Quote:
Originally Posted by exceltoexcel
A park isn't a home, you're in the vast minority of attorneys and quite frankly I find your stance appalling as a member of the judicial process. You're entitled to your opinion, which to this point has done nothing more than delay justice and made me second guess myself needlessly. However, it has done some good as I now am certain that I'm on solid ground. While I'm thankful for several of your views on this forum, for this delay I'm upset. I place the blame for the delay squarly on myself as I and only I control my reactions.
You now seem to sing a different tune once the rubber meets the road. Either way I now have committed myself to this fight. So I ask you this... Which side are you truly on? Are you with the cause or against it? Say you now so as to clarify your stance for the board.. Are you with us or against us? I have a lawyer not only in mind but financially but would you take up this case? Or is it that you would just prefer we all stay out of the parks? I give you a chance to clarify your position as a matter of respect.
|
How very odd.
I wish you luck in your endeavor. Not sure how I've changed that "tune", I expect that the criminal ordinance will fail, the park rule will likely stand, and I give that assessment as an honest opinion, even with
Heller intervening since 2006.
Perhaps you misunderstand the role of a lawyer. When I'm your advocate, I'll zealously argue your case to the opposing parties, to the courts, to the newspapers if it comes to that; and I'll emphasize the best points while trying to dismiss any contrary authority. But long before that, when we discuss the strengths and weaknesses in your proposed case, I would be a used car salesman with a JD if I tried to "sell" you that we had a case. Not my job, not even as a PA resident who likes to travel armed everywhere except court. My job is to tell the truth as I see it, and the truth is that this is NOT a slam-dunk case of preemption violation, it could go either way, and probably against us on the park policy issue. Probably for us on the criminal ordinance.
Few plaintiffs (or willing defendants, in this case) enter into a case expecting to lose. About half of them are wrong, and so are their lawyers, if they said they had a guaranteed winner. In this case, I hope that the courts see it your way, that would be terrific.
I don't think my reputation here hangs on the outcome of a case that cuts new ground, before a court with human judges who rule based on personal prejudices tempered by the statutes and cases. I've covered a lot of ground, most of it not in reliance on predicting future rulings. I've always said that every case is a crapshoot, that's why most cases settle.
Honestly, good luck, a favorable ruling would have broad repercussions.