VW_Factor
Regular Member
I hereby agree to be blocked and banned from this site!
Ban me now before I say what I really feel!
I mean it! I wish to no longer be a member.
No one is forcing you to login.
I hereby agree to be blocked and banned from this site!
Ban me now before I say what I really feel!
I mean it! I wish to no longer be a member.
Don't let a few people in denial drive you off; we need members who can see through the fog.... If somebody can provide a cite in the form of a court document that says "Judgment" instead of "Settlement", I will change my tune and apologize.I hereby agree to be blocked and banned from this site!
Ban me now before I say what I really feel!
I mean it! I wish to no longer be a member.
I hereby agree to be blocked and banned from this site!
Ban me now before I say what I really feel!
I mean it! I wish to no longer be a member.
I hereby agree to be blocked and banned from this site!
Ban me now before I say what I really feel!
I mean it! I wish to no longer be a member.
Obviously it was not about the money. But, what penalties have been levied against the defendants that have real consequences? Sanctions that send a clear and powerful message through all of Wisconsin's LEAs down to the most junior officer. How exactly will the defendant(s) ensure that this sort of lawlessness never occurs in the future? What policy changes will be made? Will they, the policies, be made accessible to the citizenry? What training will result in MPD that is used to change the culture that permits these types of illegal behaviors?
The point of a 1983 suit, in my view, should be to force behavior changes at all levels of government, not just the lowest level, the MPD in this instance. A jury trial that results in a finding for the plaintiffs places the state legislature on notice to 'protect' political subdivisions and their LEAs by writing/amending laws to prevent potential 1983 suits that result from LE not following the law.
Especially in light of the below comment.
This to me does not sound very specific and certainly does not sound very committed to preventing another 'Madison 5' incident.
The only upside I see to this case is the specific language regarding DC in Act 35. Other than that I am not able to find the consequences that will prevent MPD and other LEOs in Wisconsin from hassling LACs OCing.
Obviously there is no way another incident similar to this can be prevented, it only takes one law breaking LEO to accomplish this. But, severe sanctions against state agents that violate the law are the first line of defense against the assault on our liberties by state agents.
I could not find the legal sanctions in Act 35, but that is just me not finding it, not that the sanctions are not in Act 35.
I read the Acceptance 'letter' but could not find the actual judgment. Unless the little blurb at the end stating the 10k is the judgment, and the word judgment itself is part of the 'settlement'.
Thanks.
The question remains, why settle?
If the Mad 5 are the plaintiffs and the city/cops are the defendants in this 1983 suit, why not get a jury to find them guilty?
This would have sent a very powerful message to all of LE in Wisconsin and likely nation wide. And, possibly a larger civil penalty against the cops and their employer(s). Especially after the changes cited in Act 35.
Anyway, it is a moot point.....now.
Cite? I don't remember reading about that.
Thanks for the ref to the 'use of excessive force' penalty. Not relevant to the 1983 case since excessive force did not seem to have been alleged. As to the apology, I never stated that MPD must give one. Nor did I state that the plaintiffs were asking for one, even though a formal written apology, in the major Wisconsin news outlets, would have been icing on the cake, I'll admit.
The criminal component was over back in March, May? So, the burden now shifts to the 'state' to defend their actions and the actions of their agents. I do expect we in the OC community to take advantage of these extremely rare situations to 'stick it' to the state, especially in light of the virtually zero chance the state had of winning this 1983 case.
Well....C'est la guerre....
a win like this calls for some celebratory dance music!
I hereby agree to be blocked and banned from this site!
Ban me now before I say what I really feel!
I mean it! I wish to no longer be a member.
Don't let a few people in denial drive you off; we need members who can see through the fog.... If somebody can provide a cite in the form of a court document that says "Judgment" instead of "Settlement", I will change my tune and apologize.
I apologize, you did get a Judgment. Congratulations! Thanks for your efforts!Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com Because guilt and innocence are criminal terms. The most we could do is get a judgment. The Jury cannot force the defendants to apologize, they can only force money. We got a judgment without going through the expense of a trial. Same outcome. The papers mis-spoke.
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/Ma...nce_of_OOJ.pdf is the acceptance of the JUDGMENT.
We split $10K after attorney fees.
I apologize, you did get a Judgment. Congratulations! Thanks for your efforts!
Considering Joel DeSpain's comments insisting calling in anyone armed and the discussion had about actively insisting business posting of signs shown in the attachment. What really is their opinion???
It ain't the truth until there is a cite... no crow involved, just keeping my word. :monkeyDid you have that plate of crow that you had to eat plain or with sauce, salt and pepper?
Did you have that plate of crow that you had to eat plain or with sauce, salt and pepper?
i was reading comments on another site and some one said the Madsion Police Department paided off the lawyers , to get them to drop the case .
Well.... that would be libel. Our lawyer is John Monroe, who is one of the preeminent 2A lawyers in the country. I am not sure if he is exclusively 2A but I know he knows his stuff.
Of course he gets his fee. He doesn't work for free.
Here is the order approving the judgement: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19481227/Doc 11 Judgment.pdf