Score one for the good guys

C

csmsss

New member
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/judge-orders-brady-center-to-pay-ammo-dealers-legal-fees-after-dismissing/I didn't expect to see this, and certainly the Brady Center didn't expect it either. Will this stop their assault on arms and ammunition dealers, whether online or otherwise? Highly doubtful, as they are highly motivated and well funded. Of note is the Brady Center's evolving duty of care for such vendors:

"If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes."

Huh? And how are they to do this? Glad to see we have a federal judge that didn't fall for the Brady nonsense. And sweet indeed that he ordered the Brady Center to pay Lucky Gunner's legal fees.
 
Excellent, thanks for posting. I agree, shouldn't have gone to court.
There will be more, hopefully they pay again if they loose
 
If you go to Lucky Gunner's website, they are donating the legal reimbursement to other gun rights organizations and you can vote for which organizations get it. They'll award it based on percentage vote.

I'm personally voting for Florida Carry
 
I could have sworn that we've discussed this previously, but I can't find it. Yes indeed, a good day for Lucky Gunner and Sportsmans Guide.

Is it too much to hope for that the Brady Bunch can't afford the payment, and will have to file for bankruptcy? Can you evade a court-ordered penalty through bankruptcy? (I hope not.)
 
Last edited:
Don't count the $ just yet, the Bradys (et all) have taken it to appeal, and until/unless they lose there, NO money will be paid.

"If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes."
Click to expand...

While I can see the sentiment in this statement, the logic is lacking.

"people like James Holmes"...what / who is that?

According to what I have seen, being of legal age, with no criminal record, does NOT put you in a prohibited person category. Like most of the rampage killers, until the rampage, they did nothing legally wrong.

Today, nearly 3 years after the shooting, AND his arrest, Holmes STILL HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED, although it looks like another few months might finally end the process.

Absent a conviction, or legal mental adjudication, it is entirely legal to sell weapons to those who meet all the other qualifiers (age, citizenship, residence, etc.), and the fact that later they may do evil is not something anyone without GOD like vision can say with certainty.

Suing a retailer because they are not all knowing and all seeing...no logic that I can see there...

Might as well sue (every) church, because God did not prevent the killings...makes as much sense to me.

Good job by the judge on this one, I think.
 
This was evidently a complaint brought in state court alleging state claims. According to the award order, state law provides that if an action against an ammunition dealer or manufacturer is dismissed on a motion, then an award of attorney fees to the defendant is mandatory. The appeals court might reduce the fees but would be required to keep some award in place so long as it doesn't reverse the underlying dismissal of the lawsuit.

Sure, this is chump change for Bloomberg, but the award is against the parents who brought the suit. Even if Brady/Bloomberg chip in on the fees, the fee award would have to give other potential plaintiffs reason to pause before filing political lawsuits like this.
 
the award is against the parents who brought the suit.
Click to expand...
The Brady Campaign made it appear they were the plaintiffs, but the actual plaintiffs were Lonnie and Sandy Phillips. The latter are left with a $200,000 legal bill.

Of course, it bears mentioning that Lonnie is the Operations Manager for the Brady Campaign and Sandy is the Campaign Manager for the Brady Campaign. Let's see if their employer volunteers to cough up the cash.
 
fee implications

If the fee is paid, and ponied up by either the Brady Bunch / Bloomberg, won't they still have to claim this as (gift) income and pay taxes on it?

Just a thought.
 
Good opportunity for some internet articles about Brady Campaign leaving people hanging out to dry, get them some very negative publicity.
 
Getting stuck with the legal bill, if that happens, would be pretty much the Phillips' responsibility. It's hard to imagine that they didn't know they were the plaintiffs, and that the lawyers involved were representing them. At some point, they signed a contract for the law firm to represent them. It would have spelled out the terms, and if it didn't say "pro bono" somewhere, or specify that another party would be responsible for the costs...

Don't sign what you don't understand.
 
So, do we, the interested public have the legal right to find out who pays the bill (assuming someone actually does?)

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the award of legal fees to the ammo maker/seller means the Brady bunch has to pay for the defendants lawyer(s) and the court costs, right?

The Brady's (whomever) are ALSO liable for their own lawyer's fees, right? SO, even if the lawyers were pro bono on behalf of the Brady folks, they are still on the hook for the rest of the costs, right?


Yes, absolutely, if the Brady group stiffs their members who' were named as the actual plaintiff's, and forces them to pay the costs out of their own pockets, that is something we should definitely make the public aware of (providing it doesn't cross some privacy line).
 
Privacy be damned, these are the folks who print lists of gun owners and permittees for the general public to choose their target du jour from.

You can bet if the NRA had joined in such a suit, the Brady group would be in high dudgeon over the so-called gun lobby dropping their co-plaintiff in the taxable soup and demanding release of confidential agreements, if any.
 
I agree, they most certainly would, but do WE want to go there? Do we have the legal right? Not just what would be morally satisfying, to turn the tables on them, for once..

So, their right to privacy is important, to our side, even though our rights are not important to them.

Always tempting to abandon the moral high ground in favor of the cheap shot, but seldom worth it in the long run.

If we aren't breaking any laws getting, and publicizing the information about who pays what part of their legal costs, I say do it.

If we are, breaking a law, not just the rules of decency, or good taste and fairness, then I say refrain.
 
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the award of legal fees to the ammo maker/seller means the Brady bunch has to pay for the defendants lawyer(s) and the court costs, right?
Click to expand...
No, the Phillips are legally responsible for paying the bills, not the Brady Gang. If you read the order, the judge notes there was obvious collaboration between the Phillips and Brady, even going so far as lawyers for Brady signing a couple of pleadings for the lawyer for the Phillips.

Still, Brady is not a party to the litigation and is not liable for the fees unless they had an agreement with the Phillips beforehand. If so, the defendants still collect from the Phillips who then have to seek payment from Brady. Those sorts of arrangements used to be unlawful because it stirred up litigation but I think most jurisdictions allow it now (the practice is called champerty or maintenance). By unlawful, it may or may not have been criminal but the contracts were unenforceable and would result in dismissal of the litigation being funded by the non-party to the suit.
 
I would be surprised if they are hung out to dry.
Unless they care to complain about it publicly I don't see how it is any business of ours who pays the bills.

$200,000 is of little consequence when you take in the bigger picture. Why wouldn't they pay it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top