Incidentally, a search on Lexis-Nexis for document 03-14-BCIA (which you DO believe exists) also comes up dry. So it is fair to say “no hits” does not confirm a bulletin never happened.
You never did a Lexis-Nexis Search.
Here's the screen cap for a REAL Lexis-Nexis Search for 03-14-BCIA.
Two copies of that document show up.
I have yet to get verification of the document you claim is real.
Wow, you are quick to throw out the “lie” word, Laci. You said you have a login which grants more access, and I can see you are logged in. I did my search without a login- that doesn’t mean I lied. You said “lexis-nexis” so I went to Lexisnexis.com. You went to lexis.com. So what is the difference? One requires a login and the other is public maybe? I am not sure, but there is no need to call me a liar. You can go to Lexisnexis.com and do a search for 03-14-BCIA and you will get no hits.
ReplyDeleteSo have you sent your email to the CA DOJ asking if this document is a forgery? Why don’t you post a copy of the email you sent here? I have my doubts you will get a response, so why don’t you also get an audio recording of your follow-up phone call and post it?
Laci,
ReplyDeleteDealer licenses and assault weapon registration are listed as the same phone number.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/contact.php
Laci: “As I said, this document was never sent out.”
No, that hasn’t been your claim. You said the document was FAKED. That it was forged in its entirety by pro-gun people. Did you just change your tune? Are you now claiming that the document is real but never sent out? Did you learn something?
Speaking of old documents, I just saw where a copy of the Magna Carta (a copy with the seal of Edward I) will be on display in London. I would like to see that.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8770754/700-year-old-copy-of-Magna-Carta-goes-on-display.html
As an aside, Lexis-Nexis doesn't have the Magna Carta on their website either so it must not really exist :)
I have never said it was forged, I said the document was not official.
ReplyDeleteNot sent out. Probably non-existant.
Your side claims it is a draft document which was never sent out that they gained access. I am giving this credibility.
So far, this document is non-existant in the official records.
TS, This is a screen capture of an official Lexis-Nexis search--the one where you pay for the services and have a password--It resulted in two hits. The search you are doing is not of their database, but of their website. The results you are getting are from the Store Search and Marketing Site Results. You should have been able to tell that from reading the results.
That search doesn't even turn up US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
So far, TS, you have been giving me dud information.
If you can't properly verify something, you should not claim its veracity.
According to my research so far, this document does not exist.
Yes, I have two enquiries with the CA DoJ and am waiting to hear from them.
Of course, you are free to believe it is a real document.
Never challenge a research maven, FWM, I had to look up Magna Charta on LExis-Nexis. It linked to:
ReplyDeleteFeatured Document: The Magna Carta Government
[Preamble] Edward by the grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine sends greetings to all to whom the present letters come. We have inspected the great charter of the lord Henry, late ...Transcript Apollo 11 Flight Plan The Magna Carta Featured Documents Home Print-Friendly Version Magna Carta Translation [Preamble...s Inc. 2007 Featured Document: The Magna Carta Main Page Privacy And Use Accessibility...
Other in U.S. Federal
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/translation.html
So, there is a "copy" on Lexis-Nexis, FWM.
BTW, there is a copy of Magna Charta in Philadelphia at the Independence NHP visitor centre. But, my preference for seeing it would be in London.
The only thing better in Philadelphia than in London is the Dickens Inn, but that has even changed hands (actually both have been sold). Still, the Philly version is better than the one at St. Catherine's Dock.
Laci, Well done. I was quite confident that you would be the more authorative research source.
ReplyDeleteI think you are better than I am, and we used to get extra-credit at our school for finding the mistakes in our textbooks. The teachers did that because that would keep us from correcting them. We were a bunch of snarky, little brainiacs, but I think that Laci is even better at this than I am.
And that's saying something.
I am still waiting to hear from the AG's office, but I think we should hear by the end of the week.
Laci, I have never had the impression that TS was a liar, FWM neither for that matter, and come to think of it, Aztec Red neither.
ReplyDeleteThere's a pattern here. The ones who stick around are the ones who have a sense of honesty. The dozens of others who don't come any more or come anonymously, don't.
