Youtube video documenting the unlwaful arrest of Frank in Racine

imported post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuiO8tixuKY

I put this new youtube video together because there was SO much misrepresentation from the police and the news media surrounding Frank's arrest.

Suggestions that the whole incident was a set-up. Suggestions that Frank was part of the investigation into the pellet gun shooting (he was not)

This video includes the audio from Frank's voice-recorder (standard carry accessory for many of us) as well as audio from the city council hearing where Racine's city attorney admits that the officers have no probable cause to arrest Frank and the officers operated outside their authority.

Of course the audio recording of the arrest itself confirms that there was no probable cause.

This video is not being posted to spotlight the behavior of the police, but rather with the MASSIVE undeserved character assassination of Frank in the media, we thought it was important to put this out.

This video is on Wisconsin Carry's youtube channel.

If you haven't already, you are invited to subscribe and catch any video's that we put out.

www.youtube.com/wisconsincarry

Related links:

http://www.journaltimes.com/news/lo...cle_60ad9e26-9f35-11de-8896-001cc4c002e0.html

http://www.journaltimes.com/news/lo...cle_56888e4c-9e4f-11de-8895-001cc4c002e0.html

copy of judgement against Racine that Wisconsin Carry obtained for Frank with our lawsuit:
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/JudgmentAgainstRacine.pdf

Article where Racine City attorney admits officers had no authority to arrest Frank:
http://www.journaltimes.com/news/lo...cle_25295ce2-2acb-11df-bd14-001cc4c002e0.html

imported post

Wow. I never knew there was an actual audio recording of ANY of this. The first news report I read last year mentioned that Frank "fumbled with" an audio recorder and that the call to police "came from his house" and that it was a "setup".

All the lies told by the police and the news media is just incredulous.

Thanks for posting the audio!

This should point out to those of us who carry (or even those that don't) that we should always have some kind of recorder on us. This is such a sad state of affairs from our police and politicians. We can never trust any of them to ever tell the truth.

:uhoh:

imported post

Thanks for putting this together. Thanks for importing a good lawyer for Frank. I disagree with taking the settlement, but I understand your reasoning.

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Thanks for putting this together. Thanks for importing a good lawyer for Frank. I disagree with taking the settlement, but I understand your reasoning.

Click to expand...

It was not a settlement. It was the equivalent of the city pleading "no contest" except it was in a civil, rather than criminal, proceeding. The court entered a judgment against the city and a payment of 10K against the city. It was more like a plea bargain where the city of Racine said, "We won't contest the court ruling in favor of your complaint as long as you agree not to sock us for more than 10,000 dollars."

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

It was not a settlement. It was the equivalent of the city pleading "no contest" except it was in a civil, rather than criminal, proceeding. The court entered a judgment against the city and a payment of 10K against the city. It was more like a plea bargain where the city of Racine said, "We won't contest the court ruling in favor of your complaint as long as you agree not to sock us for more than 10,000 dollars."

Click to expand...

It was exactly acceptance of an "offer to allow judgment on specified terms", offer and terms that we are not privy to. To speculate further is disingenuous.

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.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a),
IT IS ORDERED that judgment in the amount of $10,000.00, inclusive of
attorney’s fees and costs, is entered in favor of plaintiffs, Wisconsin Carry, Inc., and
Frank Hannan Rock and against defendants, City of Racine, Sgt. Nethery, and R.
Prince, as to all claims of said plaintiffs, state and federal, respecting this action.

If you would further abuse our naivete then we can pursue "as to all claims of said plaintiffs, state and federal, respecting this action", because only one cause of action has been made public here and that includes "60. Attorney's fees and costs for bringing and maintaining this action." There were eight "prayers for relief" in this action and only 'fees and costs' was granted. I-ANAL and a coward.

imported post

Who's speculating? I was explaining.

imported post

I want to know if the officers had to pay out at all or was it the city covering the whole $10K? I hope that the officers got some kind of mark from this.

imported post

My favorite part is when she says, "I hope you have a good attorney, ..."

In hindsight, it's hilarious.

imported post

BROKENSPROKET wrote:

My favorite part is when she says, "I hope you have a good attorney, ..."

In hindsight, it's hilarious.

Click to expand...

I laughed when she said that.

Also when she said "I know my job sir"... Apparently not well enough. Though now I am confident she knows the law a little better.

imported post

Thank you for posting and letting us hear for ourselves. This is a key reason you never trust the news media and or LEO's no an "investigation."

What I think is the best pat of all this is only $10,000. From the sounds of it you really could have cleaned the coffers and thumbed you nose at them. It sounds as if you had them running scared. The fact that you only took $10,000 tells me you are there for peoples rights. INHOP you really could have made hay with this.
I will join this group even though I live in another state. I do travel to Wi and may need help.

imported post

rcawdor57 wrote:

This should point out to those of us who carry (or even those that don't) that we should always have some kind of recorder on us. This is such a sad state of affairs from our police and politicians. We can never trust any of them to ever tell the truth.

Click to expand...

I think this needs repeating. I won't go so far as to say that police outright lie(even tho i believe they do occasionally), but no one can give a 100% perfect recall of a conversation. And when giving testimony, a cop will only talk about things that help the state. When its a cop's word against yours, who do you think they will believe.

This paragraph is my opinion, I am not a lawyer. But it had to have helped a lot that there was a recording of this event. Having a recording of a cop acknowledging a witness's statement that it was a BB gun and the person who did it had left had to go a LONG way to helping this case. This proved they had no REASONABLE way to believe it was him who committed the crime. Which made the action of arresting him unlawful.

Having video/audio tape of any interaction with a LEO can only help you. A LEO will testify to everything about an encounter that will help the state, but might "forget" about things that do not help the state in their case, or look unfavoritly against what the LEO did.

Alot of phones have a video camera function. A small tape recorder costs about $20. A small video camera costs about $100. You might want to purchase and carry one of these things with you and use them during every encounter with a LEO.

imported post

From my training - NOT in Wisconsin - I know that a policeman is an officer of the court and presumed honest and accurate.

When I learned the lie that that is, it changed my world. I was involved in a case, in the courtroom, when the officer lied about the elements of the case. That was much of why I became involved in my PD.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

There were eight "prayers for relief" in this action and only 'fees and costs' was granted. I-ANAL and a coward.

Click to expand...

You do know the case is not over, right?

imported post

There is an easy way and a hard way to learn how to deal with lawful OC, they chose the hard way.

imported post

jrm wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

There were eight "prayers for relief" in this action and only 'fees and costs' was granted. I-ANAL and a coward.

Click to expand...

You do know the case is not over, right?

Click to expand...

No.

I know only that the judgment of defendants City of Milwaukee and Doyle has not been made public. I know that some defendants had judgments for costs only against them but do not believe that settled or enforced.

imported post

so turn them over to collection, time to pay up! knobs!

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

jrm wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote: 

  There were eight "prayers for relief" in this action and only 'fees and costs' was granted.  I-ANAL and a coward.

Click to expand...

You do know the case is not over, right?

Click to expand...

No. 

I know only that the judgment of defendants City of Milwaukee and Doyle has not been made public.  I know that some defendants had judgments for costs only against them but do not believe that settled or enforced.

Click to expand...

"judgments for costs only" is not accurate. (and I think you know this you just choose not to acknowledge it. Are you intentionally misleading people again?)

The judgment amount far exceeded our costs

The damages have been paid by Racine

As has been mentioned many times prior to this thread, the lawsuit remains against the Racine District Attorney, The City of Milwaukee, A Milwaukee Police Officer, the City of Greenfield, and the City of Manitowoc.

We made this announcement on our website and in an email to our members.

imported post

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:

Are you intentionally misleading people again?

Click to expand...

Are you beating a dead horse again?

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a),
IT IS ORDERED that judgment in the amount of $10,000.00, inclusive of
attorney’s fees and costs, is entered in favor of plaintiffs, Wisconsin Carry, Inc., and
Frank Hannan Rock and against defendants, City of Racine, Sgt. Nethery, and R.
Prince, as to all claims of said plaintiffs, state and federal, respecting this action [my emphasis].

Inclusive means 'all between the extremes' and 'including the range'.

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

1. This in action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for various...

Click to expand...

Prayer for Relief

Plaintiffs demand the following relief:

55. Damages ...

56. A declaration ...

57. A declaration ...

58. An injunction ...

59. An injunction ...

60. Attorney's fees and costs ...

61. A jury to try this case.

62. Any other relief the Court deems proper.

Click to expand...

I-ANAL and a coward see one action and eight demanded reliefs.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote

I know only that the judgment of defendants City of Milwaukee and Doyle has not been made public. I know that some defendants had judgments for costs only against them but do not believe that settled or enforced.

Click to expand...

I don't understand any of these statements.

1. Courts make judgments, not defendants, but assuming you mean judgments against Doyle and Milwaukee, there are not any. Doyle was dropped and the Racine DA was substituted in his place, and the case against the Racine DA (an Milwaukee) continues.
2. No defendants had judgments against them for costs only. There has been a judgment against the City of Racine and its police officers, and that judgment included damages, costs, and attorney's fees.
3. The judgment against the Racine (city, not county) defendants has been satisfied. I know you mentioned earlier that you are not privy to the terms of the offer of judgment, and now have said that you do not believe the judgment "settled or enforced." I assume by "do not believe" you mean "have no information about," because there's no reason for you to believe that the judgment has or has not been satisfied, unless of course you look on the court's web site, where all court documents are available to the public at the click of a mouse (including the offer of judgment and the satisfaction of judgment). I do not tend to post every single document in a case, because most of them are mundane or trivial and do not strike me as being of much public interest. For example, the judgment just incorporated the offer of judgment, so the offer of judgment is uneventful. It did not occur to me that anyone would believe a judgment would be taken and then ignored, so the satisfaction of judgment was not posted, either. Plus, the guy who is kind enough to host these files for cases that have some public interest does not charge for doing so, and I do not wish to abuse his kindness. If, however, you would like to host all the files in the case, I would be happy to send them to you so you do not have to go to the trouble of downloading them from the court's web site. Just give me an email address and post here a URL where you will host them so that people can access them without charge or registration.