Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Read the complaint filed in the Grand Haven case here:

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cascade Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    My husband got this from some sort of paid inquiry to the Federal Court in Grand Rapids:

    ******************************************
    1:09-cv-00190-RHB Fetters v. Reiss et al
    Judge Robert Holmes Bell, presiding
    Date filed: 03/05/2009
    Date of last filing: 05/12/2009

    Office: Southern Division (1)
    Filed: 03/05/2009
    Jury Demand:
    Plaintiff Demand: $600000
    Nature of Suit: 440
    Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question Disposition:
    County: Barry Terminated:
    Origin: 1 Reopened:
    Lead Case: None
    Related Case: None
    Other Court Case: None
    Def Custody Status:

    plaintiff: Christopher Fetters represented by Steven W. Dulan
    Phone: (517) 333-7132 Email: steve@stevenwdulan.com

    defendant: Mark Reiss represented by Thomas R. Wurst Phone: (616) 831-1700
    Email: wurstt@millerjohnson.com

    defendant: Rick Yonker represented by Thomas R. Wurst
    Phone: (616) 831-1700
    Email: wurstt@millerjohnson.com

    defendant: Unknown Party #1
    defendant: Unknown Party #2

    defendant: Mike Brookhouse represented by Douglas W. Van Essen
    Phone: (616) 988-5600
    Email: dwv@silvervanessen.com

    defendant: Ottawa County Sheriff's Department represented by Douglas W. Van Essen
    Phone: (616) 988-5600
    Email: dwv@silvervanessen.com

    defendant: Ottawa, County of represented by Douglas W. Van Essen
    Phone: (616) 988-5600
    Email: dwv@silvervanessen.com

    defendant: Grand Haven, City of represented by Thomas R. Wurst
    Phone: (616) 831-1700
    Email: wurstt@millerjohnson.com

    defendant: Dennis Edwards represented by Thomas R. Wurst
    Phone: (616) 831-1700
    Email: wurstt@millerjohnson.com

    ************************************************** ***

    Amended Complaint filed 18 March 2009:

    1. Christopher Fetters (hereafter Plaintiff), after being assaulted and battered, his
    person was then unreasonably and unlawfully seized, falsely imprisoned, and his due process rights and liberty rights were deprived in violation of the United States Constitution and federal statute, by government officials acting in concert and under color of law.

    Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue

    2. Plaintiff is an individual who resides in Freeport, Michigan.

    3. Defendant Lt. Mark Reiss was at all relevant times a law enforcement officer of
    Grand Haven, Michigan.

    4. Defendant Officer Doe 1 (“Doe 1”) is a law enforcement officer for the City of
    Grand Haven, Michigan.

    5. Defendant Officer Doe 2 (“Doe 2”) is a law enforcement officer for the City of
    Grand Haven, Michigan.

    6. Defendant Dennis Edwards (“Director Edwards”) is the Public Safety Director of
    the city of Grand Haven, Michigan Police Department.

    7. Defendant Captain Rick Yonker is a law enforcement officer for the city of Grand
    Haven, Michigan.

    8. Defendant City of Grand Haven (“Grand Haven” or the “City”) is a municipal
    corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan having authority, duties and powers as provided under the laws of the State of Michigan and the Ordinances of the City of Grand Haven.

    9. The City of Grand Haven Police Department (the “police department”) is a police
    department existing and operating according to the laws of the State of Michigan within the Western Judicial District of the State of Michigan.

    10. The Police Department is the City's agency, created and authorized by it to
    conduct acts as alleged herein.

    11. Defendant Lt. Mike Brookhouse is a law enforcement officer for the Ottawa
    County Sheriff’s Department.

    12. Defendant County of Ottawa is a municipal corporation organized and existing
    under the laws of the State of Michigan having authority, duties and powers as provided under the laws of the State of Michigan.

