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
  #281  
Old 05-04-2012, 3:26 PM
desert dog's Avatar
desert dog desert dog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 508
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Im sure this is WAY down on the list of priorities for Baca right now, especially in light of this week's supreme court decision;

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworl...l-sheriff-from

This guy is costing the county HUGE sums of money in litigation. Hopefully, the fact that he is fighting (and losing) bigger battles at the moment gives us an advantage.
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 05-04-2012, 3:32 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CEDaytonaRydr View Post
Any updates...?

Please make a note of the Case Number, which you can enter here to get the court's docket for the case.

Case Number: BC480493
JENNIFER LYNN LU ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
Filing Date: 03/09/2012
Case Type: Other Writ/Judicial Review (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Hearings
06/11/2012 at 08:30 am in department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Order to Show Cause (PLAINTIFF:OSC WHY SANC SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSEDFOR FAILURE TO TIMELY: 1)FILE POS2)MAKE APP FOR PUB 3)FILE DEFAULT4)FILE CMC STMNT 5)FILE DFLT JUDG)

08/23/2012 at 08:30 am in department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
DEMURRER (TO COMPLAINT, PRTITION FOR WRIT OFMANDATE AND REQUEST FORDECLARATORY RELIFE



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Documents Filed | Proceeding Information
Parties

BACA LEROY A. - Defendant/Respondent

CALGUNS FOUNDATION INC THE - Plaintiff/Petitioner

DAVIS JASON A. ESQ. - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

DOES 1 THROUGH 10 - Defendant/Respondent

JOYNT KAREN C. DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF - Defendant/Respondent

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - Defendant/Respondent

LU JENNIFER LYNN - Plaintiff/Petitioner

LU SEAN ALLEN - Plaintiff/Petitioner

VARGAS ROY TORIVIO - Plaintiff/Petitioner



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information
Please make a note of the Case Number.

Click here to access document images for this case.
If this link fails, you may go to the Case Document Images site and search using the case number displayed on this page.

Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)

04/23/2012 Demurrer (TO PLNTS. COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF; )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

04/10/2012 Notice of Change of Address
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/20/2012 OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous)
Filed by Clerk

03/20/2012 Notice-Case Management Conference
Filed by Clerk

03/15/2012 Proof-Service/Summons (LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/15/2012 Proof-Service/Summons (PARTY SERVED: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/15/2012 Proof-Service/Summons (PARTY SERVED: LEROY B. BACA )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/09/2012 Complaint
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 05-04-2012, 3:36 PM
hill billy hill billy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,645
iTrader: 147 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by desert dog View Post
Im sure this is WAY down on the list of priorities for Baca right now, especially in light of this week's supreme court decision;

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworl...l-sheriff-from

This guy is costing the county HUGE sums of money in litigation. Hopefully, the fact that he is fighting (and losing) bigger battles at the moment gives us an advantage.
Hopefully that will be the nail in Baca's coffin.
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 05-04-2012, 3:37 PM
HBrebel's Avatar
HBrebel HBrebel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: HB
Posts: 543
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrsquared79 View Post
EPIC!!! Can't wait for this to trickle on down to the OC!!!
+1! concealed carry in HB.
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 05-04-2012, 3:38 PM
finyllw's Avatar
finyllw finyllw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: From Ca, now in Co
Posts: 385
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Just made a donation to CGF. I don't live in LA County, but the Sheriff in OC is from LA. I want to see her fry next!
__________________
When the SHTF, and someone shows up at my door asking for help, I'm going to ask them if they are a D or an R, and who they voted for.

Wrong answer get's them turned away or shot.
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 05-04-2012, 4:36 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill billy View Post
Hopefully that will be the nail in Baca's coffin.
It won't be.

The money they're playing with is not their money, it's our money. They don't care whether it's spent wisely or foolishly. And they have a big pile of it.

The costs of litigation are so small compared with the size of that pile that it's lost in the noise. Thinking that the costs of litigation are significant for LA County is like thinking that spending $50 on a traffic ticket is a "significant expense" when your income is a million dollars a year.

L.A. County's budget is 23 billion dollars. You guys are crazy if you think LA County is going to care about the insignificant expenses that result from this litigation. This is pocket change to them, and entirely worthwhile from their point of view: it's easily worth the trouble if they can further suffocate the rights of the people.

