August 28, 2012, 12:20 AM | #376 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Enough!
Charles if you wish to debate the merits of your case, then start a new thread. This thread is for general announcements of all the cases, not your case exclusively. |
August 28, 2012, 10:37 PM | #377 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Remember the Palmer case? It was before Judge Kennedy... Then removed to Judge Scullin...
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
September 3, 2012, 12:41 PM | #379 |
Member
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Posts: 24
|
9th Circuit Update
Looks like Gorski may be first in line in the 9th, the panel has taken his matter in Blanas under submission which means we may see an opinion in the next 6 months - 08-15773. Rothery, which is related to Richards and Peruta was stayed until a decision is reached in Blanas. It is unclear if that stay will also reach Richards and Peruta. Richards and Peruta are fully briefed with the nordyke stay lifted, but a panel has not yet been assigned. Once assigned, oral argument would be set. The three Los Angeles cases challenging good cause have all been fully briefed by appellants, and we are awaiting answering briefshttp://www.jonbirdt.com/images/letter.pdf. Counsel in Peruta are attempting to have the Los Angeles cases related to Richards and Peruta which could cause a further stall if the Rothery stay is extended http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/nor.pdf. Hopefully this wont work as the Nordyke debacle has already caused significant and unnecessary delay in the 9th.
http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/opening_brief.pdf http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/open_brief.pdf |
September 8, 2012, 10:54 PM | #380 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In the slowwww case of Dearth v. Holder (docket), we have this:
Quote:
Doc #39 is Holder noticing the Court of the Hightower decision. Doc #40 is Alan Gura's response to that notice. What is Interesting is that in this 5 page response, I think we get a glimpse of what Gura intends in asking for reconsideration of the Hightower decision. |
|
September 17, 2012, 09:22 PM | #381 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In the CA case, Scocca et al v. Smith (Sheriff, Santa Clara County), a couple of updates.
Back on 06-22-2012, Judge Edward Chen granted the defendants MTD, with leave to file an amended complaint. 08-06-2012 - First Amended Complaint. 09-16-2012 - Answer to complaint is another MTD. The docket on the Internet Archive is bollixed, but the entries (document numbers) are there. |
September 18, 2012, 05:19 PM | #382 |
Member
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Posts: 24
|
LASD Answering Brief filed
Nothing new here:
http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/https...9.uscourts.pdf |
September 27, 2012, 10:12 PM | #383 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Second Amendment Arms, et al v. City of Chicago, et al.
Yesterday, the 26th, the district court filed its Memorandum Opinion and Order, as to Chicago's MTD.
Briefly, it was granted in part and denied in part. Second Amendment Arms was given 21 days to file a Third Amended Complaint (which will actually be the 5th complaint)! The most important claim to survive the MTD, was Count I, the ban on gun stores. There were a few other things that survived, but most were dismissed. These are the consequences of filing a "Kitchen Sink" complaint. |
September 30, 2012, 10:42 AM | #384 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As an addendum to the case referenced above,...
It seems that the attorney, Walter Maksym, is under fire from the 7th Circuit (Judge Dianna Sykes, in particular - The presiding judge in Ezell), for unintelligible writings in his pleading papers. She actually calls it, gibberish. Judge Sykes nails him, among others things, for a 345 word sentence! http://abovethelaw.com/2011/09/bench...nt/#more-98667 See also, http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/art...l_of_gibberish At the Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC), sponsored by the SAF in Florida this weekend, I understand David Kopel made stern warning of such attorneys (without naming names, of course) and their cases as bad policy in advancing gun rights. |
September 30, 2012, 10:53 AM | #385 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
If he can't put an intelligible argument, brief, or even sentence together, it's even less likely he understands the folly of the kitchen sink approach to 2A litigation.
What happens to a litigant who is so grossly misrepresented that the attorney is subject to being disbarred? Does he get a do over? Can the case at least be a wash so that no bad precedent results from it? |
September 30, 2012, 11:28 AM | #386 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
October 1, 2012, 07:53 PM | #387 | ||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Dearth v. Holder.
Last Thursday, Sept. 27th, the district court rendered its Memorandum and Opinion on the cross-motions for summary judgment. Here are some selected quotes: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The court clerk entered final judgment immediately after. Also, that same day, Alan Gura filed his Notice of Appeal. This is now the second trip to the circuit, on this case. |
||||
October 4, 2012, 09:45 AM | #388 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Palmer v. D.C.
