Federal Court Blocks Bloomberg Move

Federal Court Blocks Bloomberg Move

This is a discussion on Federal Court Blocks Bloomberg Move within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; A Federal District Court in Georgia blocked a Bloomberg move to have a lawsuit moved to New York. Maybe he'll get what's coming after all. ...

Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Federal Court Blocks Bloomberg Move

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816

    Federal Court Blocks Bloomberg Move

    A Federal District Court in Georgia blocked a Bloomberg move to have a lawsuit moved to New York. Maybe he'll get what's coming after all.

    http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,185649.shtml


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,561
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    A Federal District Court in Georgia blocked a Bloomberg move to have a lawsuit moved to New York. Maybe he'll get what's coming after all.

    http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,185649.shtml
    I can't tell you what I think he has coming to him..not on this forum.

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    HA HA HA HA HA

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    I'm not clear on this part:

    "We are pleased that the case Adventure Outdoors has filed against Mayor Bloomberg and others will remain before a federal district court here in Georgia, governed by Georgia law, and to be heard by a Georgia jury," Barr stated.

    If it's in federal court, why would it be "governed by Georgia law"? Is that the way it works?

  5. #5
    Member Array MD_Willington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    SE WA State
    Posts
    481
    What, still haven't arrested the ring leader of a very public straw purchase gang yet... Animal Farm right there folks...

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by peacefuljeffrey View Post
    I'm not clear on this part:

    If it's in federal court, why would it be "governed by Georgia law"? Is that the way it works?
    The Erie Doctrine provides that a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction over a state law claim must apply state substantive common law in resolving the dispute. The Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure in the American legal system that stems from Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' watershed opinion in the landmark decision of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64 (1938). That decision overturned a previous decision of the court, Swift v. Tyson, which allowed federal judges sitting in a state to ignore the common law local decisions of state courts in the same state, in cases based on diversity jurisdiction.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_doctrine


    In United States law, diversity jurisdiction is a concept used in civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a U.S. (federal) district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case due to the parties being "diverse" in citizenship, generally indicating that they are citizens of different states (corporate parties, and non-U.S. citizens can also be included). Diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction (i.e. jurisdiction over issues arising under federal law) constitute the two primary sources of subject matter jurisdiction in U.S. federal courts.

    The United States Constitution, Article III, § 2 gives the U.S. Congress the power to permit federal courts to hear diversity cases through legislation authorizing such jurisdiction. The provision was included because the framers of the Constitution were concerned that, where a case was brought in one state involving parties from both that state and another, the state court might be biased towards the party from its own state. Congress first exercised that power and granted federal trial district courts diversity jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Diversity jurisdiction is presently codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

    Usually, in order for diversity jurisdiction to apply, none of the plaintiffs in a case can be from the same state as any of the defendants (complete diversity). A corporation is treated as a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and the state in which its principal place of business is located, though a partnership or limited liability company is considered to have the citizenship of all of its constituent partners/members. Thus, a partnership with one partner sharing citizenship with an opposing party will destroy diversity of jurisdiction. Cities and towns (incorporated municipalities) are also treated as citizens of the states in which they are located, but states themselves are not considered citizens for the purpose of diversity. An alien (foreign national) who has been granted the status of U.S. permanent resident is treated as a citizen of the state where the alien resides.

    The diversity jurisdiction statute also allows federal courts to hear cases in which:

    * Citizens of a U.S. state are parties on one side of the case, with nonresident alien(s) as adverse parties;
    * Complete diversity exists as to the U.S. parties, and nonresident aliens are additional parties;
    * A foreign state (i.e. country) is the plaintiff, and the defendants are citizens of one or more U.S. states; or
    * Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, a class action can usually be brought in a federal court when there is just minimal diversity—i.e., any plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from any defendant. Class actions that do not meet the (not very stringent) requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act must have complete diversity between class representatives (not all class members) and the defendants.

    A United States citizen who is domiciled outside the United States is not considered to be a citizen of any U.S. state, and cannot be considered an alien. The presence of such a person as a party completely destroys diversity jurisdiction, except for a class action or mass action in which minimal diversity exists with respect to other parties in the case.

    If the case requires the presence of a party who is from the same state as an opposing party, or a party who is a U.S. citizen domiciled outside the country, the case must be dismissed, the absent party being deemed "indispensable". The determination of whether a party is indispensable is made by the court following the guidelines set forth in Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_jurisdiction


    I wish Wikipedia was around when I was in law school. 4 years ago I'd have had to go find my Civil Procedure notes.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    I cant begin to tell you how pleased I am that some one stood up the the Socialist party of New York. I would be even more pleased if this activity and results hit Date line or 20/20. I have no reason to believe there wont be a positive outcome. Thats why they wanted to transfer the case so they could hand pick their jury. Let the nation see what kind of gangster mentality these people operate from.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  8. #8
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,863
    If someone at the ATF had a pair, they would have arrested Bloomberg and his investigators for the multiple felonies they conspired to commit.

    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by MattLarson View Post
    If someone at the ATF had a pair, they would have arrested Bloomberg and his investigators for the multiple felonies they conspired to commit.

    Matt
    I doubt it was lack of balls.

    I'm sure it was the memo from the boss saying "Don't even try it unless you like snow, because you will be investigating tobacco tax violations in the arctic if you even try it..." and the realization that they like living near civilization.

  10. #10
    Member Array 1911packer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    420
    I have bought firearms from Adventure Outdoors before and will continue to trade with them in support of their battle against that rat Bloomberg.

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,286
    I think a lot of agencies are getting sick of his antics.
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

  12. #12
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,503
    Quote Originally Posted by MD_Willington View Post
    What, still haven't arrested the ring leader of a very public straw purchase gang yet... Animal Farm right there folks...
    It's time to make some bacon...
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Bloomberg’s “Blueprint for Federal Action on Guns”
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: February 25th, 2010, 11:16 PM
  2. OK Sheriff Found Guilty In Federal Court
    By Sig 210 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 20th, 2009, 11:47 AM
  3. Just in - court blocks rule allowing CCW in National Parks
    By tinkerinWstuff in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2009, 11:16 PM
  4. Bloomberg Article on Supreme Court/DC Gun ban
    By BlackPR in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 19th, 2008, 11:08 PM
  5. Federal Court inTulsa Shafts Workers Re:Guns
    By randytulsa2 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 8th, 2007, 11:51 AM