http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3577
CATO Attorneys to NRA: Butt Out!
NRA Counsel Charged with Professional Misconduct & Damage to Case
by Angel Shamaya
May 5, 2003
KeepAndBearArms.com -- On the 17th of April, 2003, the National Rifle Association's attorneys -- Stephen Halbrook and Richard Gardiner -- tried to bull their way into the CATO Institute's Second Amendment lawsuit. NRA filed a MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE in attempt to force unwanted consolidation of CATO's case (Parker v. District of Columbia) with the NRA's later, grossly inferior case (Seegars v. Ashcroft).
NRA's motion was filed just 13 days after they notified the world that they'd filed their lawsuit against the Attorney General.
CATO attorneys Alan Gura and Robert Levy appear more than a little upset about the NRA's invasion of their lawsuit. On May 1st, they responded rather bluntly with the following:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF COUNSEL
This motion in opposition to NRA's attack is 22 pages. First Paragraph:
"The motion to consolidate should be denied because it is untimely, ill-conceived and inappropriate. Allowing the Seegars plaintiffs to join this litigation would substantially and unnecessarily complicate what is presently a straightforward single-issue case. By adding a variety of extraneous claims to a case that is nearly ready for summary disposition, the Seegars plaintiffs would impede this court in resolving the narrow issue presented in the Parker litigation and substantially prejudice the Parker plaintiffs by delaying resolution of their claim." [emphasis added]
MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF COUNSEL
First Two Paragraphs:
"COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Shelly Parker, Dick Anthony Heller, Tom G. Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, and George Lyon, by and through undersigned counsel, and move the Court for an order recusing counsel for plaintiffs in Seegars v. Ashcroft, 03-834-RBW. The motion is made on grounds that counsel for the Seegars plaintiffs, Stephen Halbrook and Richard Gardiner, are barred from engaging in that representation by D.C. Bar Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6, 1.9, 1.10, and 3.2." [emphasis added]
"As demonstrated below, the Seegars plaintiffs' attempt to participate in this case is motivated not by a bona fide desire to adjudicate their claims, but by the improper strategic goals of their sponsor, the National Rifle Association ("NRA"). See Exhibit A. Finally, as further documented below, the Seegars plaintiffs' counsel, Stephen Halbrook, has refused to recuse himself from this action, despite the fact that he is now taking a litigation position that is materially adverse to his own former clients, Parker counsel Robert Levy and the Parker plaintiffs." [emphasis added]
Read the whole Motion. It reveals the nature of the NRA's First Allegiance so profoundly we hope every gun owner in America reads it.
DECLARATION OF ROBERT A. LEVY
A brief sworn statement detailing how NRA counsel Stephen Halbrook and his handlers at NRA apparently have no concern for the effect that their intrusion into the CATO case will have on CATO's plaintiffs. NRA's people seem willing to sacrifice a good Second Amendment lawsuit (Parker) for their own questionable reasons.
DECLARATION OF ALAN GURA
A brief sworn statement detailing how NRA counsel Stephen Halbrook and his handlers at NRA apparently have no concern for the effect that their intrusion into the CATO case will have on CATO's plaintiffs. NRA's people seem willing to sacrifice a good Second Amendment lawsuit (Parker) for their own questionable reasons.
Proposed Order
Levy and Gura even drafted an order to deny the NRA their assault on a good case that includes a grant for recusal of NRA's attorney -- and submitted it to the court to make it easier for them to do the right thing.
COMMENTARY
WHAT IS THIS REALLY ABOUT?
The CATO lawsuit was already tackling the D.C. gun ban -- the redundancy, coupled with the complication NRA brought in, will cost time and allow anti-gunners to rally against us. CATO's suit didn't go after Ashcroft and thus won't bring the full weight of the Justice Department and their competent attorneys with unlimited resources in as defendants. Is NRA really this stupid? Or do they actually need help on their case -- help from the superior legal team at CATO? Or, worse yet, are they deliberately trying to sabotage the CATO case? Few could deny that NRA is seeking to hog some credit for the good work of others -- especially so since the NRA hasn't filed a pure Second Amendment case and pursued it to the Supreme Court since their founding in the late 1800's. Perhaps it's all of the above.
DEJA VU!
This situation is reminiscent of the NRA's incompetent attempt to kill the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit being funded by the good supporters of KeepAndBearArms.com. NRA and their operatives didn't invent it, so they want to kill it -- or at least inflict as much damage as possible under the guise of helping. We are used to betrayals by the National Rifle Association. Now the good people at CATO are finding out what informed gun owners have known for many decades.
NRA's version of the Second Amendment is contrary to that of our nation's Founders, so let's hope the judges throw them out of this Consolidation Farce. Kudos to CATO's attorneys, Robert Levy and Alan Gura -- we applaud your "high road" approach to dealing with the politicians pretending to be patriots at the NRA. We are behind you 100% and wish you complete success in your case.
CATO Attorneys to NRA: Butt Out!
NRA Counsel Charged with Professional Misconduct & Damage to Case
by Angel Shamaya
May 5, 2003
KeepAndBearArms.com -- On the 17th of April, 2003, the National Rifle Association's attorneys -- Stephen Halbrook and Richard Gardiner -- tried to bull their way into the CATO Institute's Second Amendment lawsuit. NRA filed a MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE in attempt to force unwanted consolidation of CATO's case (Parker v. District of Columbia) with the NRA's later, grossly inferior case (Seegars v. Ashcroft).
NRA's motion was filed just 13 days after they notified the world that they'd filed their lawsuit against the Attorney General.
CATO attorneys Alan Gura and Robert Levy appear more than a little upset about the NRA's invasion of their lawsuit. On May 1st, they responded rather bluntly with the following:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF COUNSEL
This motion in opposition to NRA's attack is 22 pages. First Paragraph:
"The motion to consolidate should be denied because it is untimely, ill-conceived and inappropriate. Allowing the Seegars plaintiffs to join this litigation would substantially and unnecessarily complicate what is presently a straightforward single-issue case. By adding a variety of extraneous claims to a case that is nearly ready for summary disposition, the Seegars plaintiffs would impede this court in resolving the narrow issue presented in the Parker litigation and substantially prejudice the Parker plaintiffs by delaying resolution of their claim." [emphasis added]
MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF COUNSEL
First Two Paragraphs:
"COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Shelly Parker, Dick Anthony Heller, Tom G. Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, and George Lyon, by and through undersigned counsel, and move the Court for an order recusing counsel for plaintiffs in Seegars v. Ashcroft, 03-834-RBW. The motion is made on grounds that counsel for the Seegars plaintiffs, Stephen Halbrook and Richard Gardiner, are barred from engaging in that representation by D.C. Bar Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6, 1.9, 1.10, and 3.2." [emphasis added]
"As demonstrated below, the Seegars plaintiffs' attempt to participate in this case is motivated not by a bona fide desire to adjudicate their claims, but by the improper strategic goals of their sponsor, the National Rifle Association ("NRA"). See Exhibit A. Finally, as further documented below, the Seegars plaintiffs' counsel, Stephen Halbrook, has refused to recuse himself from this action, despite the fact that he is now taking a litigation position that is materially adverse to his own former clients, Parker counsel Robert Levy and the Parker plaintiffs." [emphasis added]
Read the whole Motion. It reveals the nature of the NRA's First Allegiance so profoundly we hope every gun owner in America reads it.
DECLARATION OF ROBERT A. LEVY
A brief sworn statement detailing how NRA counsel Stephen Halbrook and his handlers at NRA apparently have no concern for the effect that their intrusion into the CATO case will have on CATO's plaintiffs. NRA's people seem willing to sacrifice a good Second Amendment lawsuit (Parker) for their own questionable reasons.
DECLARATION OF ALAN GURA
A brief sworn statement detailing how NRA counsel Stephen Halbrook and his handlers at NRA apparently have no concern for the effect that their intrusion into the CATO case will have on CATO's plaintiffs. NRA's people seem willing to sacrifice a good Second Amendment lawsuit (Parker) for their own questionable reasons.
Proposed Order
Levy and Gura even drafted an order to deny the NRA their assault on a good case that includes a grant for recusal of NRA's attorney -- and submitted it to the court to make it easier for them to do the right thing.
COMMENTARY
WHAT IS THIS REALLY ABOUT?
The CATO lawsuit was already tackling the D.C. gun ban -- the redundancy, coupled with the complication NRA brought in, will cost time and allow anti-gunners to rally against us. CATO's suit didn't go after Ashcroft and thus won't bring the full weight of the Justice Department and their competent attorneys with unlimited resources in as defendants. Is NRA really this stupid? Or do they actually need help on their case -- help from the superior legal team at CATO? Or, worse yet, are they deliberately trying to sabotage the CATO case? Few could deny that NRA is seeking to hog some credit for the good work of others -- especially so since the NRA hasn't filed a pure Second Amendment case and pursued it to the Supreme Court since their founding in the late 1800's. Perhaps it's all of the above.
DEJA VU!
This situation is reminiscent of the NRA's incompetent attempt to kill the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit being funded by the good supporters of KeepAndBearArms.com. NRA and their operatives didn't invent it, so they want to kill it -- or at least inflict as much damage as possible under the guise of helping. We are used to betrayals by the National Rifle Association. Now the good people at CATO are finding out what informed gun owners have known for many decades.
NRA's version of the Second Amendment is contrary to that of our nation's Founders, so let's hope the judges throw them out of this Consolidation Farce. Kudos to CATO's attorneys, Robert Levy and Alan Gura -- we applaud your "high road" approach to dealing with the politicians pretending to be patriots at the NRA. We are behind you 100% and wish you complete success in your case.
I'll ponder that when WorldNetDaily reports on our activities and quotes me again, too. I'll give your opinion due consideration while noting that several more people joined our organization today for the first time -- as paid members -- and some of them also kicked in to the Second Amendment lawsuit NRA's incompetent attorney tried to kill.