SAF File Motion to Hold Nagin, Riley in Contempt

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jan 18, 2007.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
  2. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    This is actually the second time they filed contempt charges. The first time Nagin suddenly found 1000+ firearms and agreed to give them back so the contempt charge dropped.

    I guess they picked it back up.
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    And the reports of violating the order were coming out within a week of dropping the previous motion. What has taken so long to file this motion? They need to be more aggressive with these gun grabbers (and they are gun grabbers!).
     
  4. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Well they had deniability for a while since they were "attempting" to give them back. But I agree it should have happened before now.
     
  5. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
  6. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    I certainly hope this development makes the mainstream media. I sincerely doubt it.
     
  7. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Fantastic!
     
  8. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    Sue them both so hard they won't have any hopes or dreams left either.
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    $1,356. That ought to bankrupt New Orleans. :roll: Where is the order?
     
  10. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    I'd like to see something on the order of a $1 Million dollar a day fine for every day that they have illegally seized guns in their possession.
     
  11. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    Have they been sued civilly, or does that bull***t "sovereign immunity" protect them.
     
  12. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
  13. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    Due to the severity of the offense, that "award" is pathetically low-balled.
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    Thanks, GS1. Ok, just so you know, this was not a motion for contempt relating to the guns not being returned to their rightful owners. Rather, this is a discovery order. Defendants failed to respond to discovery in the case, so the judge ordered them to do so and pay the cost of plaintiff's counsel in seeking the order compelling discovery responses.

    and he is cheaper than me . . .
     
  15. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,420
    2
    38
    :lol: