Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Judgement entered in favor of Wisconsin Carry v. City of Racine and 2 Racine Police Officers

  1. #1
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197

    Post imported post

    As you all know on January 8th Wisconsin Carry filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin's Gun-Free-School-Zone Act.

    A copy of the lawsuit can be viewed here:

    http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/GFSZ_Complaint.pdf

    In this lawsuit we also brought on 2 Wisconsin Carry Members as co-plaintiffs. Frank Hannan-Rock of Racine was one of these co-plaintiffs.

    Frank was lawfully open-carrying on his own porch when Racine Police, who were summoned to his neighborhood on an unrelated call observed and questioned Frank because he was Open-carrying. After a few minutes of increasingly aggressive questioning Frank exercised his right to remain silent and was subsequently unlawfully arrested for obstruction of justice for refusing to give his name. In the state of Wisconsin no law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person's refusal to give his or her name. "Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995)"

    Details of Frank's encounter can be viewed by going to our website www.wisconsincarry.org and clicking on the October 16th blog entry.

    Frank was unlawfully arrested and his firearm illegally siezed. He was later released without being charged.

    Wisconsin Carry filed suit on Frank's behalf for his unlawful detainment, arrest, and seizure of his firearm.

    On behalf of myself, the board of Wisconsin Carry Inc. and all of our members, we are pleased to announce that The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has entered a judgment in the amount of $10,000 in favor of Wisconsin Carry, Inc. and Frank Hannon-Rock and against the City of Racine and two Racine police officers.

    We look forward to the precedent that this case will set for other municipalities who's police officers operate outside of their legal authority and unlawfully detain, arrest, and seize property of law-abiding open-carriers.

    A copy of this judgement can be viewed here:

    http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/Ju...instRacine.pdf

    Carry on!
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  2. #2
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197

    Post imported post

    For informational purposes, the other plaintiffs and other issues in the original complaint including the challenge to the constitutionality of Wisconsin's Gun-Free-School-Zone-Statute remain to be litigated in the future.

    Nik Clark
    Chairman - Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
    nik@wisconsincarry.org
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Chetek, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    183

    Post imported post

    Great Job!!!!! I'm glad to say that Im proud of what Wisconsincarry.org is doing for this cause and the help they have given many people in Wisconsin who have been mistreated and rights stomped on Keep up the good work and look forward to to the out come of the other parts of the suit weighing in your guys favor. I hope everyone sees the great leap this has made for our cause and want to thank you all for protecting our rights they way you have here

    -Stephen Burke


    Keep our rights ours


    :celebrate

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Rule 68. Offer of Judgment (a) Making an Offer; Judgment on an Accepted Offer. More than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 10 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment.

    No precedential value. A strategic move.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    very nice. and thank you for your services.

  6. #6
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    right on! john lennon sang; power to the people, power to the people, power to the people, power to the people right on! a butt load of dancing monkeys, and them bananna fellers on this:celebrate

  7. #7
    Regular Member goforlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Eau Claire, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    201

    Post imported post

    I joined Wisconsin Carry because they are actually DOING something for citizens and our rights.

    I am damn proud to say...I AM A MEMBER OF WISCONSIN CARRY INC!!




    Wisconsin Carry Inc - Founders Club Member
    NRA - Life Member
    3rd generation US Air Force Veteran

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Plover, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    Excellent work!!! Im proud to be a member my friend. Thank you for your dedication!!!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Monroe, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    Abraxxas wrote:
    Excellent work!!! Im proud to be a member my friend. Thank you for your dedication!!!
    Amen to that

  10. #10
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Rule 68. Offer of Judgment (a) Making an Offer; Judgment on an Accepted Offer. More than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 10 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment.

    No precedential value. A strategic move.
    The value lies in the fact that they had to shell out $10,000. That alone will serve as a deterrent.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  11. #11
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197

    Post imported post

    The value lies in the fact that they had to shell out $10,000. That alone will serve as a deterrent.
    Precisely...

    In addition, this is a judgement, not a settlement. Settlements often contain confidentiality requirements. This judgement is a matter of public record. That was key to our acceptance of it. There are some other facets of a rule 68 offer of judgement that "master doug" and his google-brain didn't cut and paste out here, but trust me when I say that our legal counsel has exceptionally better legal credentials than "master doug". This outcome fits our legal strategy. This was a good outcome with respect to the part of the complaint Racine and their officers were named in. We were advised to accept the offer of judgement. All other plaintiffs remain.

