Just a "button bump" so that others need not search for it to donate. 
.................................
.................................
-
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.
-
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.
It's official, MKEGal charged with 941.23
- Thread starter paul@paul-fisher.com
- Start date
oak1971
Regular Member
$25 on the way. Will do more when I can.
P229Sig357DAK
Regular Member
My Two Cents...
I very rarely post , but I do watch. I met MKEgal once at a pancake breakfast in brookfield...brough my boys with me ( Children too! ). I am currently studying law so here is my advice based on what I have read hear and its truthfulness.
I have two contradictary statements. 1) that MKEgal has been charged with carrying concealed 2) that the search was based on the PLAIN VIEW doctrine.
It would seem to me that with just the use of those words alone would cause any lawyer to think twice about their case.
The plain view doctrine states that the item in question must be in PLAIN VIEW oddly enough, which should defeat the concept of CONCEALED. The fire arm really could not exist as both in plain view and concealed simultaneously.
Second problem with the PLAIN VIEW doctrine is this...the nature of the item as either evidence of a crime or contraband must be immediately recognizable! If the immediate nature of the firearm as evidence of a crime or contraband was immediately recognizable then MKEgal should have immediately been charged with a crime. Since it took may days to several weeks for the DA to file these charges it would appear to me that the nature of the evidence or contraband was not immediately available.
I very rarely post , but I do watch. I met MKEgal once at a pancake breakfast in brookfield...brough my boys with me ( Children too! ). I am currently studying law so here is my advice based on what I have read hear and its truthfulness.
I have two contradictary statements. 1) that MKEgal has been charged with carrying concealed 2) that the search was based on the PLAIN VIEW doctrine.
It would seem to me that with just the use of those words alone would cause any lawyer to think twice about their case.
The plain view doctrine states that the item in question must be in PLAIN VIEW oddly enough, which should defeat the concept of CONCEALED. The fire arm really could not exist as both in plain view and concealed simultaneously.
Second problem with the PLAIN VIEW doctrine is this...the nature of the item as either evidence of a crime or contraband must be immediately recognizable! If the immediate nature of the firearm as evidence of a crime or contraband was immediately recognizable then MKEgal should have immediately been charged with a crime. Since it took may days to several weeks for the DA to file these charges it would appear to me that the nature of the evidence or contraband was not immediately available.
Nutczak
Regular Member
I agree, and so do most others.
What I believe is happening here:
Chief (can't xxxx xxx xxxx xx xxx xxxx) Flynn hates the fact that the state constitution and various laws keep him from banning firearm ownership in "his" city, and he has ordered "His" troops to tackle anyone with a gun, arrest them, disarm them, and then he will figure out later what rights he would like to violate.
The prosecutor is grasping for straws, and going back to case law most likely from "Walls" to try and get something to stick to Krysta. I see this as malicious prosecution, and I hope the jury in Krysta's case against the city sees it the same way.
It would be better for all involved for MKE to drop charges, return her property, and immediately offer a large cash settlement for their malicious actions against her.
Starrman
Regular Member
Grapeshot, thanks for the easy button. My wife apparently has a paypal account set up and you made it too easy to donate. Best of luck to mkegal on her second case. Looks like a open and closed case to me. More money for that college fund.
Last edited:
My pleasure. Have said before, "There but for the grace of God go I."
We must stick together or we...............etc.
For MKEgal donations ...
One more time into the breach!
AaronS
Regular Member
The only thing I fear is that if this does not go through the system 100%, what will keep this from going on again? Some small $10,000 cash settlement will not stop flynn.
The people in the local Milwaukee Government (if you can even call it that), will not force the police to stop.
I know to some $10,000 might sound like a lot of money, but to the city of Milwaukee, it is just an easy way out of any new case law (all charges dropped). It is a little like a hard slap on the hand. I am not so sure it will help me at all...?
Baked on Grease
Regular Member
My pleasure. Have said before, "There but for the grace of God go I."
We must stick together or we...............etc.
For MKEgal donations ...
"First they came for the*communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the*trade unionists
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the*Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemöller
I take it's meaning to heart as much as I can. I find it no different now.
Sent using tapatalk
davegran
Regular Member
oak1971
Regular Member
I really hope this goes away for Krysta's sake. I suspect the NRA has stayed out of it for the same reason that WCI has, they both need a case that will run all the way up to the State Supreme Court or a precedent setting ruling in a lower court at the least. MPD has stepped in deep excrement here and may be down before the first round is fought.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Well, with the MPD lies they turned this into a "he said she said case" instead of the game changer people anticipate.
Please take note.
Something to consider ladies and gentleman - please take this very seriously.
Please do NOT speculate in your posts on how circumstances might or might not apply to MKEgal. There is really no excusable reason to assist those who are out to make an example of her. Bear in mind that OCDO is widely read by LEA, prosecutors/DAs as well as the media.
If you feel you have something pertinent to contribute to her case contact her attorney or speak directly to her. Do NOT post it here, do not send her a PM or email (other than requesting a meet-up) - all of these are obtainable by those [strike]persecuting[/strike] prosecuting her.
Let her attorney do her job w/o aiding the other side in their vendetta. Saying less is frequently far better than saying more.
Referencing Krysta Sutterfield, the law firm is::
Mastantuono Law Office
817 N Marshall St.
Milwaukee, WI
53202
http://www.mastantuono-law.com
For MKEgal donations ...
