Although every prior ruling in the case went our way under two previous judges, the case was recently reassigned to Obama appointee Katherine B. Forrest. Litigation always presents the risk that a judge (and especially a judge new to a case) will make an erroneous ruling.
Last Wednesday the judge ruled that the plaintiffs in our case – who have been falsely arrested or threatened with arrest over common pocket knives – do not have standing to sue, in part because the case documents don’t identify specific knives that would be illegal under New York City’s interpretation of state law. The trouble is, it’s nearly impossible to identify them under New York City’s haphazard and inconsistent approach – which is the whole point of the case in the first place! Even the DA has admitted that different specimens of the exact same make and model knife could be simultaneously found to be both legal and illegal! Click to read the judge’s ruling.
So here we have a situation where we’re suing because we can’t know with certainty what’s legal or banned, yet the judge is saying we don’t have standing to sue precisely because we haven’t identified what’s legal or banned in our court papers. That’s simply absurd!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Spammers: You are wasting your time. Irrelevant comments will not be published