Philly settles with OC advocate for $25,000.....

Good news out of PA:

Gun-rights advocate stopped by police for openly carrying pistol will settle against the city of Philadelphia for $25,000.

Lansdale open-carry law advocate Mark Fiorino, who filed a civil rights lawsuit against Philadelphia Police this month, has accepted an offer from the city of Philadelphia to allow a $25,000 judgement be entered against all defendants and in favor of Fiorino.

“This was never about the money,” said Benjamin Picker, of McCausland Keen and Buckman, the attorneys representing Fiorino along with the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “Mr. Fiorino was seeking change in the way the city trains its police officers and vindication in connection with the violation of his constitutional rights...........

More at this link: http://www.tactical-life.com/online...city-of-philadelphia-for-25000/?hp=news_title

Click to expand...

Congratulations Mark - a win for all LAC in PA. :monkey

I love the smell of VICTORY

Good Job!!!!!!!!

Yeah, yeah, yeah. They pay off one guy so he will go away.

No consent decree saying that while they did nothing wrong they promise to never do it again. And can be held accountable by the court if they break their promise.

Nothing to protect the next person who walks down the street commiting exercise of freedom.

Not that I am unhappy for Mr. Fiorino. Maybe the money will make him feel better - I hope it does. But it just is not the "victory" you guys seem to want to celebrate.*

stay safe.


*Maybe I'm feeling a bit jaded today. But I just do not see it as helping the next person.

skidmark said:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. They pay off one guy so he will go away.

No consent decree saying that while they did nothing wrong they promise to never do it again. And can be held accountable by the court if they break their promise.

Nothing to protect the next person who walks down the street commiting exercise of freedom.

Not that I am unhappy for Mr. Fiorino. Maybe the money will make him feel better - I hope it does. But it just is not the "victory" you guys seem to want to celebrate.*

stay safe.


*Maybe I'm feeling a bit jaded today. But I just do not see it as helping the next person.

Click to expand...

Good points. It's not as good as it first appeared. I would have hoped for some accountability beyond writing a check as well....didn't see that at first reading.

skidmark said:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. They pay off one guy so he will go away.

No consent decree saying that while they did nothing wrong they promise to never do it again. And can be held accountable by the court if they break their promise.

Nothing to protect the next person who walks down the street commiting exercise of freedom.

Not that I am unhappy for Mr. Fiorino. Maybe the money will make him feel better - I hope it does. But it just is not the "victory" you guys seem to want to celebrate.*

stay safe.


*Maybe I'm feeling a bit jaded today. But I just do not see it as helping the next person.

Click to expand...

Party pooper! But of course you are right, unless there are things we don't know.

skidmark said:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. They pay off one guy so he will go away.

No consent decree saying that while they did nothing wrong they promise to never do it again. And can be held accountable by the court if they break their promise.

Nothing to protect the next person who walks down the street commiting exercise of freedom.

Not that I am unhappy for Mr. Fiorino. Maybe the money will make him feel better - I hope it does. But it just is not the "victory" you guys seem to want to celebrate.*

stay safe.


*Maybe I'm feeling a bit jaded today. But I just do not see it as helping the next person.

Click to expand...

I was thinking the exact same thing, ESPECIALLY when I read this:

“This was never about the money,” said Benjamin Picker, of McCausland Keen and Buckman, the attorneys representing Fiorino along with the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

Click to expand...

Uh, that's exactly what a settlement is! Money instead of precedent!

I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU's involvement had anything to do with an early and private settlement on a gun issue.

This was a Rule 68 offer of judgment.

For those that don't know what that is: (Pay attention to (d))
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_68

Rule 68. Offer of Judgment

(a) Making an Offer; Judgment on an Accepted Offer. At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 14 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment.

(b) Unaccepted Offer. An unaccepted offer is considered withdrawn, but it does not preclude a later offer. Evidence of an unaccepted offer is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs.

(c) Offer After Liability is Determined. When one party's liability to another has been determined but the extent of liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party held liable may make an offer of judgment. It must be served within a reasonable time—but at least 14 days—before the date set for a hearing to determine the extent of liability.

(d) Paying Costs After an Unaccepted Offer. If the judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.

Click to expand...

Once the defendants made the offer it changed how the "game" was to be played. If Mark refused the offer of $25,000 and later won the case, but with only a judgment of say $10,000, he would of had to pay the defendants legal fees. I would garner to bet that a fed case would amount to more than 10k. In that case, would it be a win?

http://warshawskylawfirm.com/lawyer/blog/The_Warshawsky_Law_Firm_Blog

What distinguishes a Rule 68 offer of judgment from an ordinary settlement offer?

First, a Rule 68 offer of judgment is not confidential. It is filed with the court and becomes part of the public record about a lawsuit.

Second, it operates legally as a finding of liability. This is what “judgment” means. It means that the defendant is being held liable to the plaintiff. Of course, the rule provides that the party making an offer of judgment may do so “on specified terms.” Consequently, most defendants state that their offer of judgment is “not to be construed as an admission of liability,” just like they do in an ordinary settlement agreement. Such a disclaimer, however, is meaningless legally (perhaps it has public relations value). The very nature of the offer of judgment is that it “allow judgment” to be entered against the defendant in the case.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if a civil judgment like this can be brought up in court to show previous poor behavior.

skidmark said:

SNIP Maybe I'm feeling a bit jaded today.

Click to expand...

Comes from reading about government refusing to respect rights and treating decent folks like criminals. Bound to make anybody sick to their stomach and turn them green.

kadar said:

...Once the defendants made the offer it changed how the "game" was to be played. If Mark refused the offer of $25,000 and later won the case, but with only a judgment of say $10,000, he would of had to pay the defendants legal fees. I would garner to bet that a fed case would amount to more than 10k. In that case, would it be a win?..

Click to expand...

According to his lawyer, yes:

“This was never about the money,” said Benjamin Picker, of McCausland Keen and Buckman, the attorneys representing Fiorino along with the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

Click to expand...

Me thinks he should be a politician when he grows up.

I'm assuming none of you read into the article long enough to find this:

.....The city and the individual officers, including Commissioner Ramsey, have agreed to the entry of a judgment against them, which shows that they are cognizant of having violated Mr. Fiorino’s constitutional rights.”

Picker said that in interim of the lawsuit filing, the city of Philadelphia has taken steps to train its officers on the rights at issue in this case to prevent this from happening again....

Click to expand...

If, as the article stated, Mr. Fiorino's goal was to seek a "change in the way the city trains its police officers and vindication in connection with the violation of his constitutional rights", it would appear that it did just that in this case. Whether or not the outcome meets YOUR definition of a "victory" is entirely irrelevant as it was not YOUR case to fight in the first place. Personally, I applaud the guy for seeing it through to this point. Many people wouldn't have.

The city and the individual officers, including Commissioner Ramsey, have agreed to the entry of a judgment against them, which shows that they are cognizant of having violated Mr. Fiorino’s constitutional rights.”

Picker said that in interim of the lawsuit filing, the city of Philadelphia has taken steps to train its officers on the rights at issue in this case to prevent this from happening again....

Click to expand...

Is that actually in the settlement? It sounds like it was the writer's opinion of the settlement. But perhaps the key phrase is "judgment against them." Could that be a legal term that gives this a precedent?
As for lawsuits, an action to lessen the likelihood of another occurrence cannot be used as evidence of the original injustice. At least in Nevada law it can't.

But don't get me wrong. I am happy for the victory. I just have a beef with the lawyer who takes the money and proudly proclaims it was never about the money.

EDIT: just to be clear. I'd have probably settled, too! I'm not trying to belittle the plaintiff!

He did get them, by virtue of this case, to retrain their officers. It's a victory. Incidents like this should not happen again in Philadelphia, or anywhere for that matter. They'll think twice about violating somebody's rights.

Other cities PD's see this news too. It must make them think about what they do, and how they do it.

I see this as a win. Thanks Mark for standing up for our rights.

cshoff said:

I'm assuming none of you read into the article long enough to find this:

.....The city and the individual officers, including Commissioner Ramsey, have agreed to the entry of a judgment against them, which shows that they are cognizant of having violated Mr. Fiorino’s constitutional rights.”

Picker said that in interim of the lawsuit filing, the city of Philadelphia has taken steps to train its officers on the rights at issue in this case to prevent this from happening again....

Click to expand...

If, as the article stated, Mr. Fiorino's goal was to seek a "change in the way the city trains its police officers and vindication in connection with the violation of his constitutional rights", it would appear that it did just that in this case. Whether or not the outcome meets YOUR definition of a "victory" is entirely irrelevant as it was not YOUR case to fight in the first place. Personally, I applaud the guy for seeing it through to this point. Many people wouldn't have.

Click to expand...

Precisely so and in the "won" column.

cshoff said:

I'm assuming none of you read into the article long enough to find this:

Click to expand...

.....The city and the individual officers, including Commissioner Ramsey, have agreed to the entry of a judgment against them, which shows that they are cognizant of having violated Mr. Fiorino’s constitutional rights.”

Picker said that in interim of the lawsuit filing, the city of Philadelphia has taken steps to train its officers on the rights at issue in this case to prevent this from happening again....

Click to expand...

If, as the article stated, Mr. Fiorino's goal was to seek a "change in the way the city trains its police officers and vindication in connection with the violation of his constitutional rights", it would appear that it did just that in this case. Whether or not the outcome meets YOUR definition of a "victory" is entirely irrelevant as it was not YOUR case to fight in the first place. Personally, I applaud the guy for seeing it thIrough to this point. Many people wouldn't have.

Click to expand...

You, sir, are correct. I missed that.

It does change things - it is a win!

Apologies for anything that may have misled others into following along with my incorrect earlier conclusion.

stay safe.

