-
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.
West Milwaukee, Chilton Answer OC Lawsuit
- Thread starter jrm
- Start date
American Rattlesnake
Regular Member
imported post
jrm wrote:
jrm wrote:
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?
American Rattlesnake
Regular Member
imported post
jrm wrote:
jrm wrote:
D'oh! Slipped my mind, thanks.
GJD
Regular Member
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.
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.
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
GJD wrote:
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!
GJD wrote:
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!
GJD
Regular Member
imported post
Of course money should not be the issue. The absurd violation of his civil rights is the real story.
Of course money should not be the issue. The absurd violation of his civil rights is the real story.
Max
Regular Member
imported post
JRM, if Jesus wins this suit, what are the ramifications for open carriers and those that would want to detain us?
JRM, if Jesus wins this suit, what are the ramifications for open carriers and those that would want to detain us?
AaronS
Regular Member
imported post
GJD wrote:
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!
GJD wrote:
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!
borrowed time
Regular Member
imported post
GJD wrote:
GJD wrote:
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.
Stoney-Point
Regular Member
imported post
borrowed time wrote:
borrowed time wrote:
Especially if their insurance carriers threaten to drop coverage.
lockman
State Researcher
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?
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?
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
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.view&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.
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.view&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.
Rick Finsta
Regular Member
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?
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?
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
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.
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.
borrowed time
Regular Member
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.
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.
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
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".
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".
pvtschultz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Has a date been set for the arguments?
Has a date been set for the arguments?