Monday. Oct. 1st, the SAF files a supplement (doc #38) to its MSJ (doc #5). This was in response to the court asking about the standing of the SAF, in this case. Coincedently, this also comes on the heels of the decision in Dearth. Refreshing our memory, in Dearth, the Judge opined that the SAF had no standing and was estopped from persuing such by the district courts previous ruling, which it contends the Circuit Court did not disturb, when reading this excerpt from the Circuits decision: Quote:
Quote:
The docket is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....87.docket.html The supplemental filing is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....37887.38.0.pdf |
||
October 4, 2012, 10:02 AM | #389 |
Member
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Posts: 24
|
Al,
Do you have a recap or listing of 2A cases where a cert petition is expected by January on a right to carry case? I am just wondering if we have anything likely to produce a Supreme Court opinion in this term or if we will have to wait for the next term. |
October 4, 2012, 10:16 AM | #390 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Sorry Jon. I have no concrete information on this.
Currently, should the 7th rule on Moore/Shepard in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. within the next 60 days), that case could be heard this term. The only other case that may have a chance, is Woollard, and only if the 4th reaches a quick decision after orals. I do not expect this, however. I have left out the 10th circuits decision in Peterson, as I now suspect that they are waiting to see what the 7th will do (the decision here is long overdue). The only other case is the cert that Kilmer submitted in Nordyke. It is my impression that this cert is for prevailing party status, and only that. So it may or may not have any meaning to the cases at large, should the cert be granted (slim chance, at best). |
October 4, 2012, 10:24 AM | #391 |
Member
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Posts: 24
|
Thanks, but darn. There is a Gorski opinion under submission in the 9th, but I dont know much about the case. I guess there is also a small chance one of the other 9th Circuit cases is taken under submission in November, and they usually issue an opinion within two months of that. Looks like the supremes wont take up the issue, if at all, until 2014.
|
October 4, 2012, 10:35 AM | #392 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I had forgot to add that we are also awaiting a decision from the CA2 in Kachalsky - that may make it in time, and we have had the decision and refusal for en banc in Hightower. I have no idea if Gura will file for cert in that case.
|
October 4, 2012, 09:50 PM | #393 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Palmer v. D.C.
Yesterday, Oct. 3rd, the defendants attempted to refute the SAF's supplemental brief on standing by saying that the SAF lacks organizational standing. http://www.archive.org/download/gov....37887.39.0.pdf Today, Oct. 4th, Gura responds with: Quote:
|
|
October 9, 2012, 03:07 PM | #394 |
Member
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Posts: 24
|
Oral Arguments set in Richards and Peruta for December 6, 2012. Not much chance they will have an opinion by January deadline for Cert to be heard in this term.
|
October 9, 2012, 09:25 PM | #395 | ||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Expanding further on what Mr. Birdt has reported.
Back on Sept 24th, the court announced the following to 3 cases we are following: Quote:
Adam Richards, et al v. Ed Prieto, et al Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-16255 Quote:
Edward Peruta, et al v. County of San Diego, et al Court of Appeals Docket #: 10-56971 Quote:
Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al Court of Appeals Docket #: 12-16258 Quote:
|
||||
October 17, 2012, 11:22 AM | #396 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As reported in their individual threads...
A grant of cert (and a win) in either(both) case(s) will have little immediate effect on the 2A cases, other than some remedial value. Both cases may pique the curiosity of the Court, more for their technical aspects than for anything directly 2A related. |
October 31, 2012, 04:06 PM | #397 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Instead of updating three threads with the same information, I'm putting this here as general information.
Of the 3 cases up for orals in the 9th Circuit, all 3 will be heard on Dec. 6th by the same panel, even though the cases are not consolidated. What follows is the latest from the CA9 dockets: In Richards v. Prieto: Quote:
Hightower v. City of BostonIn Peruta v. San Diego: Quote:
So far, no 28(J) letters have been filed in Baker v. Kealoha. |
||
November 3, 2012, 09:47 PM | #398 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
It's been awhile, but I was notified by Michel & Associates (I'm signed up for their press releases) that the NRA has finally been paid. The costs:
Quote:
|
|
November 8, 2012, 11:27 PM | #399 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Alan Gura couldn't make the GRPC2012 meeting in FL, last Sept. However his recorded speech to the Gun Rights Policy Conference is now available on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=8wbaW6IX_wY This is a "must listen" message to anyone wondering where we are in regards to the current litigation. Thanks to the SAF for making this available. |
November 27, 2012, 10:54 AM | #400 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Kachalsky et al. v. Cty. of Westchester et al.
The decision of the district court is affirmed. See this thread for further details. |
|
|