Jump to content


Photo

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. The City of New York


  • Please log in to reply
184 replies to this topic

#121 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,706 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 05 July 2019 - 11:43 AM

... then all the sudden admit it was unconstitutional ...


They haven't admitted it was unconstitutional. They just passed laws to grant the plaintiff's relief. Without the court rendering a judgment, it would imply that it is within the power of states and municipalities to impose firearm restrictions or prohibitions as they please.

I have to wonder if the court would take a dim view of the defendant's proclaimed intent not to defend its case. Isn't it the duty of counsels to argue their cases vigorously, even if they don't believe them?

Edited by Euler, 05 July 2019 - 11:48 AM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#122 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 05 July 2019 - 12:36 PM

 

... then all the sudden admit it was unconstitutional ...


They haven't admitted it was unconstitutional. They just passed laws to grant the plaintiff's relief. 

 

 

IMO, it's really getting into symantics at this point, if the previous law didn't infringe there it no relief to be given, this isn't a civil case where a no fault settlement is being negotiated between parties, the fact that NY now argues relief is given and the plantiff is whole because they modified the law certainly implies strongly (a given in laymens terms) that there was an early infringement that is now remedied. This is a classic too clever by half move.

 

Of course in a legal aspect these symantics and implications don't make for law or legal precedent and that is what is really needed at the end of the day to stop NY from pulling a 180 if the case was dismissed putting the plantiff right back at the start.

 

But, hey if NY is not going to defend themselves and instead will focus on amping up their too clever by half symantics and half witted technicalities to get the case mooted instead, that is IMO huge for our side as I really don't see the current Supreme Court having much tolerance for the game NY is playing.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#123 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:01 PM

No no no. They do not get to pull a Chicago and try to moot the case. This time, before arguments. Chicago tried afterward in McDonald and that didn't fly.

Should be denied under public interest doctrine. Appellants/petitioners can easily show that they face further threat from prosecution because, well, look at how NYC changes stuff so quickly. They can just change it back, make everyone re-litigate. Nope nope nope Comrade de Blasio, you will not moot this case.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


Unfortunately the city and now the state have changed the law so it looks like the city cannot unilaterally change the law back even if they want to.
I think this case is over.

#124 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 05 July 2019 - 02:06 PM

Unfortunately the city and now the state have changed the law so it looks like the city cannot unilaterally change the law back even if they want to.

I think this case is over.

 

 

There is a very heavy burden on then City to prove the case should be mooted, that burden is even higher now that the case has been pushed up to the Supreme Court level, the fact that the City/State changed the law doesn't really rise to the level needed for mooting because with a hot button issue like gun control/rights in a state/city that is notorious for passing restrictive gun control laws, there is a very likely chance that the 'infringement' could return or recur without a court ruling in this case, this opinion is backed up by court precedent in Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw and United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Association to name a few, there are several other cases that also back this up like City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle that made it clear that if there is no real barrier (a court ruling) in place to stop the infringment from being put back in place the case won't be mooted.  Sure the fact that the state also changed the law helps the city (and was obviously intentional) but only marginally when you consider the sway and number of votes a city the size of NY has in the state legislature the barrier to go right back to the old way becomes a very small barrier in this instance, proven in part by how easy it was for the city to get the state to change the law so easily to help the very same case currenty in front of the court.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#125 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,019 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 05 July 2019 - 05:32 PM

Illinois appellate court refused to moot an action filed against Trame in re the constitutionality of suspending gun rights of those subject to an ex parte order of protection. This was after plaintiff had obtained relief, had his FOID reinstated, guns returned, but faced the prospect of further harassment, prosecution, because his ex-wife was filing for OPs and getting his FOID suspended. That's one example of denying a motion to dismiss as moot. Not voluntary cessation but "capable of repetition yet evading review." PLENTY of case law here. The constitutional issue is of substantial public interest and one of the exceptions to mootness is "voluntary cessation" doctrine. In other words, just because "they" stopped it doesn't mean "they" can't wait it out, then change the law again. State is Dem controlled. They could simply wait until SCOTUS chucks as moot, reinstate the unconstitutional stuff, and force petitioner(s) to start over. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#126 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,706 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 08 July 2019 - 09:43 PM

On the Supreme Court website, the status of the letter which NYC sent last week has been updated to "not accepted for filing."

NYSRPA sent a letter in response to that letter. Its status is also "not accepted for filing."
[EDIT: Here's the NYSRPA letter.]

I think that means the Supreme Court considers arguments for and against mooting to be irrelevant and case will proceed.

Edited by Euler, 08 July 2019 - 09:47 PM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#127 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 09 July 2019 - 11:22 AM

It may be that neither followed the courts requirements for filing.

#128 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,706 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 09 July 2019 - 12:22 PM

The next step in order is for both sides to file their final briefs, since I don't think there will be any more amicus briefs.