.You are making a difference.
Something to consider ladies and gentleman - please take this very seriously.
Please do NOT speculate in your posts on how circumstances might or might not apply to MKEgal. There is really no excusable reason to assist those who are out to make an example of her. Bear in mind that OCDO is widely read by LEA, prosecutors/DAs as well as the media.
If you feel you have something pertinent to contribute to her case contact her attorney or speak directly to her. Do NOT post it here, do not send her a PM or email (other than requesting a meet-up) - all of these are obtainable by those [strike]persecuting[/strike] prosecuting her.
Let her attorney do her job w/o aiding the other side in their vendetta. Saying less is frequently far better than saying more.
Referencing Krysta Sutterfield, the law firm is::
Mastantuono Law Office
817 N Marshall St.
Milwaukee, WI
53202
http://www.mastantuono-law.com
For MKEgal donations ...
.You are making a difference.
Outdoorsman1
Regular Member
Something to consider ladies and gentleman - please take this very seriously.
Please do NOT speculate in your posts on how circumstances might or might not apply to MKEgal. There is really no excusable reason to assist those who are out to make an example of her. Bear in mind that OCDO is widely read by LEA, prosecutors/DAs as well as the media.
If you feel you have something pertinent to contribute to her case contact her attorney or speak directly to her. Do NOT post it here, do not send her a PM or email (other than requesting a meet-up) - all of these are obtainable by those [strike]persecuting[/strike] prosecuting her.
Let her attorney do her job w/o aiding the other side in their vendetta. Saying less is frequently far better than saying more.
Referencing Krysta Sutterfield, the law firm is::
Mastantuono Law Office
817 N Marshall St.
Milwaukee, WI
53202
http://www.mastantuono-law.com
For MKEgal donations ...
If I were still here, I would agree with the above ^^^^^ 1000 % and say that this is also one of the reasons why.....
I am not here....
Outdoorsman1
Last edited:
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Me neither.
Hey, I just made an observation about the lies of Philanderin' Flynn's "troops". That's hardly something the twit PA doesn't already know.
I'll help MGal out in any way I can.
7 posts in the last 48 hours = not here? Where am I then?
oak1971
Regular Member
MrBubba
Regular Member
I don't know if this is useful, but I put a number of quotes and links together regarding legislative intent on open carry in vehicles on a thread here back in August. This is completely general so I don't see how it could undermine Krysta's case, but please send a message to me if it will and I will remove it. I plan to donate to the defense as soon as my finances allow me to.
From 08-20-2011:
-------------------
The intent of the legislature on this point for substitute amendment 2 of SB93 was clear and unambiguous:
From the "WISCONSIN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT MEMO on the Senate Substitute Amendment 2, as Amended" which was what the Joint Committee on Finance voted on and approved:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/201...amendmemo/sb93
"The substitute amendment makes a number of statutory changes with respect to the placement, possession, and transportation of firearms in various types of vehicles, as follows:
- Permits placing, possessing, or transporting a firearm that is a handgun in a vehicle.
- Permits loading a firearm that is a handgun in a vehicle."
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Wisconsin Senate passes concealed-carry bill":
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...123826279.html
"The bill would also allow people to carry loaded, uncased guns in their cars. Now, guns are allowed in vehicles only if they are unloaded and encased."
From the NRA fact sheet on the bill as transmitted to the Governor for his signature:
http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/PPA Sum...20Governor.pdf
"Eliminates the prohibition against the possession of uncased, loaded handguns in vehicles, noncommercial aircraft, boats, and ATVs. This expanded freedom applies to both licensees and non-licensees."
Now all those amateur attorneys and professional prosecutors out there can cry and pout all they want about punctuation in the statutes and perverse precedent from vanquished left-wingbat courts, but the intent of the legislature on this matter is clear and has been widely publicized. I'm not saying that this won't require a painful test case for those brave enough to go through the system, but freedom has never been advanced by cowards or bureaucrats.
-------------------
From 08-20-2011:
-------------------
The intent of the legislature on this point for substitute amendment 2 of SB93 was clear and unambiguous:
From the "WISCONSIN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT MEMO on the Senate Substitute Amendment 2, as Amended" which was what the Joint Committee on Finance voted on and approved:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/201...amendmemo/sb93
"The substitute amendment makes a number of statutory changes with respect to the placement, possession, and transportation of firearms in various types of vehicles, as follows:
- Permits placing, possessing, or transporting a firearm that is a handgun in a vehicle.
- Permits loading a firearm that is a handgun in a vehicle."
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Wisconsin Senate passes concealed-carry bill":
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...123826279.html
"The bill would also allow people to carry loaded, uncased guns in their cars. Now, guns are allowed in vehicles only if they are unloaded and encased."
From the NRA fact sheet on the bill as transmitted to the Governor for his signature:
http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/PPA Sum...20Governor.pdf
"Eliminates the prohibition against the possession of uncased, loaded handguns in vehicles, noncommercial aircraft, boats, and ATVs. This expanded freedom applies to both licensees and non-licensees."
Now all those amateur attorneys and professional prosecutors out there can cry and pout all they want about punctuation in the statutes and perverse precedent from vanquished left-wingbat courts, but the intent of the legislature on this matter is clear and has been widely publicized. I'm not saying that this won't require a painful test case for those brave enough to go through the system, but freedom has never been advanced by cowards or bureaucrats.
-------------------