• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Seattle's Response to SAF Parks Suit?

Bobarino

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
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
 
T

tyguy808

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
346
Location
Not Here Anymore
imported post

massivedesign wrote:
Pretty much a big ol' middle finger!:cuss:
Click to expand...

I agree. Are they (the city & such) ACTUALLY asking for legal costs? The second to last page asks for legal costs for the defandant!!!! :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

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?
 
kwiebe

kwiebe

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
206
Location
Tacoma, Washington, United States
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.
 
kwiebe

kwiebe

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
206
Location
Tacoma, Washington, United States
imported post

tyguy808 wrote:
massivedesign wrote:
Pretty much a big ol' middle finger!:cuss:
Click to expand...

I agree. Are they (the city & such) ACTUALLY asking for legal costs? The second to last page asks for legal costs for the defandant!!!! :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Bobarino

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
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
 
T

tyguy808

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
346
Location
Not Here Anymore
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
Click to expand...
SVG!!! SVG!!! someone else onboard!!!!! Now is the time!!!!
 
sempercarry

sempercarry

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
378
Location
America
imported post

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

XD45PlusP

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
250
Location
, ,
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
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

massivedesign wrote:
Pretty much a big ol' middle finger!:cuss:
Click to expand...

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?
 
kwiebe

kwiebe

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
206
Location
Tacoma, Washington, United States
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?
Click to expand...
Park Safety Czar?
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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
Click to expand...
SVG!!! SVG!!! someone else onboard!!!!! Now is the time!!!!
Click to expand...
LOL....this is exactly as I thought it would go.....I think it's time too...
 
Gray Peterson

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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.
 
kwiebe

kwiebe

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
206
Location
Tacoma, Washington, United States
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
N

n16ht5

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
187
Location
, ,
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
Click to expand...
SVG!!! SVG!!! someone else onboard!!!!! Now is the time!!!!
Click to expand...


......AHEM.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top