What do you think?
OK, I may have been fast with calling TS a liar, but he needed to realise something was wrong with his Lexis search--especially after someone points out that it is a pay service.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the result screen that TS received was different from my screen capture should have been another clue that he was on the wrong site.
Furthermore, The search of the Lexis store site made it clear that it was not a database search as my search demonstrated.
Of course, one's credibility is harmed when one makes assertions that are unsupported: especially when one looks in databases of official documents and can't find the purported document.
My opinion is that this document is not a reliable document. There is no reputable source that confirms its existance, where I would expect some sort of paper trail.
The only sources for this document are "the tin foil hat wearing brigade" and those don't work.
God for TS for at least trying something, but not all searches are equal.
"So, there is a "copy" on Lexis-Nexis, FWM."
ReplyDeleteI kinda intended that as a joke.
Never give me a research challenge in jest!
ReplyDeleteI'll take it on!
OK, one thing that stinks about both of these letters is that they originate from the California Attorney General's Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis, which is tasked with:
ReplyDeleteThe California Justice Information Services (CJIS) provides criminal justice intelligence, identification, information and technology services to law enforcement, regulatory agencies and the public. The Division includes six major organizational units as summarized below:
Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis provides information and technical assistance on information systems including wanted persons, stolen vehicles and violent offenders, as well as analysis of statistical data pertaining to the Criminal Justice System; and, maintains central files of missing and unidentified persons, sex and arson offender registrants and habitual sexual offenders.
On the other hand
The Bureau of Firearms serves the people of California through education, regulation, and enforcement actions regarding the manufacture, sales, ownership, safety training, and transfer of firearms. Bureau of Firearms staff will be leaders in providing firearms expertise and information to law enforcement, legislators, and the general public in a comprehensive program to promote legitimate and responsible firearms possession and use by California residents.
I would assume this letter would originate from the Bureau of Firearms, not the Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis if it were what it purports to be.
Aw, someone change the title. How sweet. Was that you, Laci?
ReplyDeleteLaci: “but he needed to realise something was wrong with his Lexis search--especially after someone points out that it is a pay service.”
No, I did that search BEFORE you mentioned that it is a pay service.
Laci: “My opinion is that this document is not a reliable document. There is no reputable source that confirms its existance, where I would expect some sort of paper trail.”
A scan of it confirms it existence to me. I have some more information from my research that clears some things up. I am sure you already have this information, since you are much better researcher than I, but I will share this with everyone else.
You are wrong that the document was forged when you said this: “Yes, I contend that your NRA provided letter is a fake and without any basis…. The internet is full of forgeries and lies.”
You are wrong that it doesn’t exist.
You are right that it was never sent out. I was wrong that there were 1500 actual confiscations. It was the intention of the DOJ to confiscate guns, but the document was leaked and picked up by the pro-gun side which took legal action. So we can file this one with the attempted mass confiscation in San Francisco. It was an attempt at confiscation, but thwarted because of the NRA, other 2A rights side, pro-gun lawyers, and the people who oppose these types of things. I assume you’ll go back to claiming “there has never been a confiscation”, but attempted confiscations that get defeated by our vigilance is not the point you are trying to make. See my next post for details. Plus we still have the initial confiscation that started this whole mess (the Santa Clara man who was arrested for possessing a SKS). That lead to a court ruling and the DOJ drafting the letter, etc. So if you ask me to point to a single confiscation (like Dog Gone asked), there is still that guy.
Case: HO v Lungren (Closed)
ReplyDeleteCourt: Court of Appeals, 1st` Dist, (San Francisco)(#A083872). On appeal from San Francisco Superior Court (991752), Judge Williamson. Second case pending.
Issue: Legality of post 3/31/1992 "AW" registrations and DOJ's "AW" registration revocation and possible confiscation of 1,550 to 16,000 firearms.
Summary: The DOJ for nine years took the position that assault weapons could be registered belatedly and, though the registrant might be subject to fines, there would be no incarceration or confiscation of the assault weapon. In July, 1998, HCI and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence sued the Cal DOJ to stop DOJ from registering "assaukt weapons" past a March 31, 1992 deadline. Superior Court Judge Williamson ruled that the DOJ exceeded its authority under the statute by allowing the registrations. DOJ, under AG Lungren, appealed. If the decision stands, roughly 16,000 post 1992 registrations could be invalidated and the owners of the firearms will become felons.
NRA, CRPA, SAF, and LEAA initially requested to File amicus briefs in this case, then moved to intervene when an HCI friendly "settlement" was being discussed. The Motion was denied. The amicus briefs attached legislative history materials that showed the law would not have been signed without a late registration allowance
The DOJ, under new AG Lockyer, did not protect the rights of gun owners in this case nor defend the legal position that the owners of these assault weapons now find themselves in as a result of complying with the DOJ's own orders. In fact, the DOI didn't even file a Reply brief! Accordingly, the amicus briefs substituted for the DOJ's lack of a reply brief.
Along with invalidating 16,000 registrations, the ruling also apparently prohibits a defendant charged with possessing an unregistered "AW" from belatedly registering it, even if it was owned before the AW Act took effect. Previously, first time offenders could belatedly register their rifles and have a pending felony charge reduced to an infraction.
The DOJ also accidentally released draft letters, based upon a proposed settlement of this case, ordering all post March 1992 registrants to surrender their firearms without compensation, and alerting local law enforcement of the names and addresses of those who have the guns so that they may be prosecuted as felons. The letters were not sent because of the public reaction to the leak, HCI and the DOI stipulated to dismiss the appeal. NRA/CRPA opposed it, but the Court granted the dismissal on September 14th. The DOJ "settled" the case by giving HCI everything it wanted and more, selling out all of the law abiding citizens that followed the DOJ's policies for nine years and registered their assault weapons as they were instructed in the process. Another DOJ letter was sent our to owners of late registered "AWs" advising them that they had until 12/31/99 to get rid of their guns.
Recent Developments: Case closed. A second lawsuit (see below) against Lockyer was filed 12/10/99 to prevent any attempt to confiscate the guns or invalidate the registrations.
Case: Hartz v. Lockyer
Court: Sacramento Superior. Judge Gray.
Issue: Legality of post 1992 "AW" registrations and DOJ "AW" registration revocation and possible confiscation of 1,550 to 16,000 firearms. Whether DOJ is required to give each registrant a hearing on the validity of their registration.
Summary: See HC1 v. Lungren, above.
Recent Developments: Case filed 12/9/99. Injunction denied. but the court ruled that there was no right to register and "step-down" after 3/31/92 even though that issue wasn't briefed. Motion for Reconsideration filed, hearing set first week in February. Writ on step- down issue pending.
That information comes from:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nrawinningteam.com/0002/origlitrep0002.html nice of you to cite it as they are the only source for this information.
"Possible confiscation".
Well, there is the possibility I will become a billionaire in the next couple of days as well.
"Possible confiscation" means nothing--anything is possible,how probable is another matter. So, once again, no proof of actual confirmed confiscations.
After all, I am a possible billionaire!
This alleges that:
The DOJ also accidentally released draft letters, based upon a proposed settlement of this case,
As I have said, I have yet to receive confirmation that these documents are real. Not to mention I distrust the veracity of this source.
As I pointed out, they originate from an office that has nothing to do with firearms. I would expect a real document to have originated from the firearms division. As such, they are suspect.
In addition, you are citing a source that I deem unreliable based upon the information I have checked from that source. There is no other source that mentions this case.
I found the following information on one of the cases you mention:
1st Appellate District
Court data last updated: 09/21/2011 01:05 PM
Case Summary Docket Scheduled Actions Briefs
Disposition Parties and Attorneys Trial Court
Case Summary
Trial Court Case: 991752
Court of Appeal Case: A083872
Division: 5
Case Caption: Handgun Control, Inc. et al. v. Lockyer
Case Type: CV
Filing Date: 08/03/1998
Oral Argument Date/Time:
Come on, TS, you think everything is free out there? I thought you were a capitalist.
Also, US lawyers tend to be very partisan and "adversarial" rather than work within a common understanding of the law. Which is why I prefer the British Bar.
Here's some more info on some of the cases from that site:
ReplyDeleteKasler v. Lockyer, 2 P.3d 581 (Cal. 2000) held the California Constitution contains no provision regarding a “right to bear arms.” . It also held, that the AW ban does not violate equal protection of the law because the statute does not burden a fundamental constitutional right to "bear arms, since no such right exists under the California constitution.
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, (9th Cir. 2002)rejected a federal constitutional challenge to the ban, holding that the Second Amendment only protects the collective right of the people to maintain well-regulated militias.
I understand that California has noted that District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. The Court in that case noted, nevertheless, that the Second Amendment is consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons.” The California courts of appeal have upheld the AWB under that provision.
Personally, I prefer the websites I get my information from are accurate rather than partisan.
The one you cite is not only partisan, but it contains out of date and inaccurate information.
TS, I should add that there is only the filing information on the Handgun Control, Inc. et al. v. Lockyer case, and no mention of disposition of scheduled argument.
ReplyDeleteI still contend that the documents are not what they are presented as being--that does not mean they are fake.
There are other explanations, but they are suspect since they come from a research division, not the firearms division.
As I said, the cite you reference is partisan, out of date, incomplete, and inaccurate in my opinion. I do not trust them one bit without independent verification of their claims.
You would do the same if I cited an "anti-gun" source. In fact, we have to do more verification of our facts since you will challenge more than I challenge you.
BTW, the case, Handgun Control, Inc. et al. v. Lockyer
ReplyDelete"Pursuant to stipulation, we hereby order modification of the judgment so that the date "March 30, 1992" shall be changed to "March 31, 1992" in the two instances where it appears in the judgment and we dismiss the appeal without prejudice and without costs to either party."
Case dismissed--got that?
TS, since you aren't as sophisticated at evaluating sources. I'll give you a bit of a tutorial.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nrawinningteam.com/0002/origlitrep0002.html is the website for Trutanich - Michel, LLP & Benenson & Kates Attorneys At Law.
In the California Court of Appeals Docket report, you will note the following name mentioned under Parties and Attorneys
Carl Dawson Michel
407 North Harbor Boulevard
San Pedro, CA 90731
Michel is giving his side of the story there.
That is why I want an independent source for this information.
Laci, the write-ups came from this law firm:
ReplyDeletehttp://michellawyers.com/
Since you want to want to call BS on every single thing I say, why don’t you contact them and you two can “lawyer it out”. The cases are real- it happened (and no I don’t claim things go our way in CA- I expect it to always be a crappy place to own guns). The letter happened to. Just admit the DOJ wrote it, but never sent it out after the backlash of the leak. This is not one giant conspiracy involving fake letters on lying websites using fake law firms.
There are still some loose ends that I have questions on. What is the current status of the 16,000 registered guns in question (and 1500 confiscation orders from the letter)? Did the DOJ recognize their legitimacy, or are they just ignoring it? Though there aren’t confiscation orders, can those owners be arrested for possession? If so it may be better to round up the guns with amnesty than ruin individual lives with felony convictions. I may ask them about this.
Since you said you are waiting on a response from the CA DOJ about the legitimacy of their letter, can you post a copy here of your email to them?
Laci: "TS, since you aren't as sophisticated at evaluating sources. I'll give you a bit of a tutorial."
ReplyDeleteNope, I beat you to it. I just posted a link to them while you posted this. Maybe I am a little sophisticated afterall.
TS, you aren't as sophisticated as you would like to think.
ReplyDeleteYou don't, apparently, know anything whatsoever about Lexus Nexus.
You didn't look at the letters in question and aske the right questions or question the right points.
For example - no one signs a draft letter. The person who did sign the letter was the wrong person for that kind of letter; you would be wise to question the legitimacy of a letter from an audit division executive ordering supplies for the cafeteria service, It's not what they do. This appears to be the wrong department for such a letter. Beyond that, it is odd, and would seem to be unethical, for a legit law firm to be posting such a letter, which - if you believe it is the real deal - would appear to be someone else's work product. Then there is the issue of whether or not this is legit letterhead, which again, I wouldn't expect to find on a draft copy like this.
And I leave it to Laci to elaborate on what else is wrong with this source of yours. I think those are pretty good ones for openers.
Dog gone, you have two sources of which to validate your bold assumptions that the letter is a fake; the DOJ office, and the law firm that initiated the litigation against them. I have provided you contacts for both, and all you and Laci do is pester me about how gullible I am for believing a signed letter from the DOJ and the ensuing suit against them. Do whatever you need to do to sort this out in your mind.
ReplyDeleteDog gone: “You don't, apparently, know anything whatsoever about Lexus Nexus.”
Apparently neither do you since you don’t know how it is spelled. Lexus is a car.
Dog gone: “For example - no one signs a draft letter.”
It wasn’t a draft letter. It was meant to go out, but was leaked. If you don’t believe it, get confirmation from the DOJ that Doug Smith never wrote or signed that letter.
Dog gone: “Beyond that, it is odd, and would seem to be unethical, for a legit law firm to be posting such a letter, which - if you believe it is the real deal - would appear to be someone else's work product.”
Unless of course it is a real letter, in which case it would make perfect sense for a legit law firm to post it to initiate a class action suit.
Like I said, I gave you two sources of which to confirm its legitimacy.
Letters going out have addressees, and clear letterhead and they come from the correct department.
ReplyDeleteLexis nexis - typo on the fly; big deal. You clearly didn't know what it was or how to use it.
Any letter that was not provided legitimately, no matter how you spin it about being leaked, or whatever, is bullshit. It is an unethical use of work product unless it was properly provided to them.
This looks and smells like crap. YOU should be checking the sources, not expecting us to validate it for you. You are being smug about a crap source, and conclusions that are not warranted.
There are a few ways one can lie or misuse facts, TS. One is to misrepresent their significance. The other is to omit important facts.
ReplyDeleteThe website that has these letter has a pretty important warning to someone who knows US Civil Procedure:
The DOJ also accidentally released draft letters, based upon a proposed settlement of this case,
In American civil procedure, there are various forms of priviliged documents--that note says these documents were probably privilged documents.
Thee are a few aspects of privilige these could fall under:
the work-product doctrine protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from discovery by opposing counsel. This is "tangible material or its intangible equivalent" that is collected or prepared in anticipation of litigation is not discoverable,[2] and may be shielded from discovery by a Protective Order, unless the party seeking discovery can demonstrate that the sought facts can only be obtained through discovery and that those facts are indispensable for impeaching or substantiating a claim.
There is also attorney-client privilege. Unlike the attorney-client privilege, which includes only communications between an attorney and the client, work-product includes materials prepared by persons other than the attorney him/her self: The materials may have been prepared by anybody as long as they were prepared with an eye towards the realistic possibility of impending litigation. Additionally, it includes materials collected for the attorney such as interrogatories, signed statements, other information acquired for the prosecution or defense of a case, "memoranda, briefs, communications . . . other writings prepared by counsel for his/her own use in prosecuting the client's case . . . mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories."
Documents produced in relation to settlement are also privileged documents.
Your assertion is that these documents are proof of possible confiscations. They could also be documents proposing a resolution to the matter.
You could look these doctrines up on line to verify that I am not BSing you, but someone with a knowledge of litigation would see the above quoted phrase and be very wary about the significance of these documents and their posting.
As Dog Gone pointed out, there are loads of red flags about these documents which is why no legitimate newssource would touch them with a 10 foot pole.
Unless they were actually issued, their significance is nil.
And we are in agreement that these documents were never issued.
As for the ethical ramifications and sanctions, I am not a member of the California Bar. I have brought this to the attention of the California AG's office and they can address it.
Yes, this law office could be in for serious trouble if it has not only kept, but published privileged documents. Especially if they have misrepresented their significance.
As I said, I would prefer independent verification of these documents since I do not trust this law firm to be honest.
I should also add that in addition to these most likely being privileged documents that should not have been published, the fact that no legitimate newsgathering source has touched these is another clue that these are probably not kosher.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I have brought it to the attention of the California AG's office and they can handle it.
It is correctly quite far beyond my bailiwick.
