Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Seattle's Response to SAF Parks Suit?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    search appears to not be working at the moment but i thought i remembered that the SAF suit was filed on October 28th and the city had 20 days to respond. is that correct? and if so, it's been well past 20 days, have they responded yet?

    Bobby

  2. #2
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    It appears they have. I dowloaded a copy and made it available here:

    http://kpwiebe.fastmail.fm/SAFSeattleAnswer.pdf



  3. #3
    Regular Member massivedesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    866

    Post imported post

    Pretty much a big ol' middle finger!
    www.WaGuns.org

    Currently mapping locations of Shooting Areas as well as Gun Stores - Let me know what is missing!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Not Here Anymore
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    massivedesign wrote:
    Pretty much a big ol' middle finger!
    I agree. Are they (the city & such) ACTUALLY asking for legal costs? The second to last page asks for legal costs for the defandant!!!!

    So, what's next? Is there gonna be a court date? Is it even gonna make it into court? Is there something I should be doing? Can I help in any way?IANAL, but I know how to read, is there some research that need done or do they have that part covered?
    I am the person responsible for myself, my wife and my son. I take that VERY seriously.

  5. #5
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    "pretty much big ol middle finger"

    Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I guess it's to be expected/probably standard operating procedure, but I thought it was interesting that the issue of legal standing was in fact used by the city as an argument refuting the claim. So I guess we may get to see some of the theories expressed here actually play out in the case.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Not Here Anymore
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    I think we may see more OCDO guys going to parks in light of the City's response.
    I am the person responsible for myself, my wife and my son. I take that VERY seriously.

  7. #7
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    tyguy808 wrote:
    massivedesign wrote:
    Pretty much a big ol' middle finger!
    I agree. Are they (the city & such) ACTUALLY asking for legal costs? The second to last page asks for legal costs for the defandant!!!!

    So, what's next? Is there gonna be a court date? Is it even gonna make it into court? Is there something I should be doing? Can I help in any way?IANAL, but I know how to read, is there some research that need done or do they have that part covered?
    The trial date set is 4/18/11. The city could settle with the plaintiffs, but why would they? They have deep pockets and it's Other Peoples Money they're spending.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    kwiebe, thank you!!! i googled but came up empty. my google-fu is weak.


    The trial date set is 4/18/11
    WHAAAAA??!!! is that just tentative or is it set in stone?

    Bobby

  9. #9
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    Here's a link to the case schedule:

    http://kpwiebe.fastmail.fm/SAFSeattleSchedule.pdf

    As you can see, a lot happens between now and then. But it's my understanding that April 2011 is the *earliest* that you will see a trial in this case.


  10. #10
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    ok, a year and half!! NOW i'm all for an open carry picnic in a Seattle park. if someone gets cited, at least they're entitled to a speedy trial. i think this may be our best bet to get this ban banned in a somewhat reasonable timeframe.

    Bobby

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Not Here Anymore
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    Bobarino wrote:
    ok, a year and half!! NOW i'm all for an open carry picnic in a Seattle park. if someone gets cited, at least they're entitled to a speedy trial. i think this may be our best bet to get this ban banned in a somewhat reasonable timeframe.

    Bobby
    SVG!!! SVG!!! someone else onboard!!!!! Now is the time!!!!
    I am the person responsible for myself, my wife and my son. I take that VERY seriously.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    That is just rediculous.....I agree.....there should definatly be a OC picnic in Seattle....... soon

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    They basically said that there has been no "Harm" to the Plaintiffs and they "Lack Standing" because of this. Pretty much what Bob Warden has told Everyone.

    Because you (SAF, WAC et Al) have not been injured or harmed you lack an actionable controversy to sue.

    Not that the court is buying this, but it seems logical, per the court rules of civil procedure.

    XD





  14. #14
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    massivedesign wrote:
    Pretty much a big ol' middle finger!
    Hopefully the court will turn it into a "Proctologists Big Middle Finger" for Mayor Greg. Would be a nice parting gift for the mayor that couldn't even make it to the finals (General Election).

    I hear he is now looking for a job with the Obama Administration. Why not, it seems like all the worthless "libs", communists, and generally incompetent already are there. What's one more among the group?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  15. #15
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    I hear he is now looking for a job with the Obama Administration. Why not, it seems like all the worthless "libs", communists, and generally incompetent already are there. What's one more among the group?
    Park Safety Czar?

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    tyguy808 wrote:
    Bobarino wrote:
    ok, a year and half!! NOW i'm all for an open carry picnic in a Seattle park. if someone gets cited, at least they're entitled to a speedy trial. i think this may be our best bet to get this ban banned in a somewhat reasonable timeframe.