    13. Defendant Ottawa County Sheriff’s Department hereinafter referred to as
    “Sheriff’s Department” is the County of Ottawa’s agency, created and authorized by it to conduct acts as alleged herein.

    14. The Police Department had the responsibility for the hiring, training, supervision,
    disciplining and retention of police officers it employed, including Reiss.

    15. The Ottawa County Sheriff’s Department had the responsibility for hiring,
    training, supervision, disciplining, and retention of police officers it employed, including
    Brookhouse.

    16. Plaintiff, at the time of this action, is a USAF Security Forces Member stationed
    in Battle Creek, Michigan.

    17. The amount in controversy in this action is in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00).

    18. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
    §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court has jurisdiction over the request for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. The Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

    19. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the actions
    alleged herein occurred in the Western District of Michigan.

    General Allegations

    20. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Complaint herein by
    reference.

    21. Plaintiff was not convicted of any criminal law violation.

    22. Plaintiff, on August 2, 2008, at approximately nine o’clock p.m. arrived in
    downtown Grand Haven to view the festival fireworks.

    COUNT I
    Assault and Battery

    23. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 of this Complaint herein by
    reference.

    24. Plaintiff was grabbed on his right arm and was shoved against the wall of a brick
    building.

    25. Plaintiff immediately recognized “Doe 1” as a law enforcement officer and
    instantly motioned surrender so as not to resist arrest.

    26. As “Doe 1” was trying to take Plaintiff’s pistol off his hip, Plaintiff said, “It is
    legal to open carry” to which “Doe 1” replied sharply (and falsely) “No, it is not!”

    27. “Doe 1” eventually got Plaintiff’s pistol and holster off after about 6 yanks and
    approximately 30 seconds (by this time Plaintiff’s pants were up to his chest), and then
    proceeded to search Plaintiff and take everything out of his pockets and illegally confiscate his personal property. “Doe 1” had no cause or justification to do so.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands personal judgment against Defendants in the amount
    of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) or such amount that he is otherwise found to be entitled to, plus costs, interest and attorney fees and an additional amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) for punitive and/or exemplary damages.

    COUNT II
    Unlawful Seizure and False Imprisonment
    28. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint herein by
    reference.

    29. Defendants “Doe 1” and “Doe 2”, law enforcement officers, on August 2nd, 2008,
    at approximately 9:00 pm, unreasonably and unlawfully seized Plaintiff's person without probable cause to believe a crime occurred.

    30. Defendants “Doe 1” and “Doe 2” then escorted Plaintiff to a mobile police trailer
    that the Police Department had parked downtown where Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned.

    31. The trailer was a secured area used for arrested subjects. The secured area was
    constructed of metal and wood.

    32. Plaintiff, aware of his unlawful confinement, objected to his false imprisonment.

    33. Defendants Brookhouse and Yonker, in close proximately to Plaintiff throughout
    Plaintiff's false imprisonment, remained deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff and denied Plaintiff's pleas to be released.

    34. Reiss, after two hours following Defendants' unreasonable and unlawful seizure
    and false imprisonment of Plaintiff, allowed Plaintiff to be released from his unlawful
    confinement.

    35. Plaintiff’s pistol was not returned to him.

    36. Plaintiff’s papers that he had on his person were not returned.

    37. Plaintiff’s keys were not returned to him, and he had to later return to the trailer to
    regain possession of his keys.

    38. Defendants lacked legal authority to seize, detain, confine, imprison and deprive
    Plaintiff of his liberty. Defendants were grossly negligent for unreasonably and unlawfully seizing, and subsequently confining Plaintiff.

    39. The City of Grand Haven’s ordinance 24-55(3) “Possession/Display Firearm in
    Public” was preempted by a Michigan Statute, MCL § 123.1102 in 1990, eighteen years prior to this incident.