No, for them, this is merely the cost of doing business, and it's a heck of a deal for them because their costs, in relative terms, are so low.


For this to have any real financial impact, the cost of the lawsuit would have to be in the billions. Now, tell me how many civil rights lawsuits have ever managed to cause that kind of damage to a government of this size. Yeah, that's what I thought (answer: none).
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 05-04-2012 at 4:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 05-05-2012, 4:45 AM
d_c_mar's Avatar
d_c_mar d_c_mar is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: La Puente, CA
Posts: 109
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

KC, I don't think the goal is money. I agree with you on that. It would have to be a huge amount to REALLY get their attention. What if the goal was injunctive relief. THAT would really have them in a panic. HAVING to give out a bunch of licenses to carry would really rub them the wrong way.
__________________
"Everybody's got a plan until they get hit" - Mike Tyson
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 05-05-2012, 5:45 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by d_c_mar View Post
KC, I don't think the goal is money. I agree with you on that. It would have to be a huge amount to REALLY get their attention. What if the goal was injunctive relief. THAT would really have them in a panic. HAVING to give out a bunch of licenses to carry would really rub them the wrong way.
I agree, that's the real goal. My point was only to counter the notion that, somehow, the money involved would cost people in political terms. It won't. The money involved is a pittance, a tiny drop of water in a sea of money. It is quite literally of no consequence at all.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 05-05-2012, 11:39 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,560
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
It won't be.

The money they're playing with is not their money, it's our money. They don't care whether it's spent wisely or foolishly. And they have a big pile of it.

The costs of litigation are so small compared with the size of that pile that it's lost in the noise. Thinking that the costs of litigation are significant for LA County is like thinking that spending $50 on a traffic ticket is a "significant expense" when your income is a million dollars a year.

L.A. County's budget is 23 billion dollars. You guys are crazy if you think LA County is going to care about the insignificant expenses that result from this litigation. This is pocket change to them, and entirely worthwhile from their point of view: it's easily worth the trouble if they can further suffocate the rights of the people.

No, for them, this is merely the cost of doing business, and it's a heck of a deal for them because their costs, in relative terms, are so low.


For this to have any real financial impact, the cost of the lawsuit would have to be in the billions. Now, tell me how many civil rights lawsuits have ever managed to cause that kind of damage to a government of this size. Yeah, that's what I thought (answer: none).
Agreed.

The way to make the money significant is to make it political rather than financial.

As in 'with the money thrown away on defending an anti-civil-rights law, you could have hired 10 more cops | kept the library branch open | continued to subsidize transit for the elderly'.

Fat chance.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 06-21-2012, 7:48 PM
voiceofreason's Avatar
voiceofreason voiceofreason is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,781
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Case Number: BC480493
JENNIFER LYNN LU ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
Filing Date: 03/09/2012
Case Type: Other Writ/Judicial Review (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings
08/23/2012 at 08:30 am in department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
DEMURRER (TO COMPLAINT, PRTITION FOR WRIT OFMANDATE AND REQUEST FORDECLARATORY RELIEF; & S/C RESCHEDULING ADR)

06/27/2013 at 08:30 am in department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference

07/11/2013 at 08:30 am in department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 06-21-2012, 7:51 PM
voiceofreason's Avatar
voiceofreason voiceofreason is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,781
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Please note that the trial would not take place until over 12 months from today at the earliest, assuming there aren't any delays.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 06-21-2012, 8:42 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,663
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

R U Fing kidding me???? Can we DO anything about this????
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 06-21-2012, 10:21 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
R U Fing kidding me???? Can we DO anything about this????
Nope. Not a thing.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 06-21-2012, 11:08 PM
CEDaytonaRydr's Avatar
CEDaytonaRydr CEDaytonaRydr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 4,079
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHS View Post
Nope. Not a thing.
So much for a "speedy trial"...

Oh well, they're only denying the inevitable. By the time the verdict comes in, Baca will have enough sense to retire and leave this mess for the next Sheriff...

