CCW WARS: Houston, we HAVE A LAWSUIT!

Jim March · July 16, 2002, 08:56 PM

This is close to a final draft. It's a 630k Acrobat file, because it includes all the graphic attachments.

This is a suit to force the California AG/DOJ to cough up their CCW records, plus force them to immediately tell law enforcement to actually obey the California version of the FOIA.

Could be filed as early as tomorrow.

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw...UITPUBLIC2.pdf

C.R.Sam · July 16, 2002, 09:06 PM

May it fly high.

Sam

ojibweindian · July 16, 2002, 09:28 PM

Good Luck, Jim.

Gary H · July 16, 2002, 09:49 PM

Go get'em.

CheapSeats · July 16, 2002, 09:54 PM

Boy!...I have mixed feelings about the publicizing of people's names but given all the circumstances I think it's prudent for everyone to know...if not now then definitely in the long run.

I would much rather everyone know...that others also have weapons...than end up as bait for a mass grave.

People don't want to admit it but we are in a culture/political war with people who would enslave us.

They may not realize what they are doing...or tell themselves the lie that it is for a good reason...but nontheless...they are trying to get to that point.

I have little fear of a possilbe perp looking things up to see if I have a CCW before they strike...but...I have much more fear of people who would destroy the 2nd Ammendment as hypocrites and secretly carry a weapon.

Have you ever noticed?...people like that don't even have the conscious to comprehend that it is an evil thing they are attempting to do.

Think of the horror in that.

Visions of Adolph Hitler...God Speed to you sir.

Jim March · July 16, 2002, 10:08 PM

Let's be clear here: once I have the list of all CCW holders, I am NOT gonna publish it!

I will however give copies to key researchers, people like Kopel/Kleck/Lott/Cramer to check my stats on racial breakdown analysis. I may cross-reference the names against campaign contributor logs. If somebody who I *know* is on our side wants the names for his county so he can go check against campaign logs, I'll give out his/her county's list with a promise that it will NOT show up in a local paper unless the percentage of "cronyism" is so high (75% or more), it's not likely there's many non-crony permitholders in there.

Now, that IS the situation in Marinand Contra Costa counties, and the city of Oakland. There's maybe three or four more counties I could name where that's likely. I did publish the lists for CC and Marin, and of course named the one permitholder in Oakland (mayor Jerry Brown's pet Zen guru/roommate/political consultant/serial sexual harasser).

But those are unusual circumstances. The vast majority of permits are out in rural counties, where it's shall-issue or close to it. Those people and their *good* Sheriffs don't have anything to fear from me.

CheapSeats · July 16, 2002, 10:16 PM

Gotcha...no problem.

I see it as the MUCH lesser of two evils but necessary to maintain freedom.

I also believe that the truth of these polls/studies/etc. which is made public...or at least available...would be an aid in maintaining this freedom.

There would be much more harm possible in secrecy....than in open disclosure.

Jim March · July 16, 2002, 10:22 PM

Reading the California Supreme Court decision that opened the records is an eye-opener:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/cbsvblock.html

Blackhawk · July 16, 2002, 10:31 PM

Bonne chance, Jim. Going pro se, you're gonna need it! The legal profession hates pro se litigants....

Jim March · July 17, 2002, 07:35 AM

OK, I've got a web page up on the new suit, with lots of details:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/prarsuit.html

DMK · July 17, 2002, 09:32 AM

"Boy!...I have mixed feelings about the publicizing of people's names but given all the circumstances I think it's prudent for everyone to know...if not now then definitely in the long run."

Better that it be public knowledge and everybody know than have a secret list that only the elite know about.

After all, isn't that exactly why we have the 1st ammendment?

Go get 'em Jim! Let us know what we can do to help!

buzz_knox · July 17, 2002, 09:37 AM

Quote:

The legal profession hates pro se litigants....

Not quite. We only hate it when the judge acts as their lawyer, or they fail to follow the most basics rules of procedure. Beyond that, we like pro ses. To be blunt, it would mostly be like shooting fish in a barrel, except for the prior two circumstances. When you have to wade through hundreds of dirt covered, insect infested documents that they've turned over (yes, this actually happened), you get frustrated.

On second thought, there is one other type of pro se we don't like: someone who is knowledgable (at least enough to cause trouble), and dedicated to a cause. I think Jim clearly falls in that category. I'm glad he's on my side.

LoneStranger · July 17, 2002, 10:17 AM

Quote:

When you have to wade through hundreds of dirt covered, insect infested documents that they've turned over (yes, this actually happened), you get frustrated.

