RDShooter
New member
Freedom1Man,
Sorry the outcome was not what you wanted today.
-RD
Sorry the outcome was not what you wanted today.
-RD
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Was told that the Washington State Convention Center is Private Property
- Thread starter Freedom1Man
- Start date
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Was found guilty of criminal trespass.
The judge skewed the law, I was told that because I am a lawyer that I cannot understand the law, according to the persecutor's closing statement I unlawfully entered the convention center on November 8th 2014, the officer (acting sgt) on the stand claimed that HE did not arrest but rather order his underlings to do so, one of his underlings testified, today, (with a video showing) that the SGT who testified yesterday did in-fact, personally, arrest me, etc.
The judge would not allow the full trespassing law that I was being charged with to be part of jury instructions and including all the elements listed for conviction.
The judge added words to the law that are not any where to be found, see previous post.
The judge also denied most of the objections raised by my defense attorney and up help most of the persecutor's objections.
According to a member of the audience, the judge told the jury to find me guilty in not so much as those direct words but by changing the law, not allowing the law as written to go back with the jurors, denying most of the objections raised by my defense counsel, etc.
The audience member had not studied law but said it looked like a RR job.
The judge skewed the law, I was told that because I am a lawyer that I cannot understand the law, according to the persecutor's closing statement I unlawfully entered the convention center on November 8th 2014, the officer (acting sgt) on the stand claimed that HE did not arrest but rather order his underlings to do so, one of his underlings testified, today, (with a video showing) that the SGT who testified yesterday did in-fact, personally, arrest me, etc.
The judge would not allow the full trespassing law that I was being charged with to be part of jury instructions and including all the elements listed for conviction.
The judge added words to the law that are not any where to be found, see previous post.
The judge also denied most of the objections raised by my defense attorney and up help most of the persecutor's objections.
According to a member of the audience, the judge told the jury to find me guilty in not so much as those direct words but by changing the law, not allowing the law as written to go back with the jurors, denying most of the objections raised by my defense counsel, etc.
The audience member had not studied law but said it looked like a RR job.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Sorry I did not call you, I had a long list of people to call to let them know what the verdict was.
The persecutor and two judges (Hightower and Bonner) all said that because 9.41.070 was listed in 9.41.300 that it could only mean that CC only was allowed.
The persecutor LIED his ass off. He kept saying that I was told to only CC there. I was only told that there were no weapons allowed, PERIOD.
The officer when asked how he confirmed that the person he talked to was who he said he was and had the authority to issue a trespass, he accepted a BUSINESS CARD as proof, no checking photo ID or making any phone calls. He also said that he NEVER even looked at the law nor had he even ASKED if the man who told him to trespass me had looked at the law.
In the video you can see an officer looking something up on his phone, (he was looking up the law noted on the sign), until the SGT came in and arrested me.
The 1 officer who was doing the right thing was forced to stop doing the right thing.
Grim_Night
Regular Member
If everything you said is true, you have grounds for an appeal. Do it! Don't drag your feet.
deanf
Regular Member
I've followed this case from the beginning, and the outcome was as I predicted: guilty.
Lessons learned: Don't allow yourself to be listed as the defendant on a criminal complaint when you can just as easily list the other party as defendant in a civil case. If the police ask you to leave under threat of arrest, then leave, even if they're wrong, then sue everyone. Make them defend their actions in civil court. Turn the tables. Spend your lawyer money in a different way but working towards the same goal . . . get it?
Lessons learned: Don't allow yourself to be listed as the defendant on a criminal complaint when you can just as easily list the other party as defendant in a civil case. If the police ask you to leave under threat of arrest, then leave, even if they're wrong, then sue everyone. Make them defend their actions in civil court. Turn the tables. Spend your lawyer money in a different way but working towards the same goal . . . get it?
Stretch
Regular Member
+1
jhfc
Regular Member
Not that I disagree, but how does that work out in practice? No arrest, not much "damages".
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
If I can take a bit of a bunny trail here is it even possible to be trespassed from a public place? If the reason for asking a person to leave (having a gun) is unlawful then the the staff would be committing a crime in forcing the person to leave and LEOs can do nothing either without getting sued for it.
FrayedString
Regular Member
That's just it. According to the prosecutor/judge/jury open carrying in the convention center is unlawful. Even though a plain interpretation of the law as written would not yield this conclusion.
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
Either ignore the ruling as unlawful or prosecute the judge for violating their oath to the Constitution. I suggest the latter.That's just it. According to the prosecutor/judge/jury open carrying in the convention center is unlawful. Even though a plain interpretation of the law as written would not yield this conclusion.
deanf
Regular Member
The goal should not be to win damages. The goal should be to lead them by the nose to the proper understanding and application of the law.
jhfc
Regular Member
What I don't understand is how that is ultimately realized and subsequently enforced.
Taking this particular case, what would the suit be for?
deanf
Regular Member
A court order enjoining the defendant to act a certain way, or cease acting a certain way. A writ. There are various mechanisms in the law to force a public official to do their duty, or keep them from stepping outside their authority.
rapgood
Regular Member
As a practical matter, this appears, on its face, to be true. But, it is not an axiomatic conclusion.
I'm pretty sure I disagree with the judge on this one.That's just it. According to the prosecutor/judge/jury open carrying in the convention center is unlawful. Even though a plain interpretation of the law as written would not yield this conclusion.
Can't prosecute the judge. Judges enjoy "absolute immunity" and cannot be sued for their conduct on the bench. Really. However, in Washington, they are subject to scrutiny by the Commission on Judicial Conduct and can be sanctioned for their conduct that violates their oaths of office (and other things, as well).
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
How do you sue without standing?
Someone has to draw fire to get our rights respected.
In this case it happens to be me.
I was never given a lawful order because the security was making up unlawful conditions of entry.
deanf
Regular Member
The court decides that, not you.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
That's just it. According to the prosecutor/judge/jury open carrying in the convention center is unlawful. Even though a plain interpretation of the law as written would not yield this conclusion.
If a law is truly open to interpretation, then the law might as well be divined with Taro cards each morning.
If the law is clear then the words must be clear in the creation of a obligation or in the creation of a prohibition.
If any words are being used in a manner other than common usage they must be defined, and then, those words that are defined in the law must be limited in use to the definition provided.
The words "including" and "includes" as used in law are limited to what is listed.
The phrase, "such as," is expansive to like kind. For example, "all citrus fruit, such as oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruits, loquats shall have to go through an agricultural inspection before they are sold."
Includes is limited as an example. The definition of fruit, for the purposes of taxation, includes; citrus, apples, grapes, bananas, grapes, and goji berries.
If you have blueberries you're safe because they are not listed.
Difdi
Regular Member
Can you file a criminal complaint with the FBI? This judge would seem to have violated Title 18, Section 242 of the US Code in issuing his ruling. If so, anyone enforcing his order would be in violation of Section 241 of the same Title.
Are judges truly exempt from having to obey the law, when it's a law that is all but impossible for someone who is not a public official (such as a judge) to violate?
Last edited:
zaitz
Banned
rcw re convention centers . . .
(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
(a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and
(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
(a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and
(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
mnrobitaille
Regular Member
Unfortunately stadiums & convention centers are a whole different story as technically the events there are not truly open to the public. Basically it's the act/show using the facility that makes the rules.