Posted on 06/03/2008 6:04:44 PM PDT by BloodOrFreedom
In a surprise turn of events on the eve of opening arguments, New York City prevailed Monday in its public nuisance lawsuit against Georgia gun dealer Adventure Outdoors when Eastern District of New York Judge Jack B. Weinstein granted the city's motion for a default judgment.
The ruling gave the city a victory in the most high-profile case in Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's fight against the dealers of guns used in crimes within the city. Of the 27 original defendants, three have now defaulted, 20 settled, three won dismissal and one is scheduled to go to trial in September.
The case came to its rapid denouement Monday morning, when Adventure Outdoors' attorney moved to withdraw, citing the expense of defending a case that, following Weinstein's decision two weeks ago ordering a bench trial, had become unwinnable.
"Adventure Outdoors has decided that it does not intend to defend itself at a bench trial. Unlike the City, which can spend unlimited amounts of the taxpayers' money, Adventure Outdoors is a small retail dealer with limited resources and cannot afford to participate in a four-week bench trial, the result of which is a foregone conclusion," wrote John F. Renzulli, the head of Renzulli Law Firm in White Plains, N.Y.
The attorneys for the two sides in City of New York v. A-1 Jewelry and Pawn, 06-cv-2238, originally expecting to wrap up jury selection and exhibit lists Monday, instead debated Renzulli's motion to withdraw and the city's motion for a default judgment.
In a heated back and forth with Renzulli, Weinstein denied the motion to withdraw. He cited the ethics of withdrawing on the eve of trial and ordered the two sides to appear before a special magistrate judge to hammer out the specifics of the default judgment.
"It's too late to withdraw," Weinstein said. "The financial relationship between Renzulli and Adventure Outdoors Inc. is for the two sides to decide upon. A lawyer may not abandon his client in the midst of litigation at this stage."
Renzulli countered, "You're keeping me captive now in a case my client can't afford. I find that repugnant. I will fight that. I will fight that hard, and I will not give up."
Outside the courtroom after the hearing, attorneys for the city said they would seek from Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak a judgment similar to the 20 settlements the city had hammered out with other gun dealers.
In those deals, the defendants agreed to allow a special master oversee their operations, to refrain from selling firearms to either straw purchasers or people posing as straw purchasers and to subject themselves to additional penalties if found in violation of state or federal laws.
Kenneth W. Taber, a Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman partner and co-lead counsel for the city, told reporters that there may be minor differences between the default judgment and the agreements, such as who pays for the special master, noting that in this case the city need not provide the defense with incentives to settle.
In an ad hoc courthouse news conference Monday, Renzulli said the decision to withdraw was not an "explicit strategy" to circumvent Weinstein and instead fight the case before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"We're not cutting and running," Renzulli said. But, he added, "We're not spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight something that is a foregone conclusion. We were in this case until we had our constitutional jury taken away from us."
The city's attorneys expected Monday to be the quiet before today's storm. The Law Department's lawyers first learned of their imminent victory via a ping to senior counsel Richard J. Costa's BlackBerry shortly after 9 a.m.: Costa, just about to walk from his Brooklyn Heights, N.Y., home to the downtown Brooklyn court, had received an automatic update from the court's electronic filing system, notifying him of the motion to withdraw. Costa immediately forwarded the e-mail to his colleagues from the Law Department and Pillsbury Withrop.
By the time the attorneys arrived at the courthouse over the next hour, the issue of the day was no longer finalizing the jury and exhibits, but rather Renzulli's motion.
The two sides must now brief the issue of whether, and to what degree, Renzulli and his firm should be required to participate in those proceedings.
They would never do that for the gun dealers. Attorney's no matter which state they reside or practice in, are all in the same pat your back circle.
They would never cast doubt on their brothers in theft and controlled power. Once they do that they affect their own power and they will never do that.
Two different cases, yes.
Henry Bowman you lazy bum, where are you?
Check your mirror.
L
Like Weinstein? If Obama wins we will have several hundred more on our courts.
The Trial of all Crimes shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;Can someone explain how ANY of this "public nuisance" proceeding is constitutional?
bump
Art 6. Para 2.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The courts are committing a serious violation of their office. Highly impeachable in any sane society.
Not that I think this deranged animal we call "society" these days is in any way healthy or sane.
That was a slap in the face for the judge in that case, and gutsy for the lawyer to go along with that.
It’s not a criminal trial but a lawsuit. That’s the only way NYC can even bring this to court, as a plaintiff rather than the government. Now even in civil cases you’re supposed to have to sue the defendant in their own locale but in federal court maybe the entire country is considered a single locale. (or they saw a chance to tweak the little guy, so the rules be damned)
They sure are. And your citation is correct. The problem is, no one with sufficient power has stepped up to enforce it. Hopefully, with the Supreme Court hearing a 2nd amendment case this summer, the law will be upheld
If you mean by “the law” the Constitution, then I agree. If you mean by “the law”, the “DC gun ban”, then you need to explain further.
Sorry, I was in a hurry and not focusing...Yeah, I meant the Constitution, which has managed to get manipulated and violated more times than is fair
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.Still do not understand how this is constitutional.
Our modern FedGov, and even the State and local govts, are completely out of whack with the very document that was to give them their power.
With the GOP sliding ever Leftward, I don't see this trend reversing itself anytime before the next Revolution.
The problem, I think, besides the fact that they are chronically stupid, is that they've never been properly instructed about the content of these documents.
With the GOP sliding ever Leftward, I don't see this trend reversing itself anytime before the next Revolution
Let us pray, then, that the next revolution occurs quickly
Close. It's the Electorate who is ignorant of the Constitution and it's proper implications.
Those already in office know damn well what's in there. They just don't care. They count on our ignorance to keep us in line and voting Party politics rather than from principles.
I think we are RE-entering an era where those in power (merchants and polticians alike) find that they need their “lessers” (consumers, voters, workers) to be as ignorant as possible.
History lesson, when the printing press was first created, the aristocrats and the church were afraid that people would read the bible and find out what is actually in there. (ie be nice to each other, don’t kill the serfs etc)
We now have a DBM and permanent “elected” class that want to maximize the ignorance of the constitution.
It has literally become “crime think” to utter concepts of the constitution. (see hate crimes, see hate speech, see private property takings in the name of the tax base)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.