NYC already filed a motion to dismiss as moot and got denied. Its letter was neither a brief nor a motion. NYSRPA argued in their letter that NYC can decline to defend its (now obsolete) law in the final brief, but anything else before then (i.e., NYC's letter) is premature.

However you want to look at it, the letters were out of order. NYSRPA probably just tried to file a letter in case the Court decided to take the NYC letter seriously. The Court didn't take it at all, so both letters have been stricken from the proceedings (even though they're still available for download if you saved the links).

Edited by Euler, 09 July 2019 - 12:23 PM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#129 Silhouette

  • Members
  • 31 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 25 July 2019 - 12:35 PM

New York City filed a "Suggestion of Mootness" followed by a request for extension for their Merits brief.  NYSRPA has responded to the request for extension.

 

https://www.supremec...lic/18-280.html



#130 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,706 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 25 July 2019 - 01:38 PM

New York City filed a "Suggestion of Mootness" followed by a request for extension for their Merits brief.  NYSRPA has responded to the request for extension.


To give their motion some context, briefs are due August 5, and the SC is currently "on break" between terms. ("On break" just means they aren't in conference or hearing cases. It doesn't mean they're all out fishing.) NYC wants the due date extended to September 30. August 5 was already an extension. May 7 was the original due date.

NYC appears to have been betting heavily on not having to argue the case at all, in this motion and previous motions. The effect of not granting the motion would be that NYC has no brief, so I'd expect the court (which will actually be one of the justices, not all 9 of them) to grant some extension, although maybe not to September 30, because that pushes more into next term.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#131 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 25 July 2019 - 08:51 PM

NYC appears to have been betting heavily on not having to argue the case at all, in this motion and previous motions. The effect of not granting the motion would be that NYC has no brief, so I'd expect the court (which will actually be one of the justices, not all 9 of them) to grant some extension, although maybe not to September 30, because that pushes more into next term.

 

 

NY knows the case is a dead goose and knows they are about to likely change the 2nd landscape nationwide in a direction they don't favor, I hope the SC doesn't let NY drag it out too much longer and cracks the whip, after all it's a civil rights issue and should be prioritized!


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#132 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,706 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 26 July 2019 - 09:15 PM

NYC appears to have been betting heavily on not having to argue the case at all, in this motion and previous motions. The effect of not granting the motion would be that NYC has no brief, so I'd expect the court (which will actually be one of the justices, not all 9 of them) to grant some extension, although maybe not to September 30, because that pushes more into next term.


I was wrong. They got denied today.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#133 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 27 July 2019 - 12:04 AM

 

NYC appears to have been betting heavily on not having to argue the case at all, in this motion and previous motions. The effect of not granting the motion would be that NYC has no brief, so I'd expect the court (which will actually be one of the justices, not all 9 of them) to grant some extension, although maybe not to September 30, because that pushes more into next term.


I was wrong. They got denied today.

 

 

Someone's in the hot seat this weekend and coming week!

 

I'm hoping my speculation that the SC took up this case to white glove the lower courts and press home that the 2nd is a right that mandates the same degree of scrutinty in regards to potential infringmenets as other rights, we can hope.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#134 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,019 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 27 July 2019 - 05:32 AM

Comrade de Blasio ought to be looking for new counsel to rep NYC as counsel of record Richard P. Dearing seems to be VERY reluctant to litigate this in SCOTUS and is doing everything he possibly can to try to get out of it. Maybe retain a litigator such as Paul Clement oh wait NYSPRA retained him heh. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#135 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,156 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 27 July 2019 - 05:39 AM

Maybe Dearing is pro-2A and doing everything he can to represent his client in the "best light possible"? We could only hope Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

#136 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,706 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 27 July 2019 - 11:28 AM

Comrade de Blasio ought to be looking for new counsel to rep NYC as counsel of record Richard P. Dearing seems to be VERY reluctant to litigate this in SCOTUS and is doing everything he possibly can to try to get out of it. Maybe retain a litigator such as Paul Clement oh wait NYSPRA retained him heh. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


Dearing isn't retained. He's a city employee. NYC has one of the largest legal departments in the country, larger than even most large private law firms.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#137 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,019 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 27 July 2019 - 11:53 AM

I know he's an employee of the city. My point was that he's obviously too incompetent to handle this case. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#138 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,706 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 27 July 2019 - 11:56 AM

More like the city doesn't have a case. The best lawyer in the world isn't going to help it.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#139 gunuser17

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 17

Posted 27 July 2019 - 02:31 PM

I suspect that the New York City lawyer is doing the best he can to limit the damage with the facts and pile of crap that he was dealt by the city counsel and mayor.  Hard to believe that he would be pro-gun when he is in the DeBlasio administration but he did clerk for a Bush appointed District Court judge - Lee Rosenthal.  Dearing is a four-time winner of the National Association of Attorneys General “Best Brief” Award for excellence in brief writing to the U.S. Supreme Court, including one awarded after arriving at the Law Department.  Dearing was an associate at Vinson & Elkins and has a J.D. from Yale Law School.


Edited by gunuser17, 27 July 2019 - 02:32 PM.


#140 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,706 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 01 August 2019 - 11:22 AM

NYSRPA has filed a response to NYC's suggestion that the case is moot. They make a few points why it is not moot.
  • NYC and NY State changing the law does not address whether the previous law was constitutional.
  • NYC has not taken a position that the previous law was unconstitutional.
  • NYC previously defended the law, asserting that it was constitutional, only arguing mootness when it became apparent that the SC might not rule in its favor.
  • Although the new law is less restrictive than previous law, it still restricts where lawful owners residing in NYC may transport their firearms, including allowing the police commissioner to designate places arbitrarily as either allowed or not allowed.
  • The new law still prohibits lawful owners who to not reside in NYC to transport their firearms into or through the city for any purpose.
This response is not required of NYSRPA at this time. I suspect it has filed the response so that NYC can attempt to address the points in its brief (which is due Monday), enabling the SC to rule conclusively on all arguments and points in the case. NYSRPA's original brief (filed May 7) could not address mootness, since NYC didn't even suggest mootness until July 3, which was also after all the amicus briefs were filed. The SC could still reject the response as out of order, because it's not actually a response to anything the court has accepted from NYC. I have to wonder whether the court might issue some rulings about parties attempting to subvert court procedures to squabble outside of accepted filings.

Edited by Euler, 01 August 2019 - 11:23 AM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#141 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 01 August 2019 - 12:06 PM

NYSRPA has filed a response to NYC's suggestion that the case is moot. They make a few points why it is not moot.

  • NYC and NY State changing the law does not address whether the previous law was constitutional.
  • NYC has not taken a position that the previous law was unconstitutional.
  • NYC previously defended the law, asserting that it was constitutional, only arguing mootness when it became apparent that the SC might not rule in its favor.
  • Although the new law is less restrictive than previous law, it still restricts where lawful owners residing in NYC may transport their firearms, including allowing the police commissioner to designate places arbitrarily as either allowed or not allowed.
  • The new law still prohibits lawful owners who to not reside in NYC to transport their firearms into or through the city for any purpose.
This response is not required of NYSRPA at this time. I suspect it has filed the response so that NYC can attempt to address the points in its brief (which is due Monday), enabling the SC to rule conclusively on all arguments and points in the case. NYSRPA's original brief (filed May 7) could not address mootness, since NYC didn't even suggest mootness until July 3, which was also after all the amicus briefs were filed. The SC could still reject the response as out of order, because it's not actually a response to anything the court has accepted from NYC. I have to wonder whether the court might issue some rulings about parties attempting to subvert court procedures to squabble outside of accepted filings.

 

 

Surely there must be some punitive mechanism to penalize such willfully idiotic and manipulative attempts to subvert the judicial process. It should be that if a party attempts to do what NYC is doing, the court should summarily rule in permanent and irreversible favor entirely for the plaintiff, since it is blatantly transparent that NYC knows that its law is unconstitutional and unallowable, and they are sh!t-weaselingly attempting to pull one over on the court to prevent a ruling that they do not favor, rather than approaching the process fairly. 


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#142 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,019 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 01 August 2019 - 02:50 PM

That process is called sanctions. When this gets remanded back to the district court, plaintiffs should move for Rule 11 sanctions against NYC and its counsel for frivolous pleadings. Technically any frivolous pleading is sanctionable but the penalty is reserved for the most egregious offenders. I've seen a copyright troll (see John Steele, currently serving time in federal prison) and (IIRC) the client get hit with a quarter million in sanctions for pulling this EXACT kind of crap. Getting "found out" then trying to get the case dismissed because they got caught and are trying to slink away. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Edited by skinnyb82, 01 August 2019 - 02:53 PM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#143 Robert9999

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 13

Posted 01 August 2019 - 08:30 PM

O

#144 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,156 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 01 August 2019 - 08:46 PM

The new law still prohibits lawful owners who to not reside in NYC to transport their firearms into or through the city for any purpose.
There was a news article on this a few months ago. I forget where I saw it. People traveling through JFK and La Guardia were getting arrested when they disclosed they were traveling with firearms when checking into their flights. For example, say I wanted to travel home to Salt Lake City while I was living in Philadelphia. Jet Blue has a smoking good deal for a nonstop from JFK to SLC. Use to be $99 each way. Last I saw it was $129 each way. It could be more now, but still a great deal. Had I done this and declared my firearms at check-in I would've never made it past the check-in process because I would've left the airport in handcuffs due to not having the NYC permit required for possessing firearms, which you can't get as a nonresident (just like a FOID card). Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

