Federal lawsuit filed against Cleveland Heights police for harassing open carrier

imported post

Interested in Count 4: why did your lawyer decide to go with the "symbolic speech" count? Was what you did more to make a point or to provide for personal defense?

Best!

imported post

$150,000 huh? I thought this was about civil rights.

imported post

TheFuzz wrote:

$150,000 huh? I thought this was about civil rights.

Click to expand...

$1 encourages these traitorous victim disarming bastards to keep on violating our civil rights. Bankrupt them and then they'll stop.

imported post

They are suing the government, the only people that pay are you and I.

But my point is that it takes away from the merit of the case. How much better would it look from the outside if he wanted only his lawyer fees covered?

imported post

TheFuzz wrote:

$150,000 huh?  I thought this was about civil rights. 

Click to expand...

I read it as being two sums of $150,000 one for compensation and one for punitive purposes.

Anyone want to weigh in on that? At first glance to me it seems like he's asking for $300,000.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, demands judgment against all the Defendants herein, jointly
and severally, for Compensatory Damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00 that will
adequately and fairly compensate him for his losses, Punitive Damages against such Defendants
where permitted by law, in an amount in excess of $150,000.00, that will succeed in deterring such
Defendants from future misconduct, reasonable attorneys fees, interest at the maximum rate allowed
by law and costs.

Click to expand...

imported post

TheFuzz wrote:

They are suing the government, the only people that pay are you and I.

Click to expand...

Really, you elected them?

As it should be. If the electorate doesn't exercise due diligence in electing/unseating statists, then they must bear their share of the responsibility.

imported post

TheFuzz wrote:

They are suing the government, the only people that pay are you and I.

But my point is that it takes away from the merit of the case. How much better would it look from the outside if he wanted only his lawyer fees covered?

Click to expand...

I don't think it diminishes the merits of the case. His rights were violated, let the jury decide on his monetary compensation. Why should the lawyers be the only ones to profit? If LEO's are going to willfully violate the Peoples' rights, and nobody stands up to that threat how much do you think that would cost then?

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

TheFuzz wrote:

They are suing the government, the only people that pay are you and I.

But my point is that it takes away from the merit of the case. How much better would it look from the outside if he wanted only his lawyer fees covered?

Click to expand...

I don't think it diminishes the merits of the case. His rights were violated, let the jury decide on his monetary compensation. Why should the lawyers be the only ones to profit? If LEO's are going to willfully violate the Peoples' rights, and nobody stands up to that threat how much do you think that would cost then?

Click to expand...

But your view of the incident is slanted towards your position. Of course he should get a payday according to you. But YOU won't be on that jury. You can be dang sure the city's lawyers are going to do their best to make sure someone like youself is not on the jury.

When you sue a LE agency for civil rights violations your suing the government entity they represent not the individual officers. The money shouldn't be an issue. There isn't a price for my rights.

What do you say to a person with this type of incident who settles out of court for a monetary amount?

Also this type of case will be tried in the court of public opinion. The money is an issue. You don't advocate the right to open carry so that you can snare someone into a lawsuit to get paid. If there is no want of money then there is no argument of the motivation of the suit. Money only represents greed.

imported post

TheFuzz wrote:

But your view of the incident is slanted towards your position. Of course he should get a payday according to you. But YOU won't be on that jury. You can be dang sure the city's lawyers are going to do their best to make sure someone like youself is not on the jury.

When you sue a LE agency for civil rights violations your suing the government entity they represent not the individual officers. The money shouldn't be an issue. There isn't a price for my rights.

What do you say to a person with this type of incident who settles out of court for a monetary amount?

Also this type of case will be tried in the court of public opinion. The money is an issue. You don't advocate the right to open carry so that you can snare someone into a lawsuit to get paid. If there is no want of money then there is no argument of the motivation of the suit. Money only represents greed.

Click to expand...

In order...

You are correct, your rights, as well as mine and all others, are priceless. Meaning they have value, not valueless, but incredible value. When one of those rights is wrongly taken, a value judgement is not out of order.

What I would say to your question is this...its their choice, not yours or mine. If they choose to take care of themselves, regardless of how selfish it may seem, in the end it's their choice and they are free to decide for themselves what is best for them. And no, they don'thave to choose in the best interest for everyone else.

As far as the court of public opinion, well, while it may make forinteresting conversation, its direct usefulness only applies to the public that is actually serving on the jury.

Why am I not surprised by your last statement?! You equate money and profit with greed, and evil, and oppression. You could not be more wrong. So as to protect you from your money and prevent your untimely demise due to yourghastly greed, I will PM you my bank account's routing number so you can immediately transfer and washaway your sins.

Good grief!

imported post

What I think you fail to see is that with today's litigation happy society is that personal responsibility is longer important as long as I can blame someone else and then demand a fortune in compensation

As long as money is the equation to skews the objective.

imported post

TheFuzz wrote:

freedom_fighter777@hotmail.com wrote:

That law in Null and Void because of Statewide Preemption.

Click to expand...

It has to be challenged first and ruled upon in that manner. It doesn't happen just because someone files a lawsuit.

Also could you give a source and how the preemption applies, I know what it is but I can't find anything about the state law.

Click to expand...