Lawyers like to play games with delays and using non-english language and everyone thinks its ok. Those who aren't lawyers like to play in their own ways. If it means that you, lawyer, misses something is it wrong?

SW9M · July 17, 2002, 01:28 PM

Please define.

justice4all · July 17, 2002, 01:43 PM

pro se means parties who represent themselves, as opposed to hiring counsel.

SW9M · July 17, 2002, 03:04 PM

That's what I thought, but wasn't for sure.

Jim March · July 17, 2002, 03:12 PM

The full Latin is: "In Propria Persona", which translates as "dude ain't got a pet shark"

.

My description:

"up court creek without a lawyer".

There's actually a method to my madness here. Check the "tactical" section of my new lawsuit page:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/prarsuit.html

buzz_knox · July 17, 2002, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Those who aren't lawyers like to play in their own ways. If it means that you, lawyer, misses something is it wrong?

When the game is to use biohazardous materials, I think that's wrong.

Trust me on this one. This stuff was rank. I was the one that had to move it and I don't know what moved faster, me or the critters that came running out.

As for playing games, not with pro ses. I play with other attorneys but I actually counsel pro ses on what both parties and the judge are doing and what it means. I don't win by cheating; I win by being right.

Jim March · July 17, 2002, 03:30 PM

Buzz, if you're a lawyer, have you looked over my stuff here:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw...UITPUBLIC2.pdf

I know that "conspiracy to violate a sunshine law" isn't exactly common, but...it's very well documented in this instance.

What's a judge's reaction gonna be when he sees this?

DD698 · July 17, 2002, 11:08 PM

Jim: I give you the words of Lawrence in the war of 1812. 'Dont give up the ship'. Good Luck.

sven · July 18, 2002, 02:18 AM

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet.

I read your lawsuit from the perspective of an indifferent judge trying to decide what this was all about.

I totally followed what was going on, and the case itself looks solid. The bits I didn't understand were the sections where you interjected information on your 'cause' and things hinting at conspiracy and such, things about how you are prepared to testify that its easy to edit a spreadsheet in the manner described...

...these sections weren't FLAWED or anything, it's just that some of that stuff doesn't really seem to strengthen your case. If anything it adds bulk to an already big document... heck, I don't know if that is par for the course or what for this sort of thing, but if I had to sum up my 'armchair counsel' advice, it would be to sharpen up on the objectivity and getting to the point of what you want access to, and why.

Then prepare for the onslaught of their infested paperwork.

-sven in Northern California

PS: Which campaign do I need to contribute to here in Santa Clara county, again?

Jim March · July 18, 2002, 02:50 AM

Well, I know there's "hints at dark stuff", but that has to be there because the privacy violation must be "justified" somehow. Plus I have to show that I personally am somebody who has an interest for some reason.

Uncovering racism, corruption or illegality are all excellent reasons for opening the data. They're actually stronger reasons than anything the Supreme Court talked about in 1986 (CBS vs. Block). The more of that sort of thing I can put on the record in this case, the less work will be needed in the NEXT case actually putting an end to this crap in Federal court.

pdmoderator · July 18, 2002, 08:53 AM

Hope that Gray "what a cute name!" Davis doesn't do what Jim McGreasy did, and keep the CCW holders' lists, roadbuilding pork projects, financial shenanigans, etc. secret for reasons of "security"

http://njo.com/statehouse/times/inde...4252664110.xml

- pdmoderator

Jim March · July 18, 2002, 11:21 AM

He'd have to directly reverse the California Supreme Court. Not gonna happen.

I'm off to Sacramento in a few minutes, to file this bad boy

.

Jim

Jim March · July 19, 2002, 08:00 AM

It's filed!

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/prarsuit.html - see bottom of page

Potential problem: drew an...interesting (ya, that's the word) Judge. Lloyd Connelly. Sigh. Oh well. I have a plan for dealing with that

.

July 16, 2002, 08:56 PM	#1
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 5,366	CCW WARS: Houston, we HAVE A LAWSUIT! This is close to a final draft. It's a 630k Acrobat file, because it includes all the graphic attachments. This is a suit to force the California AG/DOJ to cough up their CCW records, plus force them to immediately tell law enforcement to actually obey the California version of the FOIA. Could be filed as early as tomorrow. http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw...UITPUBLIC2.pdf __________________ Jim March

