject to disclosure under the PRA.]


Although we have filed a very strong motion to dismiss the current federal lawsuit
against Santa Maria PD (hearing set for November 19, 2007), these folks are obviously looking for additional target agencies and you should be alert to any and all related applications, PRA requests and other related issues. As we have stated in the past, Lexipol has provided you with a very solid CCW policy – we only ask that you make sure it is followed in every instance in order to minimize your exposure to federal litigation from these folks.

Reprint of October 10, 2007 Client Alert

Heads Up! There is an organized effort trying to set up California law enforcement agencies for federal lawsuits over the (non)issuance of CCW permits. A private investigator out of Riverside by the name of Preston Guillory [i.e. Guillory v. County of Orange, 731 F2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1984)] is actively soliciting and supporting cases against California law enforcement agencies over the CCW permit process [See: www.clueseau.com] Although we are fairly optimistic that we will ultimately prevail in our defense of the Santa Maria Police Department in the most recent lawsuit in the Central District, it is clear that Mr. Guillory and others are actively pursuing these cases. [See also: Dunmore v. County of Placer, recently dismissed in the Northern District].

The good news is that all of our Lexipol agencies have a very comprehensive and sound CCW policy [Section 218] which is fully compliant with the latest state and federal law. However, we strongly encourage you to follow your policy since even the best policy is of little benefit if not followed. One of the latest tactics used by these groups is to send in their “applicant” who seemingly complies with all of the procedural requirements of both your policy and Penal Code § 12050, et. seq. In the meantime, you will also receive a Public Records Act request from Mr. Guillory (or someone else) seeking all other CCW permit files. [NOTE: While certain information from these applicant files is exempt pursuant to Government Code section 6254(u), other general information will be subject to disclosure.]

If you grant a permit to the “applicant”, obviously they’ll be happy and they’ll either move on or attempt to dupe you with the next “applicant”. Once you inevitably deny an application, they will now attempt to shove your own policy down your throat by demonstrating (courtesy of your own records) that you might not have strictly followed your own policy in granting other CCW permits. Just like the recent issue with “Honorary Badges”, this CCW process is potentially ripe for scrutiny to determine whether or not any Chief or Sheriff is granting permits based on a personal or political agenda rather than policy and state law.

Since it is well established that the issuance of CCW permits is absolutely discretionary and further that no one has a constitutional property or liberty interest in such a permit, these folks are testing all sorts of new and novel legal theories. For example, Mr. Guillory and company are testing an “Equal Protection” theory in our Santa Maria case based upon the allegation that their “applicant” was treated differently than others who had received permits, but who purportedly had demonstrated similar or even less “good cause”. In the Placer County case, Plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the entire application process on a theory that it was unduly invasive in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Whether or not these folks will ever prevail on any theory remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, please be vigilant and alert to “applicants” and make sure that you cross your “T’s” and dot your “I’s” by following your policy throughout the process. Even if we continue to win in court, the cost of defending these matters can get expensive.

As always, we appreciate the opportunity to keep you informed of the latest legal issues affecting your agencies. If you should have any questions about these or any other legal issues, please don’t ever hesitate to call for further advice (at no charge) at (714) 953-5300 or email us at alerts@law4cops.com. As with all other contemporary issues, our proprietary software provides all of our LEXIPOL policy subscribers with ongoing access to all of our comprehensive policy amendments and daily training bulletins encompassing the latest changes resulting from relevant case law and statutory changes. If you are one of the few agencies not yet availing yourself of our customized policy manual system, please call us at (949) 484-4444 for further information or visit our website at www.lexipol.com.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-14-2008, 3:25 PM
Zmon Zmon is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe the Chiefs from Santa Maria and Torrance P.D. should get a round of gulf in, since it is looking like they are going to have lots of time on there hands in the future.

Last edited by Zmon; 06-14-2008 at 3:30 PM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-14-2008, 3:30 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,315
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce
Although we have filed a very strong motion to dismiss the current federal lawsuit
against Santa Maria PD
So strong that the judge denied it!

The arrogance of this letter is astonishing. "Ringers"? Applying for a CCW, and expecting to be treated fairly, is some kind of scam perhaps?

Quote:
Since it is well established that the issuance of CCW permits is absolutely discretionary
WRONG. That's an outright lie. When I go to the store I have absolute discretion over whether I buy Cheerios or Corn Flakes, or neither. With CCW permits, on the other hand, it is well established that it must pass the reasonable basis test, which does not allow absolute discretion.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?

Last edited by CCWFacts; 06-14-2008 at 3:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-14-2008, 5:23 PM
Army's Avatar
Army Army is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Trailer Trash For Life!
Posts: 3,881
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"Dupe"?

Love this part though, as they as much admit they are in the wrong:

Quote:
If you grant a permit to the “applicant”, obviously they’ll be happy and they’ll either move on or attempt to dupe you with the next “applicant”. Once you inevitably deny an application, they will now attempt to shove your own policy down your throat by demonstrating (courtesy of your own records) that you might not have strictly followed your own policy in granting other CCW permits. Just like the recent issue with “Honorary Badges”, this CCW process is potentially ripe for scrutiny to determine whether or not any Chief or Sheriff is granting permits based on a personal or political agenda rather than policy and state law.
__________________
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself...A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."......Cicero
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-14-2008, 5:26 PM
C.G.'s Avatar
C.G. C.G. is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 6,744
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Had to chuckle over this one:
Quote:
Even if we continue to win in court, the cost of defending these matters can get expensive.
All they are worried about is that it might cost them some money.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-14-2008, 5:55 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,315
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Even if we continue to win in court, the cost of defending these matters can get expensive.
These guys are liars. "Continue to win in court"? Um? "Continue" means "to maintain without interruption". They haven't yet won. In the first TBJ lawsuit, in Santa Maria, the judge laughed at their motion to dismiss.