BTW, TS, Under california law if (1) attorney receives documents and (2) they are obviously privileged and inadvertently disclosed, notify opponent and refrain from further examination; trial court can awarded sanction against the party for failure to do refrain from use.
ReplyDeleteState Compensation Insurance Fund v. Telanoff (1999), 70 Cal.App.4th 644
Those documents should not be published on the internet.
As I have said, this has been brought to the attention of CA DoJ. They can address the matter.
Laci: “As I have said, this has been brought to the attention of CA DoJ. They can address the matter.”
ReplyDeleteGood. Can we see a copy of your correspondence to them, and any reply you might get? It is fair to say that if these documents get taken down, that you were right. I think the odds are against you given that they have been up there for 12 years, and I am sure you are not the first anti-gun lawyer to see them. HCI’s lawyers had to have known about it since they were on the opposite side of some of these suits. Have you contacted Mr. Michel about it?
Dog gone, I was just teasing about the spelling (we are not here to correct typos), but it had to be said when you said I don’t know anything about “Lexus Nexus”. What is that- hair products for people who drive premium Japanese automobiles? :) Was it really a typo if you made it on both words? Do you have an account with them, or are you giving me crap about something you don’t use either? And what does my not having a login have to do with the legitimacy of this letter.
By the way, I am out for the weekend, so I’ll just check back next week regarding your progress with the DOJ/shady law firm.
CA DoJ has been made aware of it by my inquiries. It's their business.
ReplyDeleteHave you contacted Mr. Michel about it?.
A bit slow on the uptake, eh TS? The following tells me that they shouldn't be up:
The DOJ also accidentally released draft letters, based upon a proposed settlement of this case,
That is a glaring red light that this is probably privileged legal material that should not have been produced.
It may be an ethical matter without recourse, but if that is the case we have enough to show Michel's firm isn't very ethical. That in and of itself is enough for me to discount these documents.
I'm pretty sure that the firm is aware of the publication of privileged material being unethical, and if they wish to have a reputation for that,they are most certainly welcome to it. I don't think they really give a shit about their reputation or they wouldn't have posted them in the first place.
Since they are very likely unethical and appear to admit to that fact, I prefer not to trust them or the documents.
You can believe what you want--I won't change your opinion, TS. Your opinion is poorly founded if it is based upon these sources.
As I said, the fact that this is the only source for these documents makes me wonder about the facts surrounding them. That is why I want an opinion from another, independent source (which precludes CA DoJ since they are also a party). That information being unobtainable, I prefer to think these are privileged material that shouldn't see the light of day and cannot be used for any purpose.
As I said, I contacted CA DoJ about these letters, it's their business what they do about them.
If it is only a matter of ethics, there may be no further legal sanction. That still makes this an unethical act to have posted this material. I don't trust people who are unethical to tell the truth, nor should you.
Yes,there is a difference in services. And, yes, the fact that this document is unpublished by a reputable source and is only found a website which is disreputable and partisan makes these documents suspect--even if created by an "official source".
I think the odds are against you given that they have been up there for 12 years, and I am sure you are not the first anti-gun lawyer to see them. HCI’s lawyers had to have known about it since they were on the opposite side of some of these suits.
ReplyDeleteYou can't assume that HCI has seen these sites. Why would they be interested in them?
This is yet another reason to distrust this material, If this was indeed privileged material that leaked out, but other parties returned it per ethical rules, that shows the publication was unethical.
I don't think that TS appreciates just how unethical it is for a law firm to post this material.
ReplyDeleteThere is no confirmation that the documents are legit; if they were provided by a third party to this law firm, there is no way to know if the documents were accurate, or if they were either faked or altered.
There is plenty of red flags to all of it.
Of course, if the letters are fakes, then they aren't work product....
I'll wait to see what, if anything we hear back from the CA AG. Or, alternatively, absent a response, what a phone call turns up.
This nonsense is not a validation of anything TS. You are trying to make it more than it is -- and what it is isn't much.
It isn't enough.
Simple answer for you,TS,these are draft documents that were never issued.
ReplyDeleteOf course, That would be proof that confiscation was ordered in a universe where President Obama’s refusal to steal all of their guns is really just his massive conspiracy to steal all their guns.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with a little fear mongering.