• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

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

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
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/JudgmentAgainstRacine.pdf

Carry on!
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
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
 

barronburke

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
183
Location
Chetek, Wisconsin, USA
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:monkey
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
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.
 
M

McX

Guest
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:monkey
 

goforlow

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
201
Location
Eau Claire, Wisconsin, USA
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!!
 

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
:)
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
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.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
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 queers 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.
 

Spartacus

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
1,185
Location
La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
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!!!
 
Top