Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 73

Thread: West Milwaukee, Chilton Answer OC Lawsuit

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    West Milwaukee and Chilton, and their officers that were sued for illegally detaining a citizen who was lawfully carrying have filed their answer to the complaint.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    jrm wrote:
    West Milwaukee and Chilton, and their officers that were sued for illegally detaining a citizen who was lawfully carrying have filed their answer to the complaint.
    Why does the complaint describe the search and seizure of his person and property as a 14th Amendment violation? Is it not a 4th Amendment violation?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    The 4th amendment guarantees rights against the federal government. The 14th amendment incorporates some of those rights as restrictions on state action.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    jrm wrote:
    The 4th amendment guarantees rights against the federal government. The 14th amendment incorporates some of those rights as restrictions on state action.
    D'oh! Slipped my mind, thanks.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    I kind of figured this would happen. Who thought they would actually admit fault? The case is very cut and dry. Parabellum is going to win a nice sum of money for the gross rights violations.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    GJD wrote:
    I kind of figured this would happen. Who thought they would actually admit fault? The case is very cut and dry. Parabellum is going to win a nice sum of money for the gross rights violations.
    A nice lump sum settlement would be nice for Jesus, But from my conversations with Mr. Gonzalez, I truly do not believe he is using this lawsuit for monetary gain. He is only pursuingthis for satisfaction due to him fromthe blatantviolations of his guaranteed rights as a US citizen.

    We owe this man dearly for having the guts to stand up and challenge the police officers and departments that violated his rights!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    Of course money should not be the issue. The absurd violation of his civil rights is the real story.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323

    Post imported post

    JRM, if Jesus wins this suit, what are the ramifications for open carriers and those that would want to detain us?

  9. #9
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    GJD wrote:
    I kind of figured this would happen. Who thought they would actually admit fault? The case is very cut and dry. Parabellum is going to win a nice sum of money for the gross rights violations.
    I hope so, what is happening is wrong in so many ways...


    More important,it will send outa real strong message to our cops, and local judges.

    I am betting that it will speed up our CCW.

    He, in the end, will have done us all a service. When it's over, we should throw a party for him!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Max wrote:
    JRM, if Jesus wins this suit, what are the ramifications for open carriers and those that would want to detain us?
    It's too early to speculate, as "winning" can mean a lot of different things.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NE Wisconsin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    GJD wrote:
    Of course money should not be the issue. The absurd violation of his civil rights is the real story.
    Money is not always the issue, but "punitive damages" are just what they say, punish the abuser. If everyone that abuses your rights gets a slap on the butt as punishment, they will keep it up. Hit 'em where it hurts, give the money away after expenses if you wish, but that action will stop harrassment rather quickly.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    77

    Post imported post

    borrowed time wrote:
    GJD wrote:
    Of course money should not be the issue. The absurd violation of his civil rights is the real story.
    Money is not always the issue, but "punitive damages" are just what they say, punish the abuser. If everyone that abuses your rights gets a slap on the butt as punishment, they will keep it up. Hit 'em where it hurts, give the money away after expenses if you wish, but that action will stop harrassment rather quickly.
    Especially if their insurance carriers threaten to drop coverage.

  13. #13
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    I am no legal beagle, but why would the defendants attorney argue lack of standing or cause under WI statutes when this is a federal civil rights case and WI statutes would not trump or contavene any standing or cause under federal law as applied via the 14th amendment?

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    We all hope Jesus victory and set in nervous anticipation but it is best if we don't get our hopes up. No one can second guess the minds of judges and juries. It is unfortunate but it seems that most firearms cases are controlled by politics and not judicial prudence. Case in point: The case of David Olofson. The U.S. 7th circuit court of appeals has upheld Olofson's conviction of selling a machinegun even though the automatic fire was a result of a malfunction of a semi-automatic weapon. The Court ruled that regardless the circumstances the weapon sold was a machine gun because it allowed the fire of multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger. You can read all about it at.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...p;pageID=97116

    Lets keep our fingers crossed for Jesus and hope the judge that hears his case does the job he/she was elected to do.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    Also, IANAL, but my understanding is the first thing you try to do in a civil defense case is get a judge to say that the plaintiff has no standing to sue, therefore dropping the case. Think of Parker et al, which was turned into Heller by the first court finding lack of standing in all the other plaintiffs.

    EDIT: Lammie, not to pick nits, but it was actually transfer of an unregistered machinegun, not sale. This gun was loanedoutside of Mr. Olofson's supervision, but it would be legally no different from handing your friend your AK-variant at the range to inspect after it doubled on you because of a stuck firing pin or worn disconnector. I 100% agree with you that the implications of this railroading are chilling; we now have been shown conclusively that we will not get a fair trial if the .gov wants us to go to prison. What motivation now exists to let them take us to trial?

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    On my post concerning the Olofson case. When you gain access to the page the URL sends you to, scroll down to the article titled Weapons of Choice in order to access the article.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NE Wisconsin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    One thing that people are missing here, a civil case vs. a criminal case. A jury has to agree 100% that a person is guilty in a criminal case. In a civil suit you have to be over 50% sure that the person or entity is guilty (that are being sued).The O.J. case in point, found not guilty of murder, but lost civil suit.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    The point I was trying to make is that our judicial system is so fickle that a person does not know the outcome until "after the fat lady sings".

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Allis, WI, ,
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    Has a date been set for the arguments?
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but the fool's heart to the left."

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    pvtschultz wrote:
    Has a date been set for the arguments?
    If you mean the trial, no.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Allis, WI, ,
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    Mea Culpa! I thought it was an appeals case for some reason.
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but the fool's heart to the left."

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Wow I missed this before and just read it now. What a crock of $hit.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    Anyone know the status of this case? Any schedule of when briefs have to be filed or a possible trial date? I am trying to follow this case an am having a hard time finding info. Thanks


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Discovery ends 11/15. Dispositive motions are due 11/30.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    Thanks JRM. Man I hope he prevails. What judge is the case assigned to?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •