[jrm]

Link to story

 

[Rammstein]

Cool.

 

[ber950]

pdf

can't follow the links to the pdfs tonight. Getting error.

 

[jrm]

I don't get any errors when I click on the links. Does anybody else?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

No.

 

[geaux_tigers]

It's great to see GCO taking action to correct Cowetta's ordinance. =D>

At the same time, I find always find it disappointing when people like the country commission and county attorney fail to act reasonably and force litigiation. I get the feeling that they know their ordinance is not legitimate, but hope to get their way by dragging their feet until the opposition simply gives up. :shakehead:

Does the county atttorney have an obligation to tell the commission to repeal the ordinance if she sees a conflict or is her obligation to make every possible argument she can to uphold the county's ordinances?

 

[jrm]

The "county attorney" is a law firm. Its obligation is to represent its client, the county, whose wishes are expressed through its board and administration.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Of course, one would expect that if the county commission said, "We want to pass an ordinance that allows our Sheriff's Deputies to arrest anyone overheard in a county park discussing political matters and jail them for up to six months," that the county attorney's obligation would not be to tell them that is ok.

:wink:

 

[Tinkerhell]

Looks great. It's really refreshing to know that my tiny little $15 is actually going to something that is working to make a noticeable & active difference in the state I live.

=D>

I even looked up that latin bit about being outside their power. hehehe.

 

[Gunstar1]

Coweta has filed thier answer...

http://georgiacarry.org/cms/2007/02/27/ ... s-lawsuit/

 

[foshizzle]

So, they are basically denying that their law is pre-empted? On what basis though? Looks like they just copy and pasted the same response 30 times over. How can a judge look at that and garner anything of value other than that they deny the allegations? I'm no lawyer but that looks like an incredibly lazy and half-assed response :?:

 

[Gunstar1]

Thats what I thought too. Basically saying the language of the code is plain, we can ban firearms from our parks. They did that or they just disagreed with the whole paragraph.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I even looked up that latin bit about being outside their power. hehehe.

They denied it was ultra vires, too!

 

[ber950]

Of course, one would expect that if the county commission said, "We want to pass an ordinance that allows our Sheriff's Deputies to arrest anyone overheard in a county park discussing political matters and jail them for up to six months," that the county attorney's obligation would not be to tell them that is ok.

:wink:

True but it would still be their job to defend them in court if they insisted on passing such an ordinance. They might not be able to mount a decent defense but they would still have to try.

Looks like that may be the case in this case. They did not cite case law or a law a single time. :shock:

I guess we will get to see how close the Superior Court Judge and the County Atty are. :wink:

 

[kkennett]

Boy, that is one powerful response. "No it isn't! No it isn't! No it isn't" Sounds like kids.

 

[geaux_tigers]

Question. In their answer there is a section entitled "First Defense" that states the following:

Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against Coweta County upon which relief can be granted.

Are they saying that they think that you are not due relief because they aren't wrong? Or, are they saying that they have no power to grant the relief that you ask?

 

[geaux_tigers]

WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiffs' Complaint, Coweta County respectfully prays: ...
b. that all costs of court be cast upon the Plaintiffs;

Am I the only one that is incensed by this? :x

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

That defense means that they think the Complaint should be dismissed because, just looking at the face of Complaint, it does not state anything that a court can grant relief upon. It is a way of stating that the Court should simply throw the Complaint out.

If you sued someone for fraud, but did not state the elements of a fraud claim, then it would be thrown out.

In this case, they do not really believe it, or they would have filed a motion. In other words, it is a frivolous defense, but a disturbingly common one. Lots of attorneys simply state that as a matter of course in every answer they file, with no basis for stating it. Unfortunately, judges do not very frequently take action against attorneys who do this sort of thing.

 

[geaux_tigers]

Lots of attorneys simply state that as a matter of course in every answer they file, with no basis for stating it. Unfortunately, judges do not very frequently take action against attorneys who do this sort of thing.

I was suspicious that it was baseless :bsflag:. If I were the judge (let's all hope it never comes to that), this would really anger me. What action could the judge take if he were so inclined? Something more substantial than voicing his disapproval on the record?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

What action could the judge take if he were so inclined? Something more substantial than voicing his disapproval on the record?

Sanctions. Financial, like an award of money against the party or the attorney. Legal, like striking the answer and declaring them in default. Neither one is very likely.