|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
| 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
10-06-2015, 1:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.. 
|
|
#82
10-06-2015, 8:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#83
10-06-2015, 9:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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:
|
|
#84
10-07-2015, 4:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rick said,
Quote:
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.
|
|
#88
01-01-2016, 6:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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..
|
|
#89
01-01-2016, 8:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
"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
|
|
#90
01-01-2016, 9:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#91
01-01-2016, 10:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
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..
|
|
#92
01-01-2016, 11:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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..
|
|
#93
01-03-2016, 4:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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:
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?
|
|
#95
01-03-2016, 8:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
There are some people that it's just not worth engaging. 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..
|
|
#96
01-05-2016, 12:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#97
01-05-2016, 12:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#98
01-05-2016, 2:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#99
01-05-2016, 4:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#100
01-18-2016, 4:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
 jdale@michellawyers.com www.michellawyers.com www.calgunlaws.com Subscribe to Receive News Bulletins    
|
|
#101
01-18-2016, 6:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
. “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)
|
|
#102
01-19-2016, 11:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you for the comprehensive update and continued efforts to right this monumental injustice.
Quote:
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.
|
|
#103
01-20-2016, 9:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#105
07-08-2016, 5:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yeah IMO Beck and his
|
|
#106
08-02-2016, 2:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
|
|
#107
08-02-2016, 3:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
#108
08-03-2016, 5:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Very good work. Pete
__________________
NRA LIFE (1974)  Psalm 46:10I had a commission/USNR from 71-77 but never consider myself a Vet MyDad+4uncles/USMC/WW2/Korea/Vietnam. My Grandfather US Army WW1. No heroes,just regular folks--they were Veterans. “Do not be deceived.God is not mocked. You will reap what you sow.”
|
|
#109
08-04-2016, 7:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
California's politicians and unionized government employees are a crime gang that makes the Mexican drug cartels look like a Girl Scout Troop in comparison.
|
|
#112
04-29-2017, 10:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
https://www.scribd.com/document/3467...-Opening-Brief https://www.scribd.com/document/3467...nswering-Brief
|
|
#114
08-28-2017, 2:04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
|
#115
08-29-2017, 3:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
It would truly warm my heart to see Chucky perp walked out of Parker Center in cuffs with the cameras rolling, for RICO violations. 
|
|
#116
09-24-2017, 3:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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..
|
|
#117
11-09-2017, 11:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It happened this morning. I am listening to it right now.
Sounds like Chuck wins his appeal. That does not mean that he wins his case. It means that he gets a trial on the merits of his case. But still a big deal. I'll post a link when the Ninth Circuit has it as its own video. Last edited by wolfwood; 11-09-2017 at 11:26 AM..
|
|
#118
11-09-2017, 11:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
 
|
|
#119
11-10-2017, 5:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#120
11-10-2017, 7:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I listened to the argument (it's also available on the Ninth Circuit's website). Neither attorney did a very good job. Mr. Wright's attorney gave a good presentation, but seemed to be suffering from "stage fright." The city's attorney didn't seem to be well prepared and could not respond to several questions.
The Judges seemed to focus on whether the initial order for the return of some of Mr. Wright's firearms was a final order from which an appeal could be taken. That's kinda a pivotal question because it leads to issues of whether the deadline for appeal had passed. There were also several questions, as had been discussed previously in this forum, that if the order returned some of Mr. Wright's firearms, and was silent on the remainder, did that amount to a denial of his request for their return? The "tone and tenor" of the judges questions seemed to support Mr. Wright, but I've learned that such appearances are often deceiving. Most of the Ninth Circuit decisions have been following oral arguments by about three weeks. Stay tuned.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. Last edited by RickD427; 11-10-2017 at 5:30 PM.. Reason: Correction of Plaintiff's name
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
Linear Mode
