• 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.

The lawsuit against Madison has been filed Link provided

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
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/Madison/MadisonComplaint.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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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?
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
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:

The Don

Guest
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
397
Location
in your pants
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?
 

gdyslin

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2008
Messages
34
Location
Madison, ,
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.
 

BTC

New member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
3
Location
, ,
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-...stitutional-rights-abuse-by-madison-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
 

range rat

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
334
Location
Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
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/Madison/MadisonComplaint.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???
 

Tomas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
702
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
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?
 

ARADCOM

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
317
Location
NW Washington, Washington, USA
2nd call??

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.
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
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.
 

Tomas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
702
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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!
 

JSlack7851

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
291
Location
, Ohio, USA
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:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 
Top