FallonJeeper said:

He did get them, by virtue of this case, to retrain their officers...

Click to expand...

Actually, by the time I got that far in the thread, I forgot to give this enough acknowledgement since this is the key part that helps the rest of us! Yes!

Now, if PPD can remember the never before, ever, never heard of before, 'don't violate a citizens constitutional rights', newly discovered knowledge regarding a citizen's constitutional rights once they step out of the 'classroom' then the win will be complete, only time will tell.

Somewhat related....

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Ramsey has been found to NOT be Act 120 certified for the last 4 years.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/columnists/20120316_Stu_Bykofsky_.html

H E CARRIES a gun, he displays a badge, he wears a uniform, but Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey is not a certified police officer, technically speaking, and shouldn't be armed, badged and uniformed.

Since 2004, state law has required that anyone seeking to become a law-enforcement agent in the commonwealth must first pass a comprehensive test and be certified by the Municipal Police Officers' Training and Education Commission. The law applies to all police - campus, SEPTA, airport, sheriff - with "general police powers and charged with making arrests in connection with the enforcement of the criminal or traffic laws."

"The minute they wear the badge or the gun or present themselves as a police officer . . . they must have certification," the commission's administrative officer, Dr. E. Beverly Young, told me.

Click to expand...

:cuss::cuss::cuss:

kadar said:

Somewhat related....

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Ramsey has been found to NOT be Act 120 certified for the last 4 years.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/columnists/20120316_Stu_Bykofsky_.html



:cuss::cuss::cuss:

Click to expand...

What....you expect the Police Chief to follow the same laws as the common folk? If New Yorks mayor can commit federal firearms offenses (hiring straw purchasers in AZ) then this is peanuts. (sarcasim off now).

kadar said:

Somewhat related....

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Ramsey has been found to NOT be Act 120 certified for the last 4 years.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/columnists/20120316_Stu_Bykofsky_.html

H E CARRIES a gun, he displays a badge, he wears a uniform, but Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey is not a certified police officer, technically speaking, and shouldn't be armed, badged and uniformed.

Since 2004, state law has required that anyone seeking to become a law-enforcement agent in the commonwealth must first pass a comprehensive test and be certified by the Municipal Police Officers' Training and Education Commission. The law applies to all police - campus, SEPTA, airport, sheriff - with "general police powers and charged with making arrests in connection with the enforcement of the criminal or traffic laws."

"The minute they wear the badge or the gun or present themselves as a police officer . . . they must have certification," the commission's administrative officer, Dr. E. Beverly Young, told me.

Click to expand...

He claims to have taken the test now and passed, but there are apparently other requirements not yet satisfied - so he is still not certified.

[SIZE=+1]§ 203.12. [/SIZE]Waiver of training.

Applications for certification for which waivers of training are requested shall be submitted by the applicant’s employing police department. An applicant for a waiver of training shall:
(1) Be employed as a police officer.
(2) Satisfy one of the following conditions:
(i) Successfully completed a Pennsylvania basic police training course approved by the Commission.
(ii) Previously was a Commission-certified police officer and left this position in good standing.
(iii) Previously was employed as a full-time police officer in this Commonwealth before June 18, 1974, who was not required to obtain certification from the Commission, and worked as a full-time police officer for at least 5 years.
(iv) Previously or currently employed as a full-time police officer of another state and met the certification standards of that state, provided that certification had been based on the completion of an approved basic police course comparable to that of the act.
(3) Undergo proficiency testing in the following three areas. Documentary proof of each qualification shall accompany the waiver of training application.
(i) Firearms. Applicants shall qualify on a police firearms course conducted by a certified police firearms instructor with the weapons the applicant will use in the performance of his police duties. The Commission will publish the requirements for a police firearms course in the Commission newsletter on an annual basis.
(ii) First Aid/CPR. Applicants shall have valid certification in first aid and adult, child and infant CPR, from the American Red Cross, the American Heart Association, the Department of Health or other agency approved by the Department of Health.
(iii) Patrol vehicle operation. Applicants shall successfully pass the patrol vehicle operation test required in the basic police training course at a certified school or by a certified instructor.
(4) Take a certification examination administered by the Commission at a location and time designated by the Commission. The schedule for the examinations may be obtained by writing the Commission office.
(i) The minimum passing score will be established by the Commission. The Commission will publish a notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and in the Commission newsletter whenever the minimum passing score.

(ii) An applicant for a waiver of training shall be permitted to take the certification examination a maximum of three times and only once in any day.
(iii) Applicants will not be certified without obtaining a passing score on the certification examination. Failure to pass the certification examination after three attempts shall result in the applicant being required to take and pass the entire basic training course to qualify for certification.
(iv) Previously or currently employed as a full-time police officer of another state and met the certification standards of that state, provided that certification had been based on the completion of an approved basic police course comparable to that of the act.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/037/chapter203/subchapBtoc.html