July 16, 2002, 09:54 PM	#5
CheapSeats Member Join Date: July 3, 2002 Location: USA - The Land of Gun-Grabbers. Posts: 65	Boy!...I have mixed feelings about the publicizing of people's names but given all the circumstances I think it's prudent for everyone to know...if not now then definitely in the long run. I would much rather everyone know...that others also have weapons...than end up as bait for a mass grave. People don't want to admit it but we are in a culture/political war with people who would enslave us. They may not realize what they are doing...or tell themselves the lie that it is for a good reason...but nontheless...they are trying to get to that point. I have little fear of a possilbe perp looking things up to see if I have a CCW before they strike...but...I have much more fear of people who would destroy the 2nd Ammendment as hypocrites and secretly carry a weapon. Have you ever noticed?...people like that don't even have the conscious to comprehend that it is an evil thing they are attempting to do. Think of the horror in that. Visions of Adolph Hitler...God Speed to you sir. __________________ CheapSeats I may not agree with this person in entirety, particularly in the political party realm. But I have seen a lot of truth on these pages regarding the 2nd Ammendment: http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/ The 2nd Ammendment of the U.S. Constitution is to keep the government in line...not the citizenry. Who ever came to the dangerous conclusion that the government(s) had the right to interpret it FOR us? Ever heard of the wolf guarding the henhouse? I know what! (ludicrous thought) Let's allow the wolf to determine for us how many chickens is normal to "lose" each night. I am sure that the wolf will help us to save our chickens.

July 16, 2002, 10:08 PM	#6
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 5,366	Let's be clear here: once I have the list of all CCW holders, I am NOT gonna publish it! I will however give copies to key researchers, people like Kopel/Kleck/Lott/Cramer to check my stats on racial breakdown analysis. I may cross-reference the names against campaign contributor logs. If somebody who I know is on our side wants the names for his county so he can go check against campaign logs, I'll give out his/her county's list with a promise that it will NOT show up in a local paper unless the percentage of "cronyism" is so high (75% or more), it's not likely there's many non-crony permitholders in there. Now, that IS the situation in Marinand Contra Costa counties, and the city of Oakland. There's maybe three or four more counties I could name where that's likely. I did publish the lists for CC and Marin, and of course named the one permitholder in Oakland (mayor Jerry Brown's pet Zen guru/roommate/political consultant/serial sexual harasser). But those are unusual circumstances. The vast majority of permits are out in rural counties, where it's shall-issue or close to it. Those people and their good Sheriffs don't have anything to fear from me. __________________ Jim March Last edited by Jim March; July 17, 2002 at 12:55 AM.

July 16, 2002, 10:16 PM	#7
CheapSeats Member Join Date: July 3, 2002 Location: USA - The Land of Gun-Grabbers. Posts: 65	Gotcha...no problem. I see it as the MUCH lesser of two evils but necessary to maintain freedom. I also believe that the truth of these polls/studies/etc. which is made public...or at least available...would be an aid in maintaining this freedom. There would be much more harm possible in secrecy....than in open disclosure. __________________ CheapSeats I may not agree with this person in entirety, particularly in the political party realm. But I have seen a lot of truth on these pages regarding the 2nd Ammendment: http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/ The 2nd Ammendment of the U.S. Constitution is to keep the government in line...not the citizenry. Who ever came to the dangerous conclusion that the government(s) had the right to interpret it FOR us? Ever heard of the wolf guarding the henhouse? I know what! (ludicrous thought) Let's allow the wolf to determine for us how many chickens is normal to "lose" each night. I am sure that the wolf will help us to save our chickens.

July 16, 2002, 10:22 PM	#8
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 5,366	Reading the California Supreme Court decision that opened the records is an eye-opener: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/cbsvblock.html __________________ Jim March

July 16, 2002, 09:06 PM	#2
C.R.Sam Senior Member Join Date: October 29, 1999 Location: Dewey, AZ Posts: 12,868	May it fly high. Sam

July 16, 2002, 09:28 PM	#3
ojibweindian Senior Member Join Date: April 20, 2000 Location: Huntsville, Alabama Posts: 1,086	Good Luck, Jim.

July 16, 2002, 09:49 PM	#4
Gary H Senior Member Join Date: April 26, 2000 Location: California Posts: 2,259	Go get'em.

July 16, 2002, 10:31 PM	#9
Blackhawk Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 2001 Posts: 5,049	Bonne chance, Jim. Going pro se, you're gonna need it! The legal profession hates pro se litigants....