#145 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 01 August 2019 - 10:04 PM

That process is called sanctions. When this gets remanded back to the district court, plaintiffs should move for Rule 11 sanctions against NYC and its counsel for frivolous pleadings. Technically any frivolous pleading is sanctionable but the penalty is reserved for the most egregious offenders. I've seen a copyright troll (see John Steele, currently serving time in federal prison) and (IIRC) the client get hit with a quarter million in sanctions for pulling this EXACT kind of crap. Getting "found out" then trying to get the case dismissed because they got caught and are trying to slink away. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Exactly. However, it should NOT be reserved for only the worst, most problematic cases. In instances of governmental clown-sh!ttery such as this, and any time a government entity tries to pull crap over on its citizens, the harshest sanctions should be applied, and the other party's position should be granted permanently. That's the only way it will curtail this kind of cr@p.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#146 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 01 August 2019 - 10:46 PM

Exactly. However, it should NOT be reserved for only the worst, most problematic cases. In instances of governmental clown-sh!ttery such as this, and any time a government entity tries to pull crap over on its citizens, the harshest sanctions should be applied, and the other party's position should be granted permanently. That's the only way it will curtail this kind of cr@p.

 

 

As long as qualified immunity protects those involved and it's tax dollars paying the sanctions, nothing will change, the only way I see to prevent this is to make removing qualified immunity from those involved easier so that it hits those involved personally and directly when that happens, do that and you can bet a lot of the games will instanty cease when those involved have to actually pay the price.


Edited by Flynn, 01 August 2019 - 10:47 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#147 TomKoz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,307 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 01 August 2019 - 10:48 PM

Bring back the ole Tar & Feathers !!!
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#148 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,706 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 02 August 2019 - 12:40 AM

There is now an amicus brief on whether NYC should be allowed to declare the case moot.

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the doctrine of voluntary cessation applies less stringently to governmental defendants than to private ones.

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit law firm dedicated to the free expression of all religious traditions. ... Becket is concerned, however, that the argument offered in respondents' suggestion of mootness - that "a governmental defendant's change in law [falls] beyond the reach of the voluntary cessation doctrine" - would arm governmental defendants with a powerful new tool for frustrating constitutional rights.
...
CONCLUSION
This case illustrates why governmental defendants should not get special treatment when trying to moot a case. The City has just as much incentive as a private defendant to avoid an adverse ruling. It is a sophisticated, repeat litigator with an incentive to pick and choose its cases. It benefits from immunities that make it harder to bring viable claims for damages, despite past alleged violations of constitutional rights. Any number of political circumstances could cause the City to resume its challenged conduct. And the case cuts to the heart of important constitutional issues with broad public interest. Regardless of what the Court ultimately decides on the question of mootness or on the merits, it should reject the claim that governmental defendants get special treatment under the doctrine of voluntary cessation.


It's a whole new round of amicus briefs, maybe only starting with this one, ignited by NYC's claim that governmental defendants should be able to moot civil rights suits. So now NYC is going to get pounded for two things. I foresee the mootness issue having more impact on court precedent than the original 2A case. It's like they're looking for a 9-0 decision against them on purpose.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#149 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,156 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 02 August 2019 - 03:20 AM

In that case, let's assume there's a 9-0 ruling in favor of NYSRPA. What is NYC's long game? You know they've already figured this out. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

#150 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,019 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 02 August 2019 - 05:40 AM

Exactly. However, it should NOT be reserved for only the worst, most problematic cases. In instances of governmental clown-sh!ttery such as this, and any time a government entity tries to pull crap over on its citizens, the harshest sanctions should be applied, and the other party's position should be granted permanently. That's the only way it will curtail this kind of cr@p.


I've never seen a government defendant sanctioned under Rule 11. Not once. Never heard of it either. "They" thought it was outlandish how a judge in Texas made Obama DOJ lawyers attend ethics classes after he caught them lying to him, repeatedly. But I don't disagree with throwing the book at these people. Under threat of monetary sanctions, non-monetary sanctions such as disbarment from practicing in that district, circuit, whatever. But...taking a few hundred thousand dollars or taxpayer money NYC...they'll laugh as they're all immune. It's some sucker's money. Disbar a bunch of NYC attorneys from practicing in SDNY/EDNY/whatever and you'll have a knee-capped legal department. "Don't eff with this court."

Need to hold these clowns personally liable which isn't possible with government defendants. The entire system needs to be burned down (currently in process but doubt Trump will go after statutory immunity for politicians) and rebuilt because this isn't working. The government can jerk people around like this and there really isn't anything anyone can do about it that will send a message to never do it again or at least "tread lightly."

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Edited by skinnyb82, 02 August 2019 - 05:40 AM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users