From what I understand, the plaintiff has last word, and can submit a Reply to the Defendant's Answer.

Just from doing some internet googlized reading.

I'll bite: what does IAGIANAL mean?

 I am GLAD I am not a Lawyer


I know, I know, I have to stop.

So speaking in common terms...have we hit a bump in the road on this or have we lost?

Speaking in common terms, this is just normal proceedings. This is going to be a long road and last well into next year. It would be nice if Chris was able to get an injunction in January that would allow everybody to carry (among other things), but we'll still have to see about that.

SECOND DEFENSE: We don't know what Baker's talking about.  Literally, that's what it says.  "Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations..."

I find it interesting that they cover paragraph 18 (The Second Amendment) with this defense.   

Speaking in common terms, this is just normal proceedings. This is going to be a long road and last well into next year. It would be nice if Chris was able to get an injunction in January that would allow everybody to carry (among other things), but we'll still have to see about that.

This. We all know it will be long and tedious, but any change is a great one

How is ignorance a defense? If it would help the guv'nah and police chief, I could stop by their offices and explain the Second amendment. It's not that complicated, but sometimes people have trouble with it. I'll use small words! 

From what I understand, the plaintiff has last word, and can submit a Reply to the Defendant's Answer.

Just from doing some internet googlized reading.

No, the Plaintiff does not have the last answer in response to the Defendants' answer. An answer is not a pleading to which a response is called for (i.e., such as the case where an opposition is filed by the State in response to the Plaintiff's motion for Prelim Inj.)  A defendant who responds to a complaint must admit, deny or allege that he/she/it has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations asserted.  Someone who assert that they have insufficient knowledge to admit or deny an allegation is not asserting that they don't have a clue what is being alleged. Rather, the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny because the respondent doesn't have enough information to affirmatively admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads. The defendants must also assert any known affirmative legal and equitable defenses in response to the complaint (e.g., failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, sovereign immunity, etc.).   That's what you see in the State's answer.

BTW, I worked with the State's attorney, Kendall Moser, almost 20 years ago in a local insurance defense firm when he got out of law school. He's conservative, a straight shooter (pun intended) and a nice guy.

Quote from: Dregs on September 21, 2011, 06:06:31 PM

From what I understand, the plaintiff has last word, and can submit a Reply to the Defendant's Answer.

Just from doing some internet googlized reading.

No, the Plaintiff does not have the last answer in response to the Defendants' answer. An answer is not a pleading to which a response is called for (i.e., such as the case where an opposition is filed by the State in response to the Plaintiff's motion for Prelim Inj.)  A defendant who responds to a complaint must admit, deny or allege that he/she/it has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations asserted.  Someone who assert that they have insufficient knowledge to admit or deny an allegation is not asserting that they don't have a clue what is being alleged. Rather, the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny because the respondent doesn't have enough information to admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads. The defendants must also assert any known affirmative legal and equitable defenses in response to the complaint (e.g., failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, sovereign immunity, etc.)

BTW, I worked with the State's attorney, Kendall Moser, almost 20 years ago when he got out of law school. He's conservative, a straight shooter (pun intended) and a nice guy.

And THAT, kids, is why we don't rely on teh internetz for inphomaishun.

I stand corrected and schmall kine schooled.

No, the Plaintiff does not have the last answer in response to the Defendants' answer. An answer is not a pleading to which a response is called for (i.e., such as the case where an opposition is filed by the State in response to the Plaintiff's motion for Prelim Inj.)  A defendant who responds to a complaint must admit, deny or allege that he/she/it has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations asserted. 

Someone who assert that they have insufficient knowledge to admit or deny an allegation is not asserting that they don't have a clue what is being alleged. Rather, the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny because the respondent doesn't have enough information to affirmatively admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads.

The defendants must also assert any known affirmative legal and equitable defenses in response to the complaint (e.g., failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, sovereign immunity, etc.).   That's what you see in the State's answer.

BTW, I worked with the State's attorney, Kendall Moser, almost 20 years ago in a local insurance defense firm when he got out of law school. He's conservative, a straight shooter (pun intended) and a nice guy.

Good sir,

I broke your comment down to 3 lines. I get line 1 and line 3. Question about line 2.

When the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny, because the respondent doesn't have enough information to affirmatively admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads, how will that affect the respondent's position? The suit? The plaintiff? Basically, how does that position affect things?

Quote from: Mr. Farknkocker on September 21, 2011, 10:06:58 PM

Quote from: Dregs on September 21, 2011, 06:06:31 PM

From what I understand, the plaintiff has last word, and can submit a Reply to the Defendant's Answer.

Just from doing some internet googlized reading.

No, the Plaintiff does not have the last answer in response to the Defendants' answer. An answer is not a pleading to which a response is called for (i.e., such as the case where an opposition is filed by the State in response to the Plaintiff's motion for Prelim Inj.)  A defendant who responds to a complaint must admit, deny or allege that he/she/it has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations asserted.  Someone who assert that they have insufficient knowledge to admit or deny an allegation is not asserting that they don't have a clue what is being alleged. Rather, the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny because the respondent doesn't have enough information to admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads. The defendants must also assert any known affirmative legal and equitable defenses in response to the complaint (e.g., failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, sovereign immunity, etc.)

BTW, I worked with the State's attorney, Kendall Moser, almost 20 years ago when he got out of law school. He's conservative, a straight shooter (pun intended) and a nice guy.

