Archive for the 'Stand Your Ground' Category

GCO Files Motions to Intervene and Dismiss the Rainbow Push Coalition Attack On Stand Your Ground

Sunday, November 10th, 2013

GCO has filed motions to intervene in, and to dismiss, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition’s lawsuit aimed at repealing what it calls Georgia’s “stand your ground” law. GCO seeks to represent the interests of its members, who are not adequately represented by the existing parties in the case. This is a new attack on the law and is separate from the case GCO won last year again Rev. Markel Hutchins. The documents for the Rainbow Coalition’s lawsuit may be viewed here.

Share

Court Grants GCO’s Motion to Intervene in Stand Your Ground, Dismisses Case

Monday, October 1st, 2012

Federal District Judge Thomas Thrash granted GCO’s motion to intervene in the Rev. Markel Hutchins’ ill-conceived lawsuit against Georgia’s “Stand Your Ground” law on Friday, September 28, 2012. Judge Thrash also granted GCO’s second motion to dismiss the case on account of Rev. Hutchins’ failure to obtain service or process on either defendant, Attorney General Sam Olens and Gov. Nathan Deal. GCO’s first motion to dismiss (for failure to state a claim) therefore became moot. The documents may be read here.

Share

GCO Files Second Motion to Dismiss “Stand Your Ground” Challenge

Thursday, August 9th, 2012

GCO has filed a second motion to dismiss the Rev. Markel Hutchins’ attack on Georgia’s so-called “Stand Your Ground” law. In the federal lawsuit, Hutchins claims to be acting on behalf of all Georgians when he asks the court to rule Georgia’s law unconstitutional. GCO’s most recent motion points out to the court that Hutchins has failed, in the 120 days since Hutchins filed the lawsuit, to serve the complaint on either defendant (Gov. Nathan Deal and Attorney General Sams Olens). Federal rules require service on defendants within 120 days, unless the plaintiff can show good reason for the failure. Given that each defendant in this case can readily be served on any business day by merely showing up at their offices with the complaint, it is difficult to imagine that there is a good reason for Hutchins’ failure.

Hutchins also declined to respond to GCO’s first motion to dismiss, filed on the grounds that Hutchins lacks standing to sue. In order to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a plaintiff must show that he has been injured and that such injury is particular to him. Hutchins claims no injury in his complaint, and claims to be acting on behalf of all Georgians — that is, he admits that any injury he has is common to all Georgians and not particular to him.

Both motions are before federal district judge Thomas Thrash. The second motion, along with other documents in the case, can be viewed here.

Share

GCO on 11Alive News defending the Stand Your Ground law

Wednesday, April 25th, 2012

John Monroe was interviewed on the motion to dismiss the baseless lawsuit against Georgia’s Stand Your Ground law and debated Plaintiff’s council Robert Patillo on Channel 11′s 11Alive News at 7:00 PM on Monday April 23rd. The 11Alive video of the interview can be seen on 11Alive’s website here.

Share

GCO Moves to Dismiss ‘Stand Your Ground’ Case

Friday, April 20th, 2012

GCO has filed a motion to dismiss the case filed by Rev. Markel Hutchins to have Georgia’s so-called “stand your ground” law ruled unconstitutional. Yesterday, GCO moved to intervene as a party in the case, to represent the interests of its members. Today’s latest motion seeks to have the case dismissed on the grounds that Rev. Hutchins has no standing to sue to challenge the law. The brief in support of the motion to dismiss may be found here.

Share

GCO Moves to Intervene in Stand Your Ground Case

Thursday, April 19th, 2012

GCO has filed a motion to intervene in Rev. Markel Hutchins’ lawsuit against state officials challenging the constitutionality of the so-called “stand your ground” law in Georgia. GCO seeks to represent the interests of its members, who are not adequately represented by the existing parties in the case. The brief in support of the motion to intervene may be viewed here.

Share