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. ...
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.
HA HA HA HA HA
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?
What, still haven't arrested the ring leader of a very public straw purchase gang yet... Animal Farm right there folks...
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.
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.
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.
If someone at the ATF had a pair, they would have arrested Bloomberg and his investigators for the multiple felonies they conspired to commit.
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.
Learning to shoot again : Starting Over
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.
I have bought firearms from Adventure Outdoors before and will continue to trade with them in support of their battle against that rat Bloomberg.
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