July 17, 2002, 07:35 AM	#10
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 5,366	OK, I've got a web page up on the new suit, with lots of details: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/prarsuit.html __________________ Jim March

July 17, 2002, 09:32 AM	#11
DMK Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2001 Location: Over the hills and far, far away Posts: 2,202	"Boy!...I have mixed feelings about the publicizing of people's names but given all the circumstances I think it's prudent for everyone to know...if not now then definitely in the long run." Better that it be public knowledge and everybody know than have a secret list that only the elite know about. After all, isn't that exactly why we have the 1st ammendment? Go get 'em Jim! Let us know what we can do to help! __________________ DMK - Homeland Security begins at home: Support your Second Amendment. - Remember to support friends who support us: http://www.gunowners.org/ - http://www.nra.org/ http://www.jpfo.org/ - http://keepandbeararms.com/ http://www.2asisters.org/ http://www.grnc.org/ - http://www.ncrpa.org/

July 17, 2002, 01:28 PM	#14
SW9M Senior Member Join Date: April 11, 2001 Location: Free Plains of Texas Posts: 447	"pro se litigants" Please define. __________________ Tyrants prefer: an unarmed and gagged peasant. Malo mori quam foedari. Malon Labe.

July 17, 2002, 01:43 PM	#15
justice4all Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2000 Location: Grand Junction, CO Posts: 328	pro se means parties who represent themselves, as opposed to hiring counsel.

July 17, 2002, 03:04 PM	#16
SW9M Senior Member Join Date: April 11, 2001 Location: Free Plains of Texas Posts: 447	That's what I thought, but wasn't for sure. __________________ Tyrants prefer: an unarmed and gagged peasant. Malo mori quam foedari. Malon Labe.

July 17, 2002, 03:12 PM	#17
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 5,366	The full Latin is: "In Propria Persona", which translates as "dude ain't got a pet shark" . My description: "up court creek without a lawyer". There's actually a method to my madness here. Check the "tactical" section of my new lawsuit page: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/prarsuit.html __________________ Jim March

July 17, 2002, 03:30 PM	#19
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 5,366	Buzz, if you're a lawyer, have you looked over my stuff here: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw...UITPUBLIC2.pdf I know that "conspiracy to violate a sunshine law" isn't exactly common, but...it's very well documented in this instance. What's a judge's reaction gonna be when he sees this? __________________ Jim March

July 17, 2002, 11:08 PM	#20
DD698 Senior Member Join Date: June 3, 2002 Location: Northern Mi. Posts: 153	Lawsuit in Der Peoples Republik Jim: I give you the words of Lawrence in the war of 1812. 'Dont give up the ship'. Good Luck. __________________ DD698

July 18, 2002, 02:18 AM	#21
sven Senior Member Join Date: January 4, 2002 Location: Palo Alto, California Posts: 534	I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet. I read your lawsuit from the perspective of an indifferent judge trying to decide what this was all about. I totally followed what was going on, and the case itself looks solid. The bits I didn't understand were the sections where you interjected information on your 'cause' and things hinting at conspiracy and such, things about how you are prepared to testify that its easy to edit a spreadsheet in the manner described... ...these sections weren't FLAWED or anything, it's just that some of that stuff doesn't really seem to strengthen your case. If anything it adds bulk to an already big document... heck, I don't know if that is par for the course or what for this sort of thing, but if I had to sum up my 'armchair counsel' advice, it would be to sharpen up on the objectivity and getting to the point of what you want access to, and why. Then prepare for the onslaught of their infested paperwork. -sven in Northern California PS: Which campaign do I need to contribute to here in Santa Clara county, again?

July 18, 2002, 02:50 AM	#22
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 5,366	Well, I know there's "hints at dark stuff", but that has to be there because the privacy violation must be "justified" somehow. Plus I have to show that I personally am somebody who has an interest for some reason. Uncovering racism, corruption or illegality are all excellent reasons for opening the data. They're actually stronger reasons than anything the Supreme Court talked about in 1986 (CBS vs. Block). The more of that sort of thing I can put on the record in this case, the less work will be needed in the NEXT case actually putting an end to this crap in Federal court. __________________ Jim March

July 18, 2002, 08:53 AM	#23
pdmoderator Registered User Join Date: November 6, 2001 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1,203	Good luck, Jim! Hope that Gray "what a cute name!" Davis doesn't do what Jim McGreasy did, and keep the CCW holders' lists, roadbuilding pork projects, financial shenanigans, etc. secret for reasons of "security" http://njo.com/statehouse/times/inde...4252664110.xml - pdmoderator

July 18, 2002, 11:21 AM	#24
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 5,366	He'd have to directly reverse the California Supreme Court. Not gonna happen. I'm off to Sacramento in a few minutes, to file this bad boy . Jim __________________ Jim March

July 19, 2002, 08:00 AM	#25
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 5,366	It's filed! http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/prarsuit.html - see bottom of page Potential problem: drew an...interesting (ya, that's the word) Judge. Lloyd Connelly. Sigh. Oh well. I have a plan for dealing with that . __________________ Jim March