Unfortunately, this is an epidemic within that department. I've talked with at least a dozen deputies who think that Lee Baca is a "good man" and that it's "Sad" (as one deputy put it) that people are suing him.
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 06-22-2012, 1:45 AM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well, what are the chances this goes to jury trial? Probably not much of one. It would be over on motions (msj etc.).

Timeline seems pretty normal, hell I had to wait 6 months for a preliminary injunction hearing...
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 06-22-2012, 7:59 AM
Uxi's Avatar
Uxi Uxi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,123
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

lol WTF takes a year?
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

9mm + 5.56mm =
.45ACP + 7.62 NATO =
10mm + 6.8 SPC =


Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; Jn 1:14
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 06-22-2012, 8:23 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Trial will not happen here. A demurrer is the state equivalent to motion to dismiss. The trial time is essentially a reservation of time. Courts really are that busy. Criminal cases take precedence.
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 06-22-2012, 7:25 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

To echo, there will be no trial in this. It's a matter of law and will be decided on motions.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 06-22-2012, 7:36 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any chance we'll find out if the rumors that Sheriff Baca is actually prohibited through this case? J/K. (sort of)
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 06-22-2012, 9:15 PM
TheExpertish's Avatar
TheExpertish TheExpertish is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NCSD, PRK
Posts: 3,445
iTrader: 49 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
To echo, there will be no trial in this. It's a matter of law and will be decided on motions.

-Gene
Glad to hear that. Would be nice to see this wrapped up sooner than later and for San Diego to follow suit.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by starsnuffer
It's an HK, I could lube it with sand and superglue and it'd work just fine.
Reply With Quote
  #301  
Old 08-02-2012, 1:21 PM
CEDaytonaRydr's Avatar
CEDaytonaRydr CEDaytonaRydr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 4,079
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
To echo, there will be no trial in this. It's a matter of law and will be decided on motions.

-Gene
Well, thanks for fighting the good fight! Just sent a Benjamin your via on the CGF website...
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 08-02-2012, 2:46 PM
kauaibuilt's Avatar
kauaibuilt kauaibuilt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,238
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Any status update on this at all?
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 08-02-2012, 3:36 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Jason filed our opposition to LA's demurrer late yesterday afternoon. The hearing is the morning of Aug. 24.

-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.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 08-02-2012, 3:45 PM
CEDaytonaRydr's Avatar
CEDaytonaRydr CEDaytonaRydr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 4,079
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Jason filed our opposition to LA's demurrer late yesterday afternoon. The hearing is the morning of Aug. 24.

-Brandon
I saw that on the website...

Is that something that we could/should attend?
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 08-02-2012, 4:13 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Let me talk with Jason some before we fill up the gallery on this one. Maybe, for now.

-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.
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 08-02-2012, 6:57 PM
Stubby Stubby is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Monterey Park
Posts: 251
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Excellent,

Movement is a great thing
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 08-02-2012, 7:14 PM
voiceofreason's Avatar
voiceofreason voiceofreason is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,781
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Jason filed our opposition to LA's demurrer late yesterday afternoon. The hearing is the morning of Aug. 24.

-Brandon
Hi Brandon,

Was this changed from the 23rd to the 24th?


Still listed on the Los Angeles Superior Court website:

08/23/2012 at 08:30 am in department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
DEMURRER (TO COMPLAINT, PRTITION FOR WRIT OFMANDATE AND REQUEST FORDECLARATORY RELIEF; & S/C RESCHEDULING ADR)
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 08-02-2012, 7:50 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

No, definitely use the docket. I was going by memory after having been awake for a couple of days.

-Brandon

Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreason View Post
Hi Brandon,

Was this changed from the 23rd to the 24th?


Still listed on the Los Angeles Superior Court website:

08/23/2012 at 08:30 am in department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
DEMURRER (TO COMPLAINT, PRTITION FOR WRIT OFMANDATE AND REQUEST FORDECLARATORY RELIEF; & S/C RESCHEDULING ADR)
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 08-15-2012, 9:11 AM
voiceofreason's Avatar
voiceofreason voiceofreason is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,781
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
No, definitely use the docket. I was going by memory after having been awake for a couple of days.

-Brandon
I just checked and the docket has been changed from the 23rd to the 24th. Should anyone bother going to this?

Or pass on attending this one?


