Marine gets turned away from voting because of OC'ing

smellslikemichigan said:

really?!?!?!?

Click to expand...

Yep. However, the ban will be lifted about the same time we know for sure who our next president will be.

griffin said:

Thanks for the update. INGO banned me for four days. :uhoh:

Click to expand...

You naughty boy, you- were you telling the truth again? People hate that.....

Statement from Attorney Guy Relford regarding the disposition of (my brother) CCE1302's lawsuit:
Congratulations to Clay on the successful resolution of this litigation. Because he stood his ground and defended his Constitutional rights, poll workers across the state have been reeducated and Indiana gun owners are much less likely to have their rights infringed at the polls. It was my honor and privilege to represent Capt. Edinger in this case and I am proud to call him my friend as well.

Way to go Clay! Glad to hear they got some education down there in Indiana!

Will this be of any benefit to us here in Michigan? Or, is it only going to affect voters in Indiana?

MI_XD

What does "successful resolution" mean? Settlement? OK...sure....what settlement?

Thank You Clay for once again "Serving" Our Citizens/Nation by "Knowing" Our Rights/Firearm Laws, and Exercising Your 1st/2nd Amendment Rights to "Bear Arms" and "Petition the Government for Redress of Grievences"!!! CARRY ON !!

MI_XD said:

Way to go Clay! Glad to hear they got some education down there in Indiana!

Will this be of any benefit to us here in Michigan? Or, is it only going to affect voters in Indiana?

MI_XD

Click to expand...

no effect on michigan. we have the right to carry while voting. of course, they did in indiana too, it was a matter of rogue, uneducated poll workers and power-tripping wannabe cops. the positive result in indiana is that the state election board re-educated all of their poll workers to ensure this wouldn't happen again.

davidmcbeth said:

What does "successful resolution" mean? Settlement? OK...sure....what settlement?

Click to expand...

it's not my place to disclose that information. if he decides to share further information publicly i'll post it here.

smellslikemichigan said:

it's not my place to disclose that information. if he decides to share further information publicly i'll post it here.

Click to expand...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Vote-at-St-Joe-County-polls&highlight=edinger
Post 50 shows a civil suit filed ^^^

And that post #62 ^^ of the same that was posted in this thread here shows that settlement of the civil suit was reached.

Got 5K most likely and he cannot talk about it (most settlement agreements have this clause)

And the opposing party seems very very happy.


If his suit was about $$$ (and I think all suits should be about this) then he is happy with the settlement and he can take that 5K and buy a nice gun.

Or he can take the 5k: buy approximately 33 hi-point pistols and gift them to friends and family and have them all show up to vote at the same time he does. . I'd pay good money to see the look on the faces of poll workers at his particular polling place.

Bottom line - HE SCHOOLED them. A huge thumbs up to him! :thumbup:

smellslikemichigan said:

no effect on michigan. we have the right to carry while voting. of course, they did in indiana too, it was a matter of rogue, uneducated poll workers and power-tripping wannabe cops. the positive result in indiana is that the state election board re-educated all of their poll workers to ensure this wouldn't happen again.

Click to expand...

Every time We take Our "Grievences/Violations" to FED Court, it becomes "Recorded" And Does Help All States in Our Lawfull Fight to Protect Our Rights And Repeal Bad Law! Every time We make Our Fight "Public/Courts" it helps "Educate" Our Fellow Citizens! You Bet It Helps!! CARRY ON!

his settlement does not have any non-disclosure clause. being a man of principle, he would have refused any such restrictions if they tried to force it on him.

smellslikemichigan said:

his settlement does not have any non-disclosure clause. being a man of principle, he would have refused any such restrictions if they tried to force it on him.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the information of: a) that a settlement was indeed reached and b) that a non-disclosure of its terms was not part of the settlement.

So why not provide the public with the terms of the settlement? It would aid people in similar circumstances to understand what terms that a gov't may easily accept from such a suit; then people would know if a suit is going to produce a desired result or that such a suit would be a money and time drain from the potential plaintiffs?

Information that would be useful to folks:
1) was the settlement accepted the first formal offer of settlement?
2) were any settlement terms deemed unacceptable to the government?
3) were any settlement offers rejected, what were the terms of the rejected settlement?


I'm sure your brother thought that he filed suit to not only address issues regarding himself but others too (that's nice ~ most folks would not bother). He can further do so in helping others understand the process that he experienced.

I did not see their answer to the suit posted anywhere .. wondering if they argued any election law in it..I could see an argument about possible intimidation of voters being plead..any chance of posting their answer and any special/affirmative defenses?

Great to see people sticking it to the man ! Keep up the good work.

Here is what he posted on the INGO forum:

Lawsuit was settled out of court.

Plaintiff is happy with the result.

Election workers were retrained.

County police and fire employees educated.

Cash in pocket.

Law upheld.

smellslikemichigan said:

Here is what he posted on the INGO forum:

Lawsuit was settled out of court.

Plaintiff is happy with the result.

Election workers were retrained.

County police and fire employees educated.

Cash in pocket.

Law upheld.

Click to expand...

I don't know, but I would not have cared about training.

davidmcbeth said:

I don't know, but I would not have cared about training.

Click to expand...

Training is key! Some police - not all, are of the "dog" mentality, even though the training will go in one ear & out the other, the next time they see lawful OC they will 'flashback' to having to suffer through the training & want to avoid it. This applies to all GUBERment employees. Let a dog do whatever it wants expect mayhem in most cases. Make mayhem less appealing expect slightly better behavior....baby steps are better than no steps IMHO.

davidmcbeth said:

Great to see people sticking it to the man ! Keep up the good work.

Click to expand...

I do not see it this way. IMHO this is not productive.

smellslikemichigan said:

Lawsuit was settled out of court.
Plaintiff is happy with the result.
Election workers were retrained.
County police and fire employees educated.
Cash in pocket.

Law upheld.

Click to expand...

This is Citizenship. You took action, you have improved the knowledge and safety in your Community. You seem to have had a good time doing it(Citizenship IS a Verb) and you did not allow what is right to be trampled. Bravo Mate!

MSG Laigaie said:

I do not see it this way. IMHO this is not productive.




This is Citizenship. You took action, you have improved the knowledge and safety in your Community. You seem to have had a good time doing it(Citizenship IS a Verb) and you did not allow what is right to be trampled. Bravo Mate!

Click to expand...

His rights were trampled .. he did not vote. I would agree that what he got out of the suit was not productive. At all.

what was not productive? what would have been more productive in your opinion?

smellslikemichigan said:

what was not productive? what would have been more productive in your opinion?

Click to expand...

What are lawsuits about? $$$ not training ... getting a judgment.