    40. The conduct of “Doe 1,” Doe 2,” Reiss, Brookhouse, and Yonker as set forth
    above constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. I, §11 of the Michigan Constitution. In addition, such conduct constituted a violation of Plaintiff’s right To Bear arms under the Second Amendment and Art. I, §6 of the Michigan Constitution.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands personal judgment against Defendants in the amount
    of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) or such amount that he is otherwise found to be entitled to, plus costs, interest and attorney fees and an additional amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) for punitive and/or exemplary damages.

    COUNT III
    Violation of Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988

    41. Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint and incorporates them
    by reference.

    42. This cause arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, wherefore; this
    Court has jurisdiction over the instant matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and § 1331.

    43. The acts described herein occurred on August 2nd, 2008, within the Western District of the State of Michigan.

    44. Prior to the events described herein, the City, Police Department, and Director
    Edwards developed and maintained policies, practices and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens, including Plaintiff’s.

    45. Prior to the events described herein, the County, Sheriff’s Department, and Lt.
    Brookhouse developed and maintained policies, practices and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens, including Plaintiff’s.

    46. As applied by Defendants, the Statutes and Protocols violated Plaintiff’s rights
    against unreasonable searches and seizures under both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. I, §6 and §11 of the Michigan Constitution.

    47. Specifically, the City, Police Department, and Director Edwards failed to
    adequately and properly supervise and train its police officers, including Reiss, in various aspects of law enforcement procedure and substance, including, but not limited to, detentions, searches and seizures, and on laws relating to the ownership and possession of firearms.

    48. The above-described acts and omissions by the City, Police Department, and
    Director Edwards demonstrated a deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens, and were the cause of the violations of Mr. Fetters’s Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    49. Specifically, the County and Sheriff’s Department, failed to adequately and
    properly supervise and train its police officers, including Brookhouse, in various aspects of law enforcement procedure and substance, including, but not limited to, detentions, searches and seizures, and on laws relating to the ownership and possession of firearms.

    50. The above-described acts and omissions by the County and Sheriff’s Department
    demonstrated a deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens, and were the cause of the violations of Mr. Fetters’s Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    51. As a result of City’s, Police Department’s, Director Edwards’s, County’s, and
    Sheriff’s Department’s violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Plaintiff suffered substantial injuries and damage.

    52. During the events alleged in this Complaint, Defendants acted in concert, within
    the scope of their employment and under color of law.

    53. Plaintiff exercised his 4th Amendment right to be secure in his person against unreasonable and unlawful seizure.

    54. Defendants, on August 2nd 2008, did assault and commit battery to Plaintiff’s
    person, unreasonably and unlawfully seize, detain, confine, falsely imprison, and deprive Plaintiff of his liberty by placing him in a locked secured area without due process, without lawful justification, without reasonable suspicion, or probable cause to believe a criminal violation had been committed.

    55. Plaintiff, aware of his unlawful and false imprisonment, assertively pleaded for his
    release.

    56. Defendants Brookhouse and Yonker, notwithstanding Plaintiff's pleas for release,
    continued to act in concert and deprived Plaintiff of his U.S. Constitutional and Federal rights.

    57. Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's issuance of the false ticket occurred in
    retaliation for his exercise of his 4th Amendment right to be free of unreasonable seizure and false imprisonment.

    58. Defendants' conduct was undertaken under color of law and operated to deprive
    Plaintiff of his federal rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Federal Statute.

    59. Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Defendants' conduct operated to deprive
    Plaintiff of his federal rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Federal Statute.

    WHEREFORE, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiff seeks
    damages against Defendants in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) including punitive damages in the amount of an additional Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) or such amount as the court or finder of fact deems proper, plus costs and attorney fees.

    COUNT IV
    Violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments

    60. Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1 through 59 of this Complaint and incorporates them
    by reference.

    61. This cause arises under Article 1, Section 2 of the 4th Amendment of the United
    States Constitution. The acts described herein occurred on August 2nd 2008, within the boundary of Ottawa County, in the State of Michigan.