    Despite Doug's incessant proclivity to try to rain on every parade in sight just so he can satisfy his obsessive self-gratifications... This judgement will send a strong message to other municipalities and officers who "didn't get the memo" last April that OC is perfectly legal and any encounters with law-abiding citizens OC'ing is VOLUNTARY on the part of the OC'er. JB Van Hollen made this perfectly clear.

    Unlike the common law systems, civil law jurisdictions do not adopt a stare decisis principle in adjudication. In deciding any given legal issue, precedents serve a persuasive role.

    I assumed that "master doug" would know this but I guess googling "Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a)," didn't return that information for "his highness" Thus when I used the term 'precedent' I wasn't referring to stare decisis in a case-law sense as thats not applicable but rather a practical deterrent factor.
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Chetek, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    183

    Post imported post

    Ya what he said lol Great job Nick

  13. #13
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925

    Post imported post

    +1

    Nik and Hubert Rock!

    Thank you.
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:
    SNIP The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has entered a judgment in the amount of $10,000 in favor of Wisconsin Carry, Inc. and Frank Hannon-Rock and against the City of Racine and two Racine police officers.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Great news. I am so happy for Frank, such a nice guy.We can only hope the rest of Wisconsin police see this.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    I've got to say, "Master" Doug is a troll.

  17. #17
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Post imported post

    This is good news.

    But Honestly, I don't have an ounce of celebration until there is NO GFSZ and Wiconsin Carry Inc. makes it move on Vehicle Carry.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Thank you for NOT telling me that your piss on my leg is legal rain. Computers are wonderful for storage of documents too.

    Right here on my desktop is a copy of the Wisconsin Statutes (that I paid dollars for) that includes Municipal and Civil Court Procedures, Chapters 800 - 847. (Free online).

    Right here on my desktop is the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that you can have too!

    http://lscontent.westlaw.com/images/content/documentation/NewFedRulesCivProc.pdf 850 kB 187 pages

    Here are the 80 pages 350 kB of Federal Criminal Procedure

    http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/crim2007.pdf

    Ask your own questions and find your own answers. This struttin' and stylin' crap nekkid Emperor snit may pass for knowledge in the neighborhood but in the real world it's just whistling past the graveyard and whistling is for steers and ****** as I learned in the school of hard knocks. Why I will never be led by fools.
    ETA RANT I don't know what y'all do for entertainment, yeech, and I do not want to know, imagining the snit on the YOU BOOB tube. As truth is stranger than fiction it is also a whole lot more entertaining. DAMN effin Chamberlains to the nekkid Emperor Obongo! No wonder the US is in these straits.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185

    Post imported post

    BROKENSPROKET wrote:
    This is good news.

    But Honestly, I don't have an ounce of celebration until there is NO GFSZ and Wisconsin Carry Inc. makes it move on Vehicle Carry.
    In the battle for 2A rights many small victories will win the war.

    Very good news indeed!!!

  20. #20
    Regular Member Lurchiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Shawano,WI.
    Posts
    1,011

    Post imported post

    Dustiniac wrote:
    I've got to say, "Master" Doug is a troll.
    Judgement good...dessention; not so much .

    I've got to say, "Dustiniac" post count islow for such a statement .
    Bale da Hay

    "Have you Spanked a leftist today; it's the Right thing to do!!!"


    Within the gates before a man shall go,
    (Fully warily let him watch,)
    Full long let him look about him;
    For little he knows where a foe may lurk,
    And sit in the seats within.

    Havamal (Bellows translation)

  21. #21
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    this morning i scanned the local paper for an announcement regarding wisconsin carry's win on the lawsuit. i found nothing. interesting; the local paper was quick to report of the 'incident', and quick to report of a conspiracy to 'bait the police', but yet is now slow to report of the win by wisconsin carry.
    because of problems with my local politically correct neighbors, as well as household security issues, i intend to open carry on my property. warm up your protest signs boys, i have a feeling the first time i venture out into my yard open carrying we'll be needing them. no smiley faces on this one.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    Unfortunately, the court-ordered judgment does not specify who pays what share of the money (City? Police officers? Both?), nor does it address the "Gun Free School Zone" issue.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    How about, if there is no desire or attempt at (false) leadership then there is not possibility of dissention.

    Count contributions of empiric fact citations rather than posts that are bald opinions (worth only the ergs of their development).

  24. #24
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    how will they enforce the judgement if it's vague? sounds like it's a win, but the classic: i didn't do it applies.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Wait!

    This is good news but what about the GFSZ's? Nothing was determined on this issue.
    Wasn't this the main purpose of the suit?

    In reading Nik's post about further litigation, does that mean we have to file a new complaint? or have those matters already been set for a new hearing?

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
  •