cocked&locked
Member
So, what happened, player?
So, what happened, player? You claim to have this expertise that no other person seems to have. So, explain to us how the great Charlie happens to LOSE at every step of the way.
And please don't tell me 'the system is rigged'. I heard that before.
My petition for my appeal to be heard before an en banc panel is still pending, 40 days later. The last such petition in a same-sex marriage case out of Alaska was denied 27 days after it was filed with no active judge requesting to hear the case en banc.
The state's time-barred motion for a 60 day extension of time was granted by the Appellate Commissioner who cited no case or rule in support of his decision over my objection which called for sanctions. I will be filing a motion to strike the state's answering brief in whole and in part. That motion is supposed to be decided by the merits panel but we'll see.
Given that there are so very few supporters of Open Carry here, I rarely post updates here. I post frequent updates at my website.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 17, 2017 – The Answering Brief by Governor Brown and the Attorney General in my California Open Carry appeal was Due on December 19, 2016 which was 29 days ago. In a decision published last Friday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a man did not get his $99,500 returned from the government because he missed his filing deadline by thirty-five minutes. I filed my opposition to the state’s time-barred motion for an extension on December 20th, well within the ten day limit for me to file my opposition. The state missed its deadline, I have met all of my deadlines. The state’s motion is still pending. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully, it will not be a case of “One rule for me and another for thee.”
Unsurprisingly, the state does not have to play by the rules:
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 18, 2017 – Without explanation, the 9th circuit court of appeals Appellate Commissioner granted the state’s time-barred motion for a sixty day extension of time to file its Answering Brief (now due February 17th) and denied my request for sanctions. And so the 9th circuit court of appeals is going to let the state’s attorney violate the rules of the court of appeals just as the district court judge allowed the state’s attorney to violate the Federal district court rules.
34 – Nichols v. Brown – ORDER
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was entered on 01/18/2017 at 10:57:27 AM PST and filed on 01/18/2017
Case Name: Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al
Case Number: 14-55873
Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text:
Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner Appellees’ opposed late motion (Docket Entry No. [32]) for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The answering brief is due February 17, 2017. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Appellant’s request (Docket Entry No. [33]) for sanctions is denied. Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc (Docket Entry No. [31]) will be addressed in a separate order. (Pro Mo) [10269637] (LL)
So, what happened, player? You claim to have this expertise that no other person seems to have. So, explain to us how the great Charlie happens to LOSE at every step of the way.
And please don't tell me 'the system is rigged'. I heard that before.