    62. Plaintiff's Constitutional rights that Defendants violated include the following:

    A. Plaintiff's right to liberty protected by the due process clause of the 14th
    Amendment, which includes personal safety and freedom from
    captivity.

    B. Plaintiff's right to fair and equal treatment guaranteed and protected by the
    equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    63. Plaintiff exercised his right to be free of unreasonable seizure guaranteed by
    Article 1, Section 2 of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff's right to be free of unlawful seizure in violation of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution cannot be justified by the Defendants' faulty investigation.

    64. Defendants' conduct was undertaken under color of law and operated to deprive
    Plaintiff of a federal right guaranteed by Article 1, Section 2 of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    65. Defendants violated Article 1, Section 2 of the 4th Amendment of the United
    States Constitution when their conduct operated to deprive Plaintiff of a federal right guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

    WHEREFORE, pursuant to Article 1, Section 2 of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, Plaintiff seeks damages against Defendants in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) including punitive damages in the amount of an additional Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) or such amount as the court or finder of fact deems proper, plus costs and attorney fees.

    COUNT V
    Civil Conspiracy

    66. Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1 through 65 of this Complaint and incorporates them
    by reference.

    67. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1985 and § 1986,
    prohibits conspiracies to interfere with civil rights.

    68. “Doe 1,” “Doe 2,” Reiss, Brookhouse, and Yonker violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985 in
    that they entered into an agreement and combined among themselves and/or with others to engage in unlawful conduct, i.e. depriving Plaintiff of rights guaranteed to him under the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    69. “Doe 1,” “Doe 2,” Reiss, Brookhouse, and Yonker have each done and/or have
    caused to be done acts in furtherance of this conspiracy whereby Plaintiff has been injured and has been deprived of rights guaranteed to him under the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    70. “Doe 1,” “Doe 2,” Reiss, Brookhouse, and Yonker each had actual knowledge of
    the conspiracies to deprive Plaintiff’s of his rights protected by § 1985, and each had the power and opportunity to prevent the violations from occurring and/or continuing and failed to do so.

    71. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, “Doe 1,” “Doe 2,” Reiss,
    Brookhouse, and Yonker have caused Plaintiff to suffer significant indignities and financial and other damages and have deprived Plaintiff of his rights and privileges as a citizen of the United States.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages against Defendants in the amount of One
    Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) including punitive damages in the amount of an
    additional Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) or such amount as the court or finder of fact deems proper, plus costs and attorney fees.

    Respectfully submitted,
    The Law Offices of Steven W. Dulan, P.L.C.
    Attorneys for Plaintiff Christopher Fetters
    Dated: March 18, 2009 By:_________________________________
    Steve W. Dulan (P54914)
    1750 E. Grand River, Suite 101
    East Lansing, Michigan 48811
    Telephone: (517) 123-4567

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    As many have said before, it's truly sad the LE as a majority replace their 'ignorance', with willful aggression. Not to mention the picture LE at O.com paint of us 'gun nuts' at OCDO, when in reality we're just trying to exercise the rights we ALL have. Good luck, and I hope for a speedy resolution. Maybe after this, we won't need to worry about ignorant LEO in our state.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Looks like everything is in pretty good order.

    In the past, on the Michigander bike tours, Grand Haven has gone out of its way to give us hard time as a matter of routine. It won't hurt my feelings if they get taken to the cleaners.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  4. #4
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    wow

  5. #5
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    MissRoadWarrior wrote:
    My husband got this from some sort of paid inquiry to the Federal Court in Grand Rapids . . .
    Thank you for posting this. Please pass along my thanks to Mr. MissRoadWarrior for obtaining it.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    excellent. my husband and i will be contacting your lawyer for our own suit. thanks for the info. i hope you hand their asses to them...excuse my language.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    I can already see Grand Havens response:

    denied x 71

    you should seriously add another zero on to that requested sum.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cascade Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    stephgrinage23 wrote:
    excellent. my husband and i will be contacting your lawyer for our own suit. thanks for the info. i hope you hand their asses to them...excuse my language.
    Hi. I’m not related to the individual involved in the Grand Haven incident. Sorry if something I posted wasn’t clear and caused you to believe otherwise.

    I read the thread about your incident in Kalamazoo. I think it would make for good discussion on the Women and Guns board I frequent. (We have almost 6500 registered members from all over the country, most of whom are women). Please feel free to join us over there (registration only takes a minute) and tell your story.

    http://womenandguns.servertalk.in/index.php

    If you're not comfortable doing that, join us anyway. It's a lively board most of the time.

    Oh, and if you join, it's a rule that newbs have to bring cookies.



  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    Defendants Ottawa County, Ottawa County Sheriff’s Department, and Lt. Michael Brookhouse ("Ottawa Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, Silver & Van Essen, P.C., answer the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, as follows:
    Case 1:09-cv-00190-RHB Document 9 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 1 of 9

    INTRODUCTION

    1. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations in this Paragraph because they are conclusory and factually untrue.

    PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    2. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    3. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    4. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    5. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    6. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    7. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    8. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    9. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    10. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    2 Case 1:09-cv-00190-RHB Document 9 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 2 of 9

    11. Admitted that Lt. Mike Brookhouse is an appointed officer/deputy of the Ottawa County Sheriff.

    12. Admitted.

    13. The allegations of this Paragraph are denied as untrue.

    14. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    15. The allegations of this Paragraph are denied as untrue.

    16. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    17. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    18. The allegations of this Paragraph are neither admitted nor denied since they are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary.

    19. The allegations of this Paragraph are neither admitted nor denied since they are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary.

    GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

    20. The Ottawa County Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 19 as if fully set forth herein.

    21. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    22. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    3 Case 1:09-cv-00190-RHB Document 9 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 3 of 9

    COUNT I—ASSAULT AND BATTERY

    23. The Ottawa County Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.

    24. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    25. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    26. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    27. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    WHEREFORE, the Ottawa County Defendants request that this Court deny the Plaintiff any relief whatsoever, dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, and award them additional relief, including but not limited to costs and attorneys’ fees.

    COUNT II—UNLAWFUL SEIZURE AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT

    28. The Ottawa County Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully set forth herein.

    29. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    30. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    31. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    4 Case 1:09-cv-00190-RHB Document 9 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 4 of 9

    32. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    33. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are untrue.

    34. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    35. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    36. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    37. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    38. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is due.

    39. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is due.

    40. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are untrue.

    WHEREFORE, the Ottawa County Defendants request that this Court deny the Plaintiff any relief whatsoever, dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, and award them additional relief, including but not limited to costs and attorneys’ fees.

    5 Case 1:09-cv-00190-RHB Document 9 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 5 of 9

    COUNT III—VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, 42 USC 1983/1988

    41. The Ottawa County Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein.

    42. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is due.

    43. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    44. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    45. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    46. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    47. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    48. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    49. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    50. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    51. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    52. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    53. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    54. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    55. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are without information as to their truth.

    6 Case 1:09-cv-00190-RHB Document 9 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 6 of 9

    56. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    57. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    58. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    59. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    WHEREFORE, the Ottawa County Defendants request that this Court deny the Plaintiff any relief whatsoever, dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, and award them additional relief, including but not limited to costs and attorneys’ fees.

    COUNT IV—VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, 42 USC 1983/1988

    60. The Ottawa County Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 59 as if fully set forth herein.

    61. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is due.

    62. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    63. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    64. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    65. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    WHEREFORE, the Ottawa County Defendants request that this Court deny the Plaintiff any relief whatsoever, dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, and award them additional relief, including but not limited to costs and attorneys’ fees.

    COUNT V—CIVIL CONSPIRACY

    66. The Ottawa County Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 65 as if fully set forth herein.

    7 Case 1:09-cv-00190-RHB Document 9 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 7 of 9

    67. The Ottawa County Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations of this Paragraph because they are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is due.

    68. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    69. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    70. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    71. The Ottawa County Defendants deny the allegations of this Paragraph as untrue.

    WHEREFORE, the Ottawa County Defendants request that this Court deny the Plaintiff any relief whatsoever, dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, and award them additional relief, including but not limited to costs and attorneys’ fees.

    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES


    The Ottawa County Defendants, by and through their attorneys aforesaid, incorporate by reference their answers to the Complaint and states the following as its affirmative defenses:

    1. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

    2. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate the alleged damages.

    3. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by his contributory negligence or intentional acts, including to but not limited to the fact that he was openly carrying a weapon in the midst of a public festival with families and without any present personal threat and with the knowledge that it would be provocative to law enforcement and create apprehension, fear and concern for safety in the public.

    4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches, estoppel or unclean hands.

    5. Plaintiff has failed to add necessary parties.

    6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

    8 Case 1:09-cv-00190-RHB Document 9 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 8 of 9

    7. The Ottawa County Defendants are entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because the allegations against them individually and collectively are frivolous.

    8. In addition to the facts above, Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of governmental, municipal, good faith and officer immunity.

    WHEREFORE, the Ottawa County Defendants request that this Court deny the Plaintiff any relief whatsoever, dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, and award them additional relief, including but not limited to costs and attorneys’ fees.

    Dated: March 19, 2009 Respectfully Submitted,

    SILVER & VAN ESSEN, P.C.
    Attorneys for the Ottawa County Defendants

    /s/ Douglas W. Van Essen

    By: ______________________________
    Douglas W. Van Essen (P33169)

    dwv@silvervanessen.com

    BUSINESS ADDRESS & TELEPHONE:
    116 Ottawa Avenue N.W.
    Grand Rapids, MI 49503
    (616) 988-5600

    470

    9 Case 1:09-cv-00190-RHB Document 9 Filed 03/19/2009 Page 9 of 9


  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post



    ORDER

    At a session of said Court, held in the United States

    Courthouse, Grand Rapids, Michigan, on this 4th

    day of January, 2010.

    PRESENT: Honorable Robert Holmes Bell

    United States District Court Judge

    The Court having read the foregoing stipulation of the parties and the Court being

    fully advised in the premises, now therefore,

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorneys’ fees to any party. This is a final Order and resolves all outstanding claims in this matter.

    ________________________________

    Honorable Robert Holmes Bell

    United States District Court Judge

  11. #11
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    WTF?

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    This is the only thread where I saw the complaint. I wanted to make sure the answer and the final order were posted with it.

    I've been looking at a bunch of cases and this one looked familiar.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    WTF?
    I think it was settled out of court.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    dougwg wrote:
    WTF?
    I think it was settled out of court.
    Do you have anymore info on this? You guys are in the same circuit as I and I am trying to research some cases for my lawsuit. Thanks.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    dougwg wrote:
    WTF?
    I think it was settled out of court.
    Do you have anymore info on this? You guys are in the same circuit as I and I am trying to research some cases for my lawsuit. Thanks.
    I just asked the plaintiff's lawyer himself. I'm hoping to get a response soon.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Grand Haven Twp, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    33

    Post imported post

    I have heard that this was settled out of court also. I have no other info than that.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Bump.

    No news? It would be great to know how other jurisdictions need behave.
    It does not take courage to change America, it takes courage to keep it.
    Ignorance of the law is an excuse for neither citizens..nor for law enforcement.
    NRA life member

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Still waiting.. :-\

  19. #19
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101

    Post imported post

    if not settled out of court, this needs an appeal to the state supreme court with another zero tacked on for the extra attorney fees.

    Very curious to know how it ended.
    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    i thought this was settled out of court some time ago:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...hlight=fetters
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

Posting Permissions

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