And THAT, kids, is why we don't rely on teh internetz for inphomaishun.

I stand corrected and schmall kine schooled.

Don't feel bad. The rules regarding civil procedures,  developed over centuries of trial and error, still confounds attorneys and is perceived by those who are not involved in the practice of law to be sheer madness.

Quote from: Mr. Farknkocker on September 21, 2011, 10:06:58 PM

No, the Plaintiff does not have the last answer in response to the Defendants' answer. An answer is not a pleading to which a response is called for (i.e., such as the case where an opposition is filed by the State in response to the Plaintiff's motion for Prelim Inj.)  A defendant who responds to a complaint must admit, deny or allege that he/she/it has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations asserted. 

Someone who assert that they have insufficient knowledge to admit or deny an allegation is not asserting that they don't have a clue what is being alleged. Rather, the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny because the respondent doesn't have enough information to affirmatively admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads.

The defendants must also assert any known affirmative legal and equitable defenses in response to the complaint (e.g., failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, sovereign immunity, etc.).   That's what you see in the State's answer.

BTW, I worked with the State's attorney, Kendall Moser, almost 20 years ago in a local insurance defense firm when he got out of law school. He's conservative, a straight shooter (pun intended) and a nice guy.

Good sir,

I broke your comment down to 3 lines. I get line 1 and line 3. Question about line 2.

When the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny, because the respondent doesn't have enough information to affirmatively admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads, how will that affect the respondent's position? The suit? The plaintiff? Basically, how does that position affect things?

It's generally interpreted as a denial of the allegation and must be proven by the claimant at trial since it was not admitted. Some defendants will answer by stating that the Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted and therefore denies same, leaving Plaintiff to its proof....or something like that.

Well, I guess when they're done with the hearing, hopefully they'll have learned enough to form the belief that they were wrong, and that they're very, very sorry. 

Don't feel bad. The rules regarding civil procedures,  developed over centuries of trial and error, still confounds attorneys and is perceived by those who are not involved in the practice of law to be sheer madness.

Yup. Seems like sheer madness to me.

MOTION to Dismiss Complaint Curtis E. Sherwood appearing for Defendants Honolulu Police Department, Honolulu, City and County of, Louis Kealoha (Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, # 2[RECAP] Declaration of Counsel, # 3[RECAP] Exhibit A, # 4[RECAP] Exhibit B, # 5[RECAP] Exhibit C, # 6[RECAP] Exhibit D, # 7[RECAP] Exhibit E)(Sherwood, Curtis) (Entered: 09/21/2011)

Now, we respond . 

Basic arguments:
1.) we were too long

2.) Fifth Amendment doesn't apply.

3.) Honolulu Police are not a legit party

4.) One of our reliefs they complain about.

5.) Chief of Police is not a party.

What I took notice of, is there no mention that the RKBA does not exist outside of the home.  That has been in numerous MTD from other organizations. I think that is good.

Just making non-lawyer mental notes as I go through the documents. Please note that these don't mean anything.

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988) (9th Cir.1990. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.”

My google-fu is failing to help me find this opinion from Balistreri v. Pacifica. From what I can see, part of this case went in the plaintiff's favor on the basis of due process and equal protection. There is also mention that a restraining order is enough to put the police on alert that the plaintiff was in danger.

I believe that Chris's complaint is probably much more well put together than the City argument of McHenry v. Renne from the Court opinion. The opinion said it was filled with political discussion and you couldn't tell who what complaint was alleged against what party.

MOTION to Dismiss Complaint Curtis E. Sherwood appearing for Defendants Honolulu Police Department, Honolulu, City and County of, Louis Kealoha (Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, # 2[RECAP] Declaration of Counsel, # 3[RECAP] Exhibit A, # 4[RECAP] Exhibit B, # 5[RECAP] Exhibit C, # 6[RECAP] Exhibit D, # 7[RECAP] Exhibit E)(Sherwood, Curtis) (Entered: 09/21/2011)

Now, we respond . 

Basic arguments:
1.) we were too long

2.) Fifth Amendment doesn't apply.

3.) Honolulu Police are not a legit party

4.) One of our reliefs they complain about.

5.) Chief of Police is not a party.

What I took notice of, is there no mention that the RKBA does not exist outside of the home.  That has been in numerous MTD from other organizations. I think that is good.

Do you think it matters? I was expecting a little but of a glimpse into their thinking with this response, but their cards are still pretty darn close to their vests. Surely they've got more than what they're showing here, don't they?

Just making non-lawyer mental notes as I go through the documents. Please note that these don't mean anything.

Quote

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988) (9th Cir.1990. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.”

My google-fu is failing to help me find this opinion from Balistreri v. Pacifica. From what I can see, part of this case went in the plaintiff's favor on the basis of due process and equal protection. There is also mention that a restraining order is enough to put the police on alert that the plaintiff was in danger.

That makes sense, then. They're denying that the complaint contains any factual information at all, to support their motion to dismiss.

9/23 and 9/28, motion for dismissal submitted by defendants.

Basically, 11th amendment & sovereign immunity.

Met Mr. Baker at the Gun Show today.
Nice young man, very motivated, more than many of us.
He deserves all the support the local Gun community can provide.
Enough is enough. Went walking in the woods last weekend and felt a cool breeze on my butt. Feral dogs, feral pigs and feral people all are to be watched for.
Seems that the next date of consequence is in January. Waaaay too long but the wheels of justice grind slowly.
I have written my check... Have you?
Always remember the world is run by those that show up to support.