Source for preemption law:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68

which says, in part:

"(A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.

(B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.

(C) As used in this section:

(1) The possession, transporting, or carrying of firearms, their components, or their ammunition include, but are not limited to, the possession, transporting, or carrying, openly or concealed on a person’s person or concealed ready at hand, of firearms, their components, or their ammunition..."

imported post

Been quietly following this thread. Best wishes for a successful outcome.

Hope that you shall be able to keep us updated through each step. I feel confident that you will seek your council's advice before posting.

Your state preemption law seems excellent to this layman.

This is going to take awhile I am sure, so have laid in a good supply of popcorn and Mt. Dew.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Been quietly following this thread. Best wishes for a successful outcome.

Hope that you shall be able to keep us updated through each step. I feel confident that you will seek your council's advice before posting.

Your state preemption law seems excellent to this layman.

This is going to take awhile I am sure, so have laid in a good supply of popcorn and Mt. Dew.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

I'm just nit-picking. Something that is probably really going to happen in a court room with this case.

imported post

TheFuzz wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Been quietly following this thread. Best wishes for a successful outcome.

Hope that you shall be able to keep us updated through each step. I feel confident that you will seek your council's advice before posting.

Your state preemption law seems excellent to this layman.

This is going to take awhile I am sure, so have laid in a good supply of popcorn and Mt. Dew.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

I'm just nit-picking. Something that is probably really going to happen in a court room with this case.

Click to expand...

I recognized the style.

Wont be a lot of "he said, she said" if the PD cars had video/audio cams - most all do these days. Technicalities being what they are, I am sure motions will be plentiful.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

TheFuzz wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Been quietly following this thread. Best wishes for a successful outcome.

Hope that you shall be able to keep us updated through each step. I feel confident that you will seek your council's advice before posting.

Your state preemption law seems excellent to this layman.

This is going to take awhile I am sure, so have laid in a good supply of popcorn and Mt. Dew.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

I'm just nit-picking. Something that is probably really going to happen in a court room with this case.

Click to expand...

I recognized the style.

Wont be a lot of "he said, she said" if the PD cars had video/audio cams - most all do these days. Technicalities being what they are, I am sure motions will be plentiful.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Maybe, depends on how serious the PD considered the incident at the time and if they save all of their recordings, or if they keep them for very long at all.

imported post

TheFuzz wrote:

Maybe, depends on how serious the PD considered the incident at the time and if they save all of their recordings, or if they keep them for very long at all.

Click to expand...

If they existed and were FOIA requested soon enough or if they accidentally erased them etc.

A lot we obviously do not know. Time will tell.

Yata hey

imported post

In cases like these it would not be surprising if the plaintiff walks away with 20K or less. That is usually the case if it goes well. I would love to hear the verdict once its out in 6 months.

EDIT: Final Verdict... lol, there is only one.

imported post

BB62 wrote:

TheFuzz wrote:

freedom_fighter777@hotmail.com wrote:

That law in Null and Void because of Statewide Preemption.

Click to expand...

It has to be challenged first and ruled upon in that manner. It doesn't happen just because someone files a lawsuit.

Also could you give a source and how the preemption applies, I know what it is but I can't find anything about the state law.

Click to expand...

Source for preemption law:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68

which says, in part:

"(A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.

(B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.

(C) As used in this section:

(1) The possession, transporting, or carrying of firearms, their components, or their ammunition include, but are not limited to, the possession, transporting, or carrying, openly or concealed on a person’s person or concealed ready at hand, of firearms, their components, or their ammunition..."

Click to expand...

As we are really just starting to discover here in Virginia, those magic words carry more power than you could ever imagine! Kudos for getting that "SHALL" in there. It's priceless. The best we could do here so far is "MAY", which is still enough to make them sit right up and take notice.

TFred

imported post

TheFuzz wrote:

15. That at no time pertinent hereto could any Defendant herein reasonably believe that the Plaintiff was violating any law of the United States, the State of Ohio, or the City of Cleveland Heights.

Click to expand...

City of Cleveland Heights City Ordinance:

551.12 PROHIBITIONS AGAINST CARRYING A FIREARM.

Click to expand...

State law FORBIDS local gun control laws, PERIOD.

Cleveland might as well pass a law establishing an official MANDATORY religion or mandating chattel slavery on the basis of race. That and any gun control law below the state level aren't worth the paper their printed on.

Would you say that if Cleveland passed a law requiring Jews to wear yellow stars, a Cleveland LEO would have a REASONABLE belief that that law is enforceable? Would it be REASONABLE for him to arrest a Jew who failed to comply?

"I was just following orders" didn't work in Nuremberg in 1946. It won't work in Cleveland in 2009.

imported post

TheFuzz wrote:

They are suing the government, the only people that pay are you and I.

But my point is that it takes away from the merit of the case. How much better would it look from the outside if he wanted only his lawyer fees covered?

Click to expand...

Actually, no, the lawyer fees are likley covered by a percentage of recovery of damags - when police unlawfully detain, batter,or imprison a person, that person is due damages just as if a private person did so.

The higher the settlement or damage award, the fgreater deterrent effect on this locality's rogue actions, and others - its pretty much monkey see monkey do out there.