    Bobby
    SVG!!! SVG!!! someone else onboard!!!!! Now is the time!!!!
    LOL....this is exactly as I thought it would go.....I think it's time too...
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    Well to those who took the wait and see approach against civil disobedience you see the wait time is till April 2011 so enjoy your safety until then.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Here's the deal:

    A trial date is automatically set by the court at a magical date many months from now. Trials involve factual disputes, not legal disputes, however under the state laws of civil procedure, there MUST be a trial date of some kind set after the answer, even if a motion for summary judgment (MSJ) or motion to dismiss (MTD) is granted either way, which then vacates the trial date. It is essentially an arbitrary date set 15 months into the future.

    It's a Rule of Civil Procedure required by the State Superior Court, nothing more, nothing less. This is different than federal courts which only sets trial dates after the pre-trial motions for MSJ's, Temporary Restraining Orders, and other forms of possible pre-trial relief, are denied entirely.

  19. #19
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Here's the deal:

    A trial date is automatically set by the court at a magical date many months from now. Trials involve factual disputes, not legal disputes, however under the state laws of civil procedure, there MUST be a trial date of some kind set after the answer, even if a motion for summary judgment (MSJ) or motion to dismiss (MTD) is granted either way, which then vacates the trial date. It is essentially an arbitrary date set 15 months into the future.

    It's a Rule of Civil Procedure required by the State Superior Court, nothing more, nothing less. This is different than federal courts which only sets trial dates after the pre-trial motions for MSJ's, Temporary Restraining Orders, and other forms of possible pre-trial relief, are denied entirely.
    So I guess this means the plaintiffs' next major step is a Motion of some kind. Then I think there is a hearing, and if the Motion is granted, it's all over. But if it's not, then AFAIK it's right back to April 2011, correct? My point was, if this goes to trial, April 2011 is the earliest that would happen.

    Anyone want to speculate on the odds of a Summary Judgment Motion being granted in this case?

    Also, I don't think the trial date that gets set is truly arbitrary. I think it's set with other cases in mind, i.e., first-come/first-served, isn't it? So if I filed a Superior Court case against someone right now, my trial date would likely be May or June 2011 - or even later, if there's been an influx of cases recently. Just wanted to make that point.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    187

    Post imported post

    tyguy808 wrote:
    Bobarino wrote:
    ok, a year and half!! NOW i'm all for an open carry picnic in a Seattle park. if someone gets cited, at least they're entitled to a speedy trial. i think this may be our best bet to get this ban banned in a somewhat reasonable timeframe.

    Bobby
    SVG!!! SVG!!! someone else onboard!!!!! Now is the time!!!!

    ......AHEM.....

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    kwiebe wrote:


    Also, I don't think the trial date that gets set is truly arbitrary.* I think it's set with other cases in mind, i.e., first-come/first-served, isn't it?* So if I filed a Superior Court case against someone right now, my trial date would likely be May or June 2011 - or even later, if there's been an influx of cases recently.* Just wanted to make that point.
    That would essentially be correct, except that either party can motion to move up the trial date after pre-trial MTD's and MSJ's are done in some sort of important interest, basically, either side would have to convince the judge that it's in the best interest of judicial economy to move up the case, or the fact that someone's civil rights are being violated. In the federal courts (not sure about state in at least in this fact), a denial of MSJ would allow the party being denied to appeal it to a higher court, such as the Court of Appeals.

    Basically, it's still an arbitrary date.

  22. #22
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    kwiebe wrote:
    amlevin wrote:
    I hear he is now looking for a job with the Obama Administration. Why not, it seems like all the worthless "libs", communists, and generally incompetent already are there. What's one more among the group?
    Park Safety Czar?
    lol
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    n16ht5 wrote:
    tyguy808 wrote:
    Bobarino wrote:
    ok, a year and half!! NOW i'm all for an open carry picnic in a Seattle park. if someone gets cited, at least they're entitled to a speedy trial. i think this may be our best bet to get this ban banned in a somewhat reasonable timeframe.

    Bobby
    SVG!!! SVG!!! someone else onboard!!!!! Now is the time!!!!

    ......AHEM.....
    If you got something to say say it...
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    kwiebe wrote:
    amlevin wrote:
    I hear he is now looking for a job with the Obama Administration. Why not, it seems like all the worthless "libs", communists, and generally incompetent already are there. What's one more among the group?
    Park Safety Czar?
    Nah, he'd probably be brougt on board just to make sure that "Barry" was always "Looking Good". Just having ole "broad butt" Greg standing near B. O. would tend to make him look good on a comparative basis.

    Have to admit though that Mayor "Lardass" was pretty successful for a college dropout. Just think how much more incompetent he would have been should he actually have finished his course of study and graduated.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •