Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 95

Thread: The lawsuit against Madison has been filed Link provided

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

    The lawsuit against Madison has been filed Link provided

    Sorry for getting this out so late today. Extremely busy day.

    The lawsuit has been filed.

    A copy of the lawsuit can be viewed here:

    http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/Ma...nComplaint.pdf

    I will update this thread with more information tomorrow and issue a formal press release.

    Most importantly I would like to extend a HUGE thank-you to Buckeye Firearms Foundation.

    The $2,500 donation they made and matching donations that came in to BFF's tax-exempt donation page from all across the country totaled over $7,500 in just a few short days.

    On behalf of our members, and freedom-minded citizens all across this country, Wisconsin Carry looks forward to the precedent this lawsuit will set for the right to carry across the country.
    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
    Regular Member ARADCOM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NW Washington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    317

    Exclamation Madison 4?

    Why are only 4 defendants named? What happened to the one named Paul?

  3. #3
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by ARADCOM View Post
    Why are only 4 defendants named? What happened to the one named Paul?
    This particular case deals with the memo. The one filled specifically on behalf of the Madison 5 cannot proceed until the criminal case is resolved.

    Once that is, then an additional suit naming the Madison 5 as plaintiffs will be filed.

    Did I get that right Hubert/Nik?

  4. #4
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by ARADCOM View Post
    Why are only 4 defendants named? What happened to the one named Paul?
    The co-plaintiffs in this case were people who were WCI members who live and/or work in Madison who are now reluctant to exercise their constitutional (state and federal) right to carry in Wisconsin because of the charges of disorderly conduct issued to the Madison 5 AND the press release where the Madison police department proceduralizes the violation of rights of those who open-carry in Madison.

    The Madison Police Chief continues to chill the rights of law-abiding OC'ers in Madison with his comments yesterday which provide no specific indication of what the Madison 5 did wrong, NOR how others can exercise their right to carry without "rolling the dice" that MPD will come, detain, disarm, and possibly file DC charges against them.

    Chief Wray's ambiguous "totality of circumstances" which he doesn't explain as well as his "case by case" comments throw the civil rights of those who carry in Madison in front of the bus. Its as if he says "you want to OC in Madison" "Maybe we'll arrest you maybe you won't"

    Chief Wray has an obligation to operate within the law and establish policies for his department where-as his officers operate within the law. He has not done so. He believes that anytime you are OC'ing, the police can stop you and detain you under the guise of "investigating possible disorderly conduct". Thats not reasonable articulable suspicion.
    Last edited by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman; 10-03-2010 at 01:13 PM.
    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.

  5. #5
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    in your pants
    Posts
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post
    On the advice of our attorneys, the best co-plaintiffs in this case were people who were WCI members who live and/or work in Madison who are now reluctant to exercise their constitutional (state and federal) right to carry in Wisconsin because of the charges of disorderly conduct issued to the Madison 5 AND the press release where the Madison police department proceduralizes the violation of rights of those who open-carry in Madison.
    In paragraph 6, I think, the 4 co-plaintiffs are mentioned along with "and others". Does that mean other law abiding open carriers in general or something else?

  6. #6
    Regular Member gunguy2009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Janesville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    200
    I hope this makes Headlines, but chances are it wont. Need to make an Example out of MPD...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Madison, ,
    Posts
    34
    Don't understand the "Trial by Jury". Just don't think that you could get a fair verdict from a jury in Madison no matter how strong the case. I would think you would have a better chance with trial by Judge alone but who knows, I'm not a lawyer.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    I've blogged about this lawsuit, please check it out!!

    My homepage is www.benclement.com

    The article is the lead post, here's the unique URL:
    http://www.benclement.com/an-brand-n...ison-wi-police

    You can feel free to read, enjoy, offer feedback, discuss the article, etc.

    Awesome job by WCI and the other 4 plaintiffs!
    As an aside...I called my cousin who is a very savvy LEO living in Tulsa, OK. He is the head of a Street Crimes Vice Unit -- they crack bad guys' balls BIG TIME! Anyway, he thought the article was good and in his judgment the plaintiffs have a very compelling case. Good luck to you 4 and to WCI!

    Take care,
    BTC

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post
    Sorry for getting this out so late today. Extremely busy day.

    The lawsuit has been filed.

    A copy of the lawsuit can be viewed here:

    http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/Ma...nComplaint.pdf

    I will update this thread with more information tomorrow and issue a formal press release.

    Most importantly I would like to extend a HUGE thank-you to Buckeye Firearms Foundation.

    The $2,500 donation they made and matching donations that came in to BFF's tax-exempt donation page from all across the country totaled over $7,500 in just a few short days.

    On behalf of our members, and freedom-minded citizens all across this country, Wisconsin Carry looks forward to the precedent this lawsuit will set for the right to carry across the country.
    What did noble mean by saying there was a 2nd 911 phone call by a MAN this time!!! is there another caller???

  10. #10
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by range rat View Post
    What did noble mean by saying there was a 2nd 911 phone call by a MAN this time!!! is there another caller???
    Not that we have been able to ascertain. We suspect the chief might be a bit confused, but I won't go into details right now.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  11. #11
    Regular Member Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    705
    Seems as though there are but three possibilities...

    1) There was a second 911 call that has NOT been provided in response to the official requests for info.
    2) There was NOT a second 911 call and Chief Wray is confused.
    3) Chief Wray was lying.

    I don't see a fourth. Anyone?
    No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: The officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. -- Edward Abbey

    • • • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Faciémus!• • •

  12. #12
    Regular Member ARADCOM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NW Washington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    317

    Unhappy 2nd call??

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomas View Post
    Seems as though there are but three possibilities...

    1) There was a second 911 call that has NOT been provided in response to the official requests for info.
    2) There was NOT a second 911 call and Chief Wray is confused.
    3) Chief Wray was lying.

    I don't see a fourth. Anyone?
    A call to the regular police non-emergency number, which may or may not have been recorded?

    I do find it strange that it took them a long time to bring up a second call.

  13. #13
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by ARADCOM View Post
    A call to the regular police non-emergency number, which may or may not have been recorded?

    I do find it strange that it took them a long time to bring up a second call.
    Madison Police seem to have an M.O. of coming up with a plan ex post facto.

    Took them 3 days to figure out how to try to mitigate their mistake of arresting for obstruction for refusal to give ID. Searched a lot of documents I'm sure, found the decision of ONE loony judge (Lynn Adelman) who's outside-of-the-law conjecture based opinion supported their actions and latched onto it.
    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    705
    I may be wrong, just going by memory, but didn't Chief Wray refer to that second call as a "911 call" and from a male?

    Question that may best be not answered publicly, but if the original request was broad enough to acquire the 911 call we are familiar with, and the radio traffic associated with the event (I believe that was already confirmed), if the MPD has a recording of the call the Chief was referring to, shouldn't it have been included no matter which line it came in on - especially if it formed the basis for the original event?
    ________

    Just thought of another possibility - could it be a call that came in well after the event and they are using it to validate the later charges? If so, could that call have been prompted by the detectives who went back the next day to find some reason for charges?

    Just blue sky thoughts, but something seems decidedly odd.
    No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: The officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. -- Edward Abbey

    • • • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Faciémus!• • •

  15. #15
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    OK. The 21 day timer for response started on the 4th of October. So, Madison and the Chief of police have to respond by the 26 (you don't count the day of service). It will be interesting to see what they say!

  16. #16
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    OK. The 21 day timer for response started on the 4th of October. So, Madison and the Chief of police have to respond by the 26 (you don't count the day of service). It will be interesting to see what they say!
    Is the 21 day timer CALENDAR or BUSINESS days?

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    The public records law does not require response within any specific time, such as “two weeks” or “48 hours.” . DOJ policy is that ten working days is generally a reasonable time for response, or, if the response cannot be completed within that time, a communication indicating that a response is being prepared.
    .

  18. #18
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Is the 21 day timer CALENDAR or BUSINESS days?
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule12.htm just says days. I assume it means 3 weeks.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by range rat View Post
    a 2nd 911 phone call by a MAN this time!!!
    It doesn't matter if 1 or 50 people called. 5 LAC should not of been accosted the way they were.

    Rights were violated and the sooner the Madison PD gets their noses rubbed into the pile they left, the sooner they will learn they don't rewrite laws as they see fit. Personally I feel the Chief should resign for his lame attempt to mitigate his officers response with that unconstitutional press release.

    OMG, if he (Wray) was to get away with this he could easily start check points to make sure every car isn't stolen or any thing else he could imagine against the 4th Amendment and Terry vs. Ohio.

    I'm actually surprised there wasn't more mention of Reasonable Articulable Suspicion during the initial questioning in the lawsuit.
    Last edited by JSlack7851; 10-21-2010 at 01:57 PM. Reason: mis spelled word

  20. #20
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by JSlack7851 View Post
    I'm actually surprised there was more mention of Reasonable Articulable Suspicion during the initial questioning in the lawsuit.
    This particular lawsuit is purely on the post encounter memo.

    From what I understand, since charges are still pending, we cannot actually sue until the case is resolved, one way or another.

    The 4 named plaintiffs in this case plus WCI are not the Madison 5.

  21. #21
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    I have not digested this but here is the response from Madison and Noble Wray:

    http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/Ma...c_6_Answer.pdf


    Set Pretrial Conference: Telephone Pretrial Conference set for 12/1/2010 at 9:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker.
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 11-01-2010 at 07:17 PM. Reason: Changed it to Wisconsin Carry's link.

  22. #22
    McX
    Guest
    Paul, i couldn't get it to work, but i figure it's got alot of 'totality of circumstance' crap. so i'll skip it, i dont give a poop what they have to say, what matters is what our side has to say, and what the judge says. all i have to say to the other side is a string of obscenities.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Make sure you aren't signed in to your google account

    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    Paul, i couldn't get it to work, but i figure it's got alot of 'totality of circumstance' crap. so i'll skip it, i dont give a poop what they have to say, what matters is what our side has to say, and what the judge says. all i have to say to the other side is a string of obscenities.
    We had the same problem with this before. If you are not signed in to a google account it should work just fine.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  24. #24
    Regular Member rotty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis Minnesota
    Posts
    217
    Thanks Brass ... I was confuzzled
    Last edited by rotty; 10-26-2010 at 01:16 PM.
    - Knowledge is power and there IS strength in numbers -

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
    - Thomas Jefferson

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    That is not true, that a particular membership is required to be in hand.
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 10-26-2010 at 01:18 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •