• 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.

My Son Was Arrested in North Las Vegas

TigerLily

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Polygammyville, Utah
Dang Tigerlily that sucks! I have only been to LV once in my life and the only negative thing I encountered was a ******* cop.
Seems like the LVPD is pretty popular now days for acting like Natzies.
I hope you get yourself and your son a lawyer and sue their butts off!


It was actually NLVPD - not Metro. NLVPD is in a way worse because their court is a court of nonrecord. No transcriptions, no recordings allowed - not even a cell phone. So everything that happens inside the courthouse is completely unprovable. That's how judge Vanlandschoot (Retired in June) was able to get away with saying, "THE LAW DOES NOT MATTER IN MY COURT." Those were his exact words when a defendant pro se attempted to introduce case law to defend his case.
 

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
I did a little work on the Brief,

Here is what hasppened.

We showed how their ordinance is in line with the state constitution and law(bareley)
Then we showed how the defendant was in line witrh the Constitution and State law firmly.

The Brief appeared to have merit, as the prosecution requested a dissmisal after the trial, a move which defies the NRS

NRS 174.085 Proceedings not constituting acquittal; effect of acquittal on merits; proceedings constituting bar to another prosecution; retrial after discharge of jury; effect of voluntary dismissal.....In pertinant part.....

5. The prosecuting attorney, in a case that the prosecuting attorney has initiated, may voluntarily dismiss a complaint:

(a) Before a preliminary hearing if the crime with which the defendant is charged is a felony or gross misdemeanor; or

(b) Before trial if the crime with which the defendant is charged is a misdemeanor,

Ê without prejudice to the right to file another complaint, unless the State of Nevada has previously filed a complaint against the defendant which was dismissed at the request of the prosecuting attorney. After the dismissal, the court shall order the defendant released from custody or, if the defendant is released on bail, exonerate the obligors and release any bail..............

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1416; A 1971, 596; 1997, 2391)
 
Last edited:

usmcmustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
393
Location
Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
I did a little work on the Brief,

Here is what hasppened.

We showed how their ordinance is in line with the state constitution and law(bareley)
Then we showed how the defendant was in line witrh the Constitution and State law firmly.

The Brief appeared to have merit, as the prosecution requested a dissmisal after the trial, a move which defies the NRS

NRS 174.085 Proceedings not constituting acquittal; effect of acquittal on merits; proceedings constituting bar to another prosecution; retrial after discharge of jury; effect of voluntary dismissal.....In pertinant part.....

5. The prosecuting attorney, in a case that the prosecuting attorney has initiated, may voluntarily dismiss a complaint:

(a) Before a preliminary hearing if the crime with which the defendant is charged is a felony or gross misdemeanor; or

(b) Before trial if the crime with which the defendant is charged is a misdemeanor,

Ê without prejudice to the right to file another complaint, unless the State of Nevada has previously filed a complaint against the defendant which was dismissed at the request of the prosecuting attorney. After the dismissal, the court shall order the defendant released from custody or, if the defendant is released on bail, exonerate the obligors and release any bail..............

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1416; A 1971, 596; 1997, 2391)

The written judgment filed by the judge cited two NRS references respecting the dismissal... the one you mentioned NRS 174.085, and NRS 178.554 Dismissal by district attorney ... may by leave of court file a dismissal of an indictment, information or complaint and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate. Such a dismissal may not be filed during the trial without the consent of the defendant.

Now, NRS 174.085 is very clear in saying that this dismissal must be "before trial if the crime with which the defendant is charged is a misdemeanor." Well, that certainly does not apply since this dismissal did NOT come "before trial."

NRS 178.554 is a bit more ambiguous with respect to the time frame of a dismissal, but it does say "such a dismissal may not be filed during the trial without the consent of the defendant." The defendant in this case was never asked to "consent" to the dismissal and he never gave "consent." Now, was the dismissal filed "during the trial?" Well, since no judgment was forthcoming until after the dismissal was requested by the prosecutor, I'd say the trial was still on-going.

I'm of the opinion that the judge erred in his granting of the prosecution's motion for dismissal if he based it on the authority of the two NRS's he referenced in his judgment. Any other opinions?
 
Last edited:

usmcmustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
393
Location
Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
The written judgment filed by the judge cited two NRS references respecting the dismissal... the one you mentioned NRS 174.085, and NRS 178.554 Dismissal by district attorney ... may by leave of court file a dismissal of an indictment, information or complaint and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate. Such a dismissal may not be filed during the trial without the consent of the defendant.

Now, NRS 174.085 is very clear in saying that this dismissal must be "before trial if the crime with which the defendant is charged is a misdemeanor." Well, that certainly does not apply since this dismissal did NOT come "before trial."

NRS 178.554 is a bit more ambiguous with respect to the time frame of a dismissal, but it does say "such a dismissal may not be filed during the trial without the consent of the defendant." The defendant in this case was never asked to "consent" to the dismissal and he never gave "consent." Now, was the dismissal filed "during the trial?" Well, since no judgment was forthcoming until after the dismissal was requested by the prosecutor, I'd say the trial was still on-going.

I'm of the opinion that the judge erred in his granting of the prosecution's motion for dismissal if he based it on the authority of the two NRS's he referenced in his judgment. Any other opinions?

Okay, I've re-read both of the above referenced statutes... neither apply in this case. As said previously, NRS 174.085 isn't applicable because the dismissal must be "before trial"... and it wasn't. NRS 178.554 isn't applicable because it applies to a "district attorney" (or Attorney General where applicable). There's quite a difference between a "district attorney" and what we have in this case... a "city attorney." Bottom line here is that the judge erred in his entertainment and granting of the dismissal pursuant to NRS 174.085 and NRS 178.554. Evidently, the City of North Las Vegas appears to not want their city ordinance challenged at the district level and were willing to do most anything to keep it out of district court.
 

usmcmustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
393
Location
Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
I posted this in another thread here, but for the sake of putting it wherever it may belong, I'm also posting it here:

And the charges of violating their (North Las Vegas) city ordinance WERE "dropped" on September 12, 2011. The municipal court Judge's order read as follows:

"The City of North Las Vegas' Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, pursuant to NRS 174.085(5) & NRS 178.554, in which the Defendant is charged withe commission of the offense of DANGEROUS/DEADLY WEAPON IN VEHICLE, in violation of North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.090, is hereby GRANTED. The Court hereby dismisses, with prejudice, this charge against the Defendant."

The State (CA) Liason for the NRA Institute for Legislative Action was initially very interested in this case and even showed up at the initial arraignment in June 2011. She was kept apprised of the situation as it progressed. In September, after the judgment was rendered (dismissal), she was provided copies of the Defendant's and Plaintiff's briefs (ordered by the judge after the trial but before judgment was rendered). She has had that info for a couple weeks now, but with no response. In July 2011, she made a comment that "I (she) was under the impression that (the Defendant) was a permit holder and was carrying the firearm concealed...he was openly carrying it? Not that its relevant to the case, but is he a permit holder and if so, why was it open?" Seems to me that such a question might indicate a slight? "unfamiliarity" with what's what here... don't really know. My take on it is that it AIN'T at all relevant. Lawful OC or Lawful CC? (or both at the same time for that matter), who cares why or why not.

Anyway that's about where we are with this.
 

usmcmustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
393
Location
Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
did they give the gun back ??

He took the Judge's order down to the NLV Police Department to get his handgun AND ammo back. Got the gun, but was told it was "policy" not to return ammo. Oh, really? Well, after some inquiry to the HMFCI at NLVPD, the "policy" is that a gun and ammo is not to be returned in the same transaction. Evidently, in their divine wisdom, they have proclaimed that no one other than police officers are to have a gun and ammo in the police station at the same time. So, another trip to NLVPD, resulted in the return of the ammo. Instead of the nitwit at the cage telling my son that he would have to come back for the ammo, she simply stated it was "policy" not to return ammo.
 

jlaudio29

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
5
Location
North Las Vegas
Dont tread on me - are you saying that NLV law is not stricter then state law?

Somewhere i though i read that NLV laws reguarding carrying a firearm is not enforceable due to it being stricter then state laws. I may have it confused on what you were talking about verse what im refering to, can you please clear this up? From the sound of it, it sounds like what your saying is that it is enforceable due to it BARELY being in line with state law??
 

usmcmustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
393
Location
Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
Dont tread on me - are you saying that NLV law is not stricter then state law?

Somewhere i though i read that NLV laws reguarding carrying a firearm is not enforceable due to it being stricter then state laws. I may have it confused on what you were talking about verse what im refering to, can you please clear this up? From the sound of it, it sounds like what your saying is that it is enforceable due to it BARELY being in line with state law??

I certainly don't want to steal any of DON'T TREAD ON ME's thunder, but here are the pertinent parts of the brief that resulted in the city's motion for dismissal of the weapons charge.

DEFENDANT’S BRIEF
I. DANGEROUS/DEADLY WEAPON IN VEHICLE. With respect to the pending charge against me of a violation of North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 – possession of a dangerous or deadly weapon in vehicle - the following is offered for consideration.

A. North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.040 defines “dangerous or deadly weapons.” That ordinance sets forth and describes a number of items that are considered “dangerous or deadly weapons” by the City of North Las Vegas, a firearm being one. However, the ordinance excludes certain firearms from its definition. It says: “The term ‘dangerous or deadly weapons’ includes… any firearm other than (emphasis added) (a) one carried pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority, or (b) an ordinary rifle or shotgun lawfully carried for purposes of hunting or other lawful sport.” So, the ordinance excludes from its definition of “dangerous or deadly weapons,” a firearm carried “pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority.” The provision of that exclusion within the ordinance creates a safe harbor for those who have valid permission to carry a firearm concealed (emphasis added) on their person as well as (emphasis added) those who have valid permission to carry a firearm openly (emphasis added) on their person. It, in effect, eliminates any liability under the law with respect to North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 – possession of dangerous or deadly weapon in a vehicle - for those two categories of lawful firearm possession.

B. Did I have “a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority?” In a word, yes. The Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1, permits (emphasis added) its citizens “to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.” Does not Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1 of the Nevada Constitution afford the right, or in effect, permit (emphasis added) its citizens to “bear arms,” even those driving their vehicles within the confines of the city limits of the City of North Las Vegas; and is not the State Constitution the supreme law of the state and therefore inherently a “duly authorized government authority?” Openly carrying (emphasis added) a handgun in a vehicle in Nevada is lawful (emphasis added). Openly carrying a registered handgun (emphasis added) in a vehicle in Clark County is lawful (emphasis added). Openly carrying a registered handgun (emphasis added) in a vehicle in North Las Vegas is lawful as well, because it is done with “a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority,” and in doing such the handgun so carried falls under the exclusion of the City’s own ordinance that defines what a “dangerous or deadly weapon” is NOT.

C. It seems clear that by the City’s own codified definitions and specific exclusions as to what a “dangerous or deadly weapon” is termed to be and not to be; that a handgun lawfully and openly carried on one’s person within a vehicle per the permission afforded by the Nevada State Constitution, is by definition NOT a “dangerous or deadly weapon.” Therefore in the instant case, there was no violation of North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080, and I was unlawfully arrested and jailed without probable cause.

D. As an aside, but still of pertinence and importance, I submit that had I been lawfully concealed carrying (emphasis added) my handgun, I would not have been arrested, jailed and prosecuted for suspected violation of the city ordinance. Why? Because the lawful concealed carrying of a handgun falls within the City’s definition exception as to what a “dangerous or deadly” weapon is and is NOT. I would further submit that I was lawfully open carrying (emphasis added) my handgun and there should have been no arrest, incarceration, and prosecution. Why? Because a citizen’s legal and lawful open carrying of a handgun pursuant to the permission granted in Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1 of the Nevada Constitution ALSO falls within the City’s definition exception as to what a “dangerous or deadly” weapon is NOT. One might then ask oneself, what is the purpose of the City’s ban on firearms in vehicles? Simply stated, I would suggest that it is to deter individuals from having in their possession and in their vehicle firearms that are illegally possessed for intended unlawful purpose(s). The circumstances surrounding my case do not fit into such category at all. I was lawfully, legally, constitutionally, appropriately, permittedly, ad nauseum, openly carrying my handgun on my person while I was driving my vehicle within the city limits of North Las Vegas. There is no evidence suggesting that I had the handgun for any unlawful purpose. Such circumstance certainly falls within the City’s definition exception as to what a “dangerous or deadly” weapon is and is NOT.

E. So, bottom line here is that a constitutional argument, if one were to be made, isn’t that North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 is unconstitutional or contrary to appropriate Nevada Revised Statute(s), only that the City’s apparent misguided and obvious arbitrary enforcement and prosecution of the ordinance in my case, and perhaps others[1], calls into question the equal protection clause of the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For you see, I, in the circumstances of the case – lawfully open carrying a handgun on my person in a vehicle with the requisite permission and authority of the Nevada State Constitution - should be afforded the “safe harbor” provided by the exclusion definition of the city ordinance which defines “dangerous or deadly weapon,” just as is an individual who is permitted and authorized to lawfully conceal carry a handgun in a vehicle. Anything less would, in my mind, be a misapplication of the ordinance and certainly fly in the face of the equal protection clause of the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


[1] Michael Davidson, former chief criminal attorney for the City of North Las Vegas, was quoted in an April 7, 2010 Las Vegas Sun article(EXHIBIT A)as follows: “The intent (of North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080) was to go after gangbangers, not mom and pop in the RV.”
 
Last edited:

TigerLily

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Polygammyville, Utah
Appeal

A brief summary of the result (NO DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WERE RETAINED.)

Recap - son was arrested during a traffic stop - he was oc'ing in NLV.

I was arrested for obstruction (was videotaping son's arrest.)

BOTH OF US SPENT 24 HOURS IN NLV'S DETENTION CENTER!

Son's outcome in City of NLV court of NON record:

Aggressive driving - guilty; fined $250
Tinted windows - guilty; time served.
Multiple drivers licenses - NOT guilty.
Weapon Ordinance Charge - dismissed.

My charge of obstruction: guilty.

We both appealed to District Court - (Judge Mosley)

Findings of son:

Aggressive Driving - Guilty
Tinted Windows - NOT GUILTY

My obstruction charge: NOT GUILTY.

F those chumps - all the bunch of them. I have a radio show and I'll be exposing all this bullllllllloney!

Bring on 2012!
 

yotetrapper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Messages
74
Location
Northern Nevada
Nice, way to put up a great fight, to bad he couldn't get that aggressive driving charge changed to not guilty. Great job though! It's stories like this that help to educate everyone.
 

gmijackso

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
208
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
We both appealed to District Court - (Judge Mosley)

Findings of son:

Aggressive Driving - Guilty
Tinted Windows - NOT GUILTY

My obstruction charge: NOT GUILTY.

What became of yours and his time served? Seems his time served should have been applied to his aggressive driving charge, and your time served was false imprisonment.
 

TigerLily

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Polygammyville, Utah
What became of yours and his time served? Seems his time served should have been applied to his aggressive driving charge, and your time served was false imprisonment.

I'm getting every penny back - fines, fees, et al (I was fined $500 when found guilty in NLV). Haven't decided what to do about my wrongful arrest yet.

I audio recorded the entire trial de novo (using 2 recorders). I think my son's arresting cop said he arrested him FOR THE GUN (not the so called aggressive driving). If that's the case, then we'll pay for the transcript and we shall be looking into a lawsuit.

The city of NLV is in the red. I won't mind taking a few of those chumps' motorcycles as payment - or how about some of their weapons and ammo? And I for one would love to make our arresting cop BANKRUPT!

I would call that a HAPPY NEW YEAR!
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
When I graduated from high school in NLV, those of us who were patriotic joined various branches of the military. The most racist bully in the graduating class became a NLV police officer. I am reminded of that every time I hear just how elitist and illegal the NLV police are. I remember when the Chief was busted for multiple DUI charges, too. I wish you the best.

Keep me posted on any open-invitation motorcycle rides. I assume you allow Buells?
 
Last edited:

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
TigerLily:

Notwithstanding The Remainder of The Charges in The Original Jurisdictional Court, and The Appeal to The District Court, I am Pleased to Learn that The Illegal and Preempted North Las Vegas Charge of Carrying a Firearm within a Motor Vehicle was Dismissed during The Original Phase of The Court Process.

This Indicates that North Las Vegas is Aware of Their Illegal and Preempted Ordinance.

As I Trust that You are Aware, I Supported You Originally, as was Indicated in Prior Posts under This Thread.

aadvark
 
Last edited:

TigerLily

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Polygammyville, Utah
When I graduated from high school in NLV, those of us who were patriotic joined various branches of the military. The most racist bully in the graduating class became a NLV police officer. I am reminded of that every time I hear just how elitist and illegal the NLV police are. I remember when the Chief was busted for multiple DUI charges, too. I wish you the best.

Keep me posted on any open-invitation motorcycle rides. I assume you allow Buells?

Interesting about the racist bully! I would LOVE to know more about the Chief being busted for multiple DUI charges. Tgrlil@live.com.

As for motorcycle riding, I do a few group rides, though my fav riding is alone or riding a girl friend on the back (no I'm not a lesbian -not that there's anything wrong with that.)

And I wouldn't associate with any group that wouldn't allow for other motorcycles. I'm a charter member of the Sin City Victory Riders, and type of bike is not relevant to my riding club.

I just rode with the American Legion boys last Fri to Stanley Gibson's funeral - the most recent casualty of Gestapo Gillespie's regime.

I don't have anything scheduled at the moment but I'm sure there will be a group ride the second weekend in January. The Bikers of Lesser Tolerence (BOLT) are having their summit here in Vegas. Dave is planning an open-carry event with them. You are invited to the "Repeal it or Feel it" Steering Committee held every Thursday at 6pm at: 540 East St. Louis Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89104.

Hope to see you there. I think you will be impressed with the crew. And feel free to open carry.

Take care.

TL
 

TigerLily

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Polygammyville, Utah
TigerLily:

Notwithstanding The Remainder of The Charges in The Original Jurisdictional Court, and The Appeal to The District Court, I am Pleased to Learn that The Illegal and Preempted North Las Vegas Charge of Carrying a Firearm within a Motor Vehicle was Dismissed during The Original Phase of The Court Process.

This Indicates that North Las Vegas is Aware of Their Illegal and Preempted Ordinance.

As I Trust that You are Aware, I Supported You Originally, as was Indicated in Prior Posts under This Thread.

aadvark

Thanks, Aadvark. The only reason - imo - that my son's gun charge was dismissed was to keep their ordinance from being challenged in a REAL COURT OF RECORD. Therefore, the next step is to sue the crap out of the City for their WRONGFUL ARREST. Perhaps another lecture - I mean "speech" to their City Council is in order.
 

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Keep me posted on any open-invitation motorcycle rides. I assume you allow Buells?

Not to jump the thread, but we will hosting freedom minded motorcyclist from all corners of the nation... these are the "navy seals of motorcycle activism all OC riders are welcome. Plenty of our guests OC and we have a event being planned to include everyone in Vegas on fremont Sun Jan 8th @ 6:00 pm. It mayh get us on the news (in a good way) again.
 

TigerLily

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Polygammyville, Utah
My Radio Show on FreedomizerRadio.com

Can you explain this more?, I would be interested in listening!

Here's a promo of my show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBeW_6T52Gs

A youtube search using the "word": tlgzz reveals more info.

My show is on Sundays from 6-7:30 pm PACIFIC time and they are archived.

You can call in to listen to the show 347-324-3704.

My cell phone # is 702-417-6260

Email: tgrlil@live.com

My skype name is TL.Gzz (I'm still learning skype.)

or logon to: http://www.freedomizerradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1280&Itemid=404

(Remember to refresh so you catch my show live and participate in the chat.)

It's an internet show that is growing. It just landed it's first AM contract in Rhode Island. Small start - but a start non the less.

If I go "missing" don't believe the lies that a criminal killed me, that I am hiding, or that I committed suicide. The more likely reason for me to go missing is because of my big fat mouth. Gestapo Gillespie might get me whisked away to Guantanamo accusing me of being an "enemy combatant," thanks to NDAA. Our Gestapo is in the homeland security "club." (see page 28 of this report found by Stewart Rhodes: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hsac_cve_working_group_recommendations.pdf

Everyone here knows Sheriff Gestapo Gillespie does not respect the 2A.

The "establishment" loathes me.

I advocate for 100% NON VIOLENCE. I am not left, right or center (they are all parts of a big plantation). I identify best with libertarians. But I'm leaning more towards the total removal of slavery. I think that would label me an abolitionist.

We are all slaves in the U.S.A. We U.S. Citizens have no RIGHTS - name one (I dare you!). It is immoral to cage people for nonviolent, victimless crimes. I have been called "radical," cause I don't hold back.

It was revealed by one of the prosecution witnesses in my appeals case that I was a "known activist." That bears the question: Were my son and I caged for 24 hours to teach us a lesson - despite the fact that bail was posted 3 hours after our arrest?

Bring on 2012. I'm on my way to the City of North Las Vegas Muni TOP SECRET Court today - ARMED with data and recording devices to get the money back that those rude civil servants STOLE from me.

Thanks for asking.
 
Top