And their lies continue...

Quote:
this CCW process is potentially ripe for scrutiny to determine whether or not any Chief or Sheriff is granting permits based on a personal or political agenda rather than policy and state law.

ed: however...

Since it is well established that the issuance of CCW permits is absolutely discretionary
Ok, bozo, which is it? Is it "ripe for scrutiny", or is it "absolutely discretionary"? It's one or the other. We in the computer biz call this condition "XOR", for "exclusive or". The XOR truth table looks like:

Quote:
Originally Posted by XOR
1 XOR 0 = 1
0 XOR 1 = 1
1 XOR 1 = 0
0 XOR 0 = 0
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-14-2008, 7:41 PM
WokMaster1's Avatar
WokMaster1 WokMaster1 is offline
Part time Emperor
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,441
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

See also: Dunmore v. County of Placer, recently dismissed in the Northern District

Can someone with legal knowledge tell me what this case is about & the outcome or latest info?
__________________
"Good friends, good food & good wine. Anything else is just a waste of soy sauce.":)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-15-2008, 5:38 AM
tankerman's Avatar
tankerman tankerman is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Posts: 24,258
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post

The arrogance of this letter is astonishing. "Ringers"?
What the rest of the country refers to as citizens this idiot calls "ringers"

I am particulary interested in the statement "issuance of CCW permits is absolutely discretionary", which comes directly after "this CCW process is potentially ripe for scrutiny to determine whether or not any Chief or Sheriff is granting permits based on a personal or political agenda rather than policy and state law." Some how inferring that personal and political agendas are acceptable and legitimate under the definition of "discrectionary". In California the Old Democrat "Political Machine" is statewide.

This reeks of arrogance.

Last edited by tankerman; 06-15-2008 at 7:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-15-2008, 8:33 AM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The Sheriff in Guillory v Gates, Brad Gates testified in Federal Court that he enjoyed unfettered discretion and even the trial judge perked up at that statement. The 9th Circuit Court Decision put that arrogant statement to rest. No one and I mean no one in this country enjoys 'unfettered discretion'. If these officials actually took the time to read Guillory v Gates, which is available at www.californiaconcealedcarry.com they would realize they do not have any legal defense for their conduct.

It is also important for everyone to take note that LEXIPOL LLC provides CCW Policies for 2/3 of the departments in California. That is almost 300 departments. The 'Policy' is little more than a 'firewall' designed to not issue. It is written in such a manner that when a Sheriff or Chief wants to issue to a friend or government official they have to circumvent or violate their own policy in order to do so. That immediately sets them up for a 14th Amendment Federal suit. There is a clear effort by LEXIPOL and its clients to circumvent the US Constitution and violate the 14th Amendment Rights of average citizens. There is absolutely no difference in the intent of this policy than in the policies set up to discriminate against racial minorities in a very bad place in this countries history. Ordinary citizens are indeed a 'class' as defined by prior SCOTUS rulings. One person denied their Rights is by court definition a 'Class'. That is how TBJ is able to bring these Federal actions on the behalf of individual clients.

Billy Jack


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


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-15-2008, 9:16 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,315
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Jack View Post
No one and I mean no one in this country enjoys 'unfettered discretion'.
I assuming you mean "no government official enjoys 'unfettered discretion'". That's almost correct. Their discretion must be subject to reasonable basis scrutiny, so, for example, it can't be malicious. Certainly it is not "unfettered".

With one exception that I can think of. The power of the presidential pardon is totally absolute, unfettered and not subject to any review. In one sentence Lexipol is claiming that the power to issue CCWs is as arbitrary and unfettered as the presidential pardon. WRONG!
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-15-2008, 9:26 AM
Subvertz's Avatar
Subvertz Subvertz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So the various police departs pay this company LEXIPOL to keep consistancy among their policies? Why can't the police just follow their own rules? If our taxpayer money is spent towards this, isn't their some input w eget towards it?
__________________
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." George Washington, Address to 1st session of Congress
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-15-2008, 11:15 AM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
I assuming you mean "no government official enjoys 'unfettered discretion'". That's almost correct. Their discretion must be subject to reasonable basis scrutiny, so, for example, it can't be malicious. Certainly it is not "unfettered".

With one exception that I can think of. The power of the presidential pardon is totally absolute, unfettered and not subject to any review. In one sentence Lexipol is claiming that the power to issue CCWs is as arbitrary and unfettered as the presidential pardon. WRONG!
Appreciate you cleaning up my statement. You are right on target. It is amazing that ordinary citizens without law degrees can understand the law better than the average Chief or Sheriff. When you place these issues before a trier of facts the departments lose, hands down.

Billy Jack
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-15-2008, 12:31 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,315
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Jack View Post
Appreciate you cleaning up my statement. You are right on target. It is amazing that ordinary citizens
That's me! Just a computer dude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Jack View Post
without law degrees can understand the law better than the average Chief or Sheriff. When you place these issues before a trier of facts the departments lose, hands down.
We're really lucky about the PRA. None of this stuff would be possible if these records could be kept in obscurity.

It really amazes me that Lexipol is saying that the power to issue CCWs is something on par with the presidential pardon, being beyond all review.

And yet... and yet... if it were, why are they needing to warn the departments that they might have exposure from their CCW practices?

"Unfettered discretion" is what I have when I'm at the supermarket deciding if I want Cheerios or Corn Flakes or none of the above. "Unfettered discretion" is what the president has when he decides to pardon or not pardon. "Rational basis" is what chiefs have when they decide to issue or not issue.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-15-2008, 4:16 PM
dwtt dwtt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,222
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

They sound like a political action committee. Are they a law firm hired by the Brady bunch?
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 11:46 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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.