imported post
Thanks guys. I appreciate all the help!
Let's see:
I have emailed Ms. Strickland to get the item back on the agenda, and I will immediately inform you all of the date.
Last night I drafted a
pro se Petition for Relief by Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Art. 1871-1883, and I am working on a memorandum in support thereof with service and citation to the Police Jury and the LA AG. I am gonna prep a Rule to Show Cause for the judge's sig, as well as a Judgment....Optimistic? Well, not really. It can't go but one way, and we all know that. I figured that after an answer arrived thereto, I would rule 'em into court and then file a motion for summary judgment immediately thereafter for a look see at the show cause hearing date. Oh, and I'll draft an injunction to have on hand.
The most obvious reason that the thing didn't pass is probably because I wasn't there, I would imagine. I am a bit surprised the 6th District guy didn't step up, because he's really a good guy. But, what can you do? Maybe he's got other battles picked out...I don't know. I'll call him and see. I find it hard to bitch about any of these guys just yet, mainly because I haven't spoken to them. Seems a bit unfair on my art at this point. Likely my fault for not being there. I actually didn't know when the thing was set for, but I didn't want to screw it up by being there myself anyway, as ridiculous as that may sound to ya'll. I'm NOT the guy you want talking for you. Trust me on that.
I am considering meeting with the parish attorney and presenting him with a copy of the declaratory judgment and associated docs, advising him that I will file same as soon as the courthouse opens the day after the Police Jury meeting if the result of the meeting is not satisfactory. Obviously, I wish that the Police Jury had done the correct thing.
LA Confederate - Thanks for everything! You are extremely helpful, and I appreciate it. as I said, I have contacted Ms. Strickland for the meeting to be returned to the agenda, and I will keep ya'll informed.
Yale - Thanks for adding the item to the meeting agenda. I am going to do the best I can to be at the meeting, but it's not looking too promising right now due to prior plans. I will see if I can crawfish out of them, though, and be there, because I sincerely appreciate everything you guys are doing for me...for us.
MEM - Thanks...I believe I covered every legal base with these guys, all in documentation, of course...preemption by statute as well as propriety, US and LA constitutional issues, statutory issues, etc. It's all in there. Obviously, none of them read what I submitted, but I figured I would start at GO and escalate as necessary. I have a one man "OC Day" in St. Helena every single day I am alive and walk outdoors. It may be low key, but that's pretty much how I live now. I sorta look at it like I carry the sidearm, it doesn't carry me...as corny as that sounds.
georg - I would definitely appreciate any help you can push my way in regard to the declaratory judgment. Any info I have, and help I can give you, you are more than welcome to. The odds of me being able to supply you with any info you don't already have are slim, but again, if I am ever able to assist you with anything, you've got it.
charlie12 - I put the info in the info packet I sent the Jurors, including the actual prior statute as well as the final resolution by the Amite City Council. I have to assume that they paid the same amount of attention to that that they did to the other pileof stuff I put in there. I am not real surprised at all that this is progressing as it has thus far....but, I figured, in my admittedly limited purview of all things legal, that this was the "right way" to go about this.
barf - I'll see what I can find out about why no action was taken. As I said, maybe they figured that if I didn't care enough to show up, they weren't gonna worry with it. That's why I took pains to submit the info I did the way that I did. In hindsight, I shoulda asked about the when and wherefore, and been there. Live and learn, as they say.
Something else I was thinking...though this probably should be another thread:
I wonder why seeking a declaratory judgment may not be a satisfactory available avenue re: "school zone" OC. Especially now with CC law changed the right way. Maybe it's been done. Maybe it's not wise. Could it potentially backfire, setting precedent we don't want set? It seems safe enough - this just at a quick glance at the CCP language regarding others similarly situated, and with no look whatsoever regarding case law or precedent It's hard for me to tell by the ambiguous language who "opts in" to these things, though:
Art. 1880. Parties When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding. In a proceeding which involves the validity of a municipal ordinance or franchise, such municipality shall be made a party, and shall be entitled to be heard. If the statute, ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general of the state shall also be served with a copy of the proceeding and be entitled to be heard.
On the one hand, it seems that anyone who has a similar interest is automatically considered a party by default:
...all persons shall be made parties who have (emphasis supplied) or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration...
OTOH, separately reading within the span of two little words, it may at first seem that a party's inclusion therein in is by specifically considered action:
...all persons shall be made parties who have or claim (emphasis supplied) any interest which would be affected by the declaration...
But, the "or" between "have" and "claim" makes me extremely cautious, however. Cautious enough that I would think it ill advised at this point to pursue same half-cocked and
pro se. Well, for someone like me to pursue it
pro se, anyway...what I am saying here is that I am merely bringing this up for conversation, not like I was considering something like this. It seems that I have my hands full with the law absolutely on my side, and only dealing with the St. Helena Police Jury.
That said, with the "have
or claim" phrase stuck in there, the protective exclusionary language doesn't seem to offer very much protection, does it?
...and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding.
My (or anyone's) situation regarding "school zone OC" seems to include anyone else similarly situated, whether they actually opt-in or not. So, one would at first think that the foregoing exclusion is useless as well as pointless. But, if so, why roll it into the article? I mean, so one individual's right to OC in a "school zone", if declared as no right to at all in final declaratory judgment, does not affect another's right to carry, oh, say, bananas in a school zone? No, of course not. But, if all others who have the same or similar uncertainties of right are automatically included, then the exclusion offers no safe harbor in the event of an adverse declaratory judgment, does it? Is it ambiguous, or am I just stupid (don't say "both", smartass!)
In closing, I have to say that as contentious as some of these threads occasionally get, everyone here is more than willing to help, and that pleases me greatly. Some may attribute a tad of "selfishness" in motive to this, but I don't. Even if so...so what? I'll say it again...you guys are all extremely helpful, and I thank you all for your help. Hopefully I may be able to return the favor.
