Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley

Hoover said:
They're still there? I'm not sure how they can say he was set up when he was proudly saying they did it just after. Richard ramierez had those nuts, the menendez brothers, manson, etc. There are some f'ed up people. Stalers tend to be male, the murderer groupies are females. Same nuts, just diferent techique.
Click to expand...

I don't know if they are still there. I was last there before all the snow. Most of the groupies that I saw were male.

Yes, there are some seriously messed up people.
 
jar said:
Same here. The idea of willingly handing my smartphone to a federal LEO doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.
Click to expand...

What's to worry about???

They'll give it back after they clone it and check it for access to any child porn sites! [devil2]
 
bigblue said:
Does surrendering your phone constitute consent for a search of that phone? I wouldn't guess that there is any expectation of privacy is there?
Click to expand...

I saw no sign of any such activity when I checked my phone. There is a bored guard at the desks who asks you if your phone is off, then stuffs it in a cubby and gives you a numbered claim chit. When you go back to lick it up again, he is still equally bored.
 
M1911 said:
I saw no sign of any such activity when I checked my phone. There is a bored guard at the desks who asks you if your phone is off, then stuffs it in a cubby and gives you a numbered claim chit. When you go back to lick it up again, he is still equally bored.
Click to expand...

What you likely didn't see were the Elves who worked for the NSA in that cubby, looking through your NES posts or your pornhub history.
 
bigblue said:
Does surrendering your phone constitute consent for a search of that phone? I wouldn't guess that there is any expectation of privacy is there?
Click to expand...

Expectation of privacy? This is America. Privacy is dead. The only thing keeping them from searching a phone is lack of desire.
 
Clerk's Notes from the meeting (Regarding MOTION to Dismiss filed by Martha M. Coakley):

"Court hears arguments of counsel on the motion and takes the matter under advisement."​

I guess the court needs time to think. I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the interwebs.
 
Gooman24 said:
So what happened?

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I was going to let Brent field this one because he was there but he is busy this week. I spoke with Brent and Alex who were both there. Basically, the first thing out of the judges mouth was a statement that he was inclined to rule in the state's favor on the MTD. While this is a statement that should be taken seriously, how the law authorizes that result is beyond me and everyone else here. If he does, we appeal. It is just that simple. Keep in mind the "but it's guns" mentality of the courts in CA1/MAFDC has been astonishing and the AG's position is equally as astonishing and if the judge thinks the AG carried the day, we can take this up on appeal.

That said, the initial statement may not be as indicative of where this goes. The law is clear here, the AG must interpret their own regulations and simply saying something doesn't comply is not enough.

Anyhow, we think we may get a decision here quickly and we will appeal any adverse ruling.
 
terraformer said:
Anyhow, we think we may get a decision here quickly and we will appeal any adverse ruling.
Click to expand...

So should an appeal be necessary, this thing will move to the 1st USCCOA. Any indication that the judges there will actually recognize this raw, blatant abuse of power for what it is and rule accordingly???
 
Whutmeworry said:
So should an appeal be necessary, this thing will move to the 1st USCCOA. Any indication that the judges there will actually recognize this raw, blatant abuse of power for what it is and rule accordingly???
Click to expand...

I have no doubt they will recognize it... [grin]

Look, they don't want to rule for us. That's clear at this point. We will just keep at it and make sure they can't justifiably rule against us. I relish in the appeal this will yield because there is only one basis to rule against us and if the judge does that, the appeal will be so obvious CA1 will be left stammering. It's why I don't really think the judge is going to grant the MTD. Now, that doesn't mean we win, but it at least allows us to put on our case in chief.
 
I'll just add a couple of points. The judge was very good setting expectations up front and allowing the lawyers to focus on the key issues the court wanted clarification on. Although he said he was inclined to grant the MTD he also settled the standing issue. Comm2A and SAF don't have standing, but the consumer and dealer plaintiffs do.

The judge wanted to know two things from the AG - Why should they address the merits at this stage, and if the plaintiffs don't have a ripe claim at this point, under what set of circumstance would they have a rile claim. I liked the second questions because I think it takes issue with the AG's sweeping dismissal of the idea that there's any real controversy here.

The AAG was very well prepared, articulate, and focused. They'd like to see the case dismissed out right due to the alleged lack of harm, or have the case remanded to state court which they contend is the only proper venue for a challenge of this kind. We have a good answer for that.

One of three things will happen here: 1) The court will dismiss in which case we appeal the dismissal. If we win that issue in 1CA, we go back to district court to argue the merits. 2) The court see our point and allows the case to proceed to the merits round 3) The court exercises abstention and refers the case to state court.

It's interesting that the court denied the AG's motion to stay discover until a decision is reached on the MTD. So while we're waiting for the court to decide if they're going to dismiss the case, we move ahead with discovery.
 
M1911 said:
Jesus.
Click to expand...
That's okay though and the judge could have ruled without a hearing. By disclosing his leanings up front and presenting each side with specific questions, both parties knew where they stood and could sharpen their arguments. This is much more efficient than just opening up the hearing and letting the lawyers ramble on.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Although he said he was inclined to grant the MTD he also settled the standing issue. Comm2A and SAF don't have standing, but the consumer and dealer plaintiffs do.
Click to expand...

Why is that? How does Comm2A and SAF have standing in the many other cases, but not this one?
 
jefftk said:
Why is that? How does Comm2A and SAF have standing in the many other cases, but not this one?
Click to expand...
There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to organizational standing rulings in the cases I've read. The one common factor is that it doesn't really matter that much. IIRC, there's a precedent that specifically says if the recognition of individual standing is dispositive, the court doesn't have to even reach the organizational standing issue.
 

Similar threads

Hartford Connecticut Residents Form Armed Group To Defend Against Violent Crime
Replies
6
Views
174
SS1
SS1
Yesterday Was The 10 Year Anniversary Of The Bundy Family Cattle Ranch Standoff Against The BLM
Replies
4
Views
286
Matt_SERE
Matt_SERE
An interesting take on guns from the other side.
Replies
7
Views
377
Kevin_NH
Kevin_NH
District Judge Grants Summary Judgment Against California’s One-Gun-a-Month Law
Replies
0
Views
168
Reptile
Reptile
Question on this firearm?
Replies
13
Views
453
dcmdon
dcmdon
Back
Top Bottom