Case Number: BC480493
JENNIFER LYNN LU ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
Filing Date: 03/09/2012
Case Type: Other Writ/Judicial Review (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings
08/24/2012 at 08:30 am in department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
DEMURRER (TO COMPLAINT, PRTITION FOR WRIT OFMANDATE AND REQUEST FORDECLARATORY RELIEF; & S/C RESCHEDULING ADR)

06/27/2013 at 08:30 am in department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference

07/11/2013 at 08:30 am in department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 08-23-2012, 8:32 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,348
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bumping this in case "the Right People" request that folks in the area show up (in appropriate dress).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Let me talk with Jason some before we fill up the gallery on this one. Maybe, for now.

-Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreason View Post
I just checked and the docket has been changed from the 23rd to the 24th. Should anyone bother going to this?

Or pass on attending this one?


Case Number: BC480493
JENNIFER LYNN LU ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
Filing Date: 03/09/2012
Case Type: Other Writ/Judicial Review (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings
08/24/2012 at 08:30 am in department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
DEMURRER (TO COMPLAINT, PRTITION FOR WRIT OFMANDATE AND REQUEST FORDECLARATORY RELIEF; & S/C RESCHEDULING ADR)

06/27/2013 at 08:30 am in department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference

07/11/2013 at 08:30 am in department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 08-23-2012, 5:15 PM
CEDaytonaRydr's Avatar
CEDaytonaRydr CEDaytonaRydr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 4,079
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Unfortunately, I am stuck in jury duty tomorrow...
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 08-23-2012, 5:24 PM
kauaibuilt's Avatar
kauaibuilt kauaibuilt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,238
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Bumping this in case "the Right People" request that folks in the area show up (in appropriate dress).
If its determined that we should fill the room, how long is it expected to last? Only ask because of child care issues.
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 08-24-2012, 7:33 AM
Uxi's Avatar
Uxi Uxi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,123
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Wish I could make it
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

9mm + 5.56mm =
.45ACP + 7.62 NATO =
10mm + 6.8 SPC =


Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; Jn 1:14
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 08-24-2012, 8:08 AM
Fiveohmike Fiveohmike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 790
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

How did it go?
__________________
-- I love the mythological significance given to Dum Dum Bullets. As if they're little tactical nukes, stacked up in "Assault Clips" ready to be "sprayfired" "from the hip" by pistol grip equipped "bullet hoses" instead of early variations of the softpoint bullets people have been using to take game with (and use for self-defense) for the last century.
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 08-24-2012, 8:35 AM
FalconLair FalconLair is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Summerlin, Las Vegas, NV.
Posts: 1,870
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

probably a bit early...8:30 in court time is really 10:00am
__________________
Quote:
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that we used when we created them - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 08-24-2012, 10:28 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,838
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill billy View Post
Hopefully that will be the nail in Baca's coffin.
Nah, LA knows that it has plenty of YOUR money to spend. No harm, no foul.
__________________
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?"
"The cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."
-Anton Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 08-24-2012, 10:56 AM
Lifeon2whls's Avatar
Lifeon2whls Lifeon2whls is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Reseda
Posts: 1,768
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Any updates?
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 08-24-2012, 5:28 PM
Fjold Fjold is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Bakersfield
Posts: 20,601
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Well, court is adjourned.


How did LA County weasel out of doing anything substantive?
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 08-24-2012, 6:45 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,835
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

No doubt yet another corrupt judge.
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 08-24-2012, 7:17 PM
kotetu's Avatar
kotetu kotetu is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,215
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

no updates on the website yet.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by
You can't be serious?

California is the only state the NRA dedicates a full time lobbyist to. It has other employees who have accomplished all of this (and much more that oftentimes cannot be discussed publicly): ...
And they have lawyers doing all of this: ...
And here is an older report on things NRA has done in CA: ...
This is not to mention that NRA donated the maximum allowed under law to the campaign to oppose Gavin Newsom's initiative (have you donated yet?): ...

And just standby for much more in the near future that NRA and CRPA will be doing jointly.

NRA spends more money in CA than it takes in from here. Please stop spreading misinformation.
-
sbrady@Michel&Associates
Read the post with links here.
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 9:45 AM.




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.