TexasCHLforum.com

Update:

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/20 ... paign.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Phillips are apparently making the rounds of sympathetic media (MSNBC) claiming the judgment is forcing them into bankruptcy, which wouldn't surprise me, it is a pretty stiff bill. This would indicate that the Brady mob is not (openly) paying the judgment for them. But the blogger notes they are still listed as employees of Brady, so it makes him suspicious that the bankruptcy claim is for show, to draw sympathy, and that in the end Brady is going to cover for them.

I cannot bring myself to watch the videos of them boo-hooing, but the blogger at the link seems to be saying they are not telling people they are employees of the Brady organization when they go on TV. and the media is not doing so either.

TXBO wrote: ..
I don't know any of the particulars. It's reasonable, however, to assume that when you get reprimanded by the court and you have to pay defendant's attorney fees for bringing a frivolous case, you may have gotten bad counsel. I see no lack of morality in exploring that.

The particulars are that these types of lawsuits are frivolous both as a matter of logic and statute, and there are several cases on record affirming this. In the face of this they embraced their "bad counsel" and in fact signed up with their counsels employers as employees, and sought to use their "victim status" to damage innocent parties. They simply chose to roll the dice and see if they could get a judge who will ignore the plain meaning of law (not a bad bet these days!) and maybe force a payment from the defendants to make the plaintiffs go away (which the plaintiffs would trumpet as a political victory). I see no morality in that.

They may have a legal case, and I hope the brady bunch does burn up their time and energy pointing fingers at each other over this, but just like their complaint against Luck Gunner et al, they have no moral basis to complain about their lawyers. This was not a case of an aggrieved party whose independent lawyers had no goal but their client's best interest: these were political allies waging political lawfare, and their battle blew up in their faces.

TXBO wrote:The family may have a case against the attorneys for giving such bad advice.

Maybe legally but not morally. The parents allied themselves with the Brady bunch, and even became employees. I don't know if the lawyers are employees of Brady or outside counsel, perhaps that would make a difference in a claim for malpractice. Realistically, I don't see how either the parents or Brady could claim to be surprised by the suit being thrown out -- there is a history of these type of suits being squashed. This was a blatantly political effort to use the legal system to damage law-abiding companies, exactly the thing the PLCAA was enacted to prevent.

But it would amuse me to see the all those on the Brady side tie itself up in knots suing each other...

Boom!

Judge berates Brady group in Lucky Gunner settlement

“Those who ignite a fire should be responsible for the cost of suppressing it before it becomes a conflagration,” wrote Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch about the Brady Campaign when he awarded $203,000 on June 17 to the retailers the organization sued. He was critical of the group for using the court to publicize its political agenda at the expense of a handful of retailers.

Brady vs. Lucky Gunner

While it is not yet clear when the $111,971.10 fee reimbursement will be paid, we [Lucky Gunner] are going to donate 100% of what is recovered to groups that support and defend the 2nd Amendment. We will fight to recover these funds from the Brady Center and to hold the Brady Center responsible for yet another frivolous lawsuit.Please tell us where you want the recovered fees to go by voting in the form... [at the link just above].

Interesting. No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money points out a discovery by one of his readers that the parents who sued Lucky Gunner et al are employees of the Brady mob.

The husband lists one of his duties as "Led the department in adding names of gun owners to the database."

AndyC wrote:It's great that such a frivolous lawsuit was rejected, but my sense of triumph is tempered by sadness for the family.

Although they brought this result upon themselves by acting on their pain and anger, it's still a hard thing to know that their suffering has been added to immensely - and my hatred for the Brady Campaign has now doubled.

Dave Hardy at his blog notes:

If Brady pays it (they're the attorneys, and the award is assessed against their client, not themselves) that'd be about 10% of their assets, or 5% of their budget. If they don't ... they're gonna have some serious problems finding clients for future cases.

I hear what you're saying. I have met the victim's brother a couple times through work, seems like a good guy, it would be tough to tell him your family did this to themselves, but that's what happened. (For all I know he didn't agree with his parents on this). They should have had an agreement in place with the Brady mob and their lawyers about "what if we lose" before going to court, but I wonder if any of them contemplated losing this badly.

This reminds me, I have a thread on "Bad Apple Lawyers" to go start. Stand by.

Three of the four defendants have filed motions claiming $280K in costs. The fourth defendant hasn't filed yet.
http://www.guns.com/2015/04/23/aurora-t ... r-lawsuit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/blo ... o-sellers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In an order released yesterday, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch ruled against the plaintiffs in the case of Sandy Phillips, et al., v. Lucky Gunner, LLC., et al.

Sandy and Lonnie Phillips [of San Antonio] are the parents of Jessica Ghawi, one of the victims of the Aurora movie theater shooting. The lawsuit was backed by the anti-gun Brady Center.

...

The case was dismissed for failure to overcome the industry protections in the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (15 U.S.C. § 7901 et seq.), also known as PLCAA, signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005. The plaintiffs’ arguments were also found to collapse under a similar state law that protects the firearms community from frivolous and harassing tort claims.

Adding to the sting of losing the case, the Court also held that “defendants Lucky Gunner and the Sportsman’s Guide are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs.”

Interestingly, the US DOJ intervened on the side of the defendants, specifically to defend the constitutionality of the PLCAA. Wonders never cease.

I am sorry for the pain of her parents and her brother and any other family members, but even without the PLCAA this suit was wrong.