• 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.

Female OC advocate needs our help to fight bogus charges!

PWC_Glock

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
78
Location
PWC, Virginia, USA
Thank you all

All

Thanks for your help. I am going to leave the details up to MKEgal/her atty to disclose on this board.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
This was one of three or four threads on the website at the time about her case. This one died as the threads on the Wisconsin forum were still being updated on a more regular basis. If you check there, you will find this sticky:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...nse-fund-for-determining-OC-in-a-car-is-legal

She was released shortly after the arrest and the judge imposed firearms restrictions while awaiting trial that are more stringent than if she were actually guilty of a crime!
 
Last edited:

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Why can't Milwaukee get its act together?

Their "act" is completely together. Their act is a beautiful, perfect performance in the play titled:
Inflict complete control over the masses and disarm them to prevent resistance
Act 1: Convince them only the government can protect them
Act 2: Punish those that have the confidence to protect themselves.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
This was one of three or four threads on the website at the time about her case. This one died as the threads on the Wisconsin forum were still being updated on a more regular basis. If you check there, you will find this sticky:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...nse-fund-for-determining-OC-in-a-car-is-legal

She was released shortly after the arrest and the judge imposed firearms restrictions while awaiting trial that are more stringent than if she were actually guilty of a crime!

What say it isn't so I thought judges only cared about our fundamental rights! :rolleyes:

Welcome to modern justice system you pay for a crime you didn't commit until you prove you are innocent.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
No real updates.
Hearing on Fri. the 20th, trial Mon. & Tues. the 23rd & 24th.
If people in the area are able, I'd appreciate having some friendly faces in the gallery, esp. on the 2nd day.

Haven't met w/ Rebecca (lawyer) to discuss testimony since late April, though we expect at least once more before the trial.
She also needs to figure out what the final cost will be... :uhoh:
I'm not too concerned about that right now, since people have been generous (as much as they're able) & she's being very understanding about me making payments as I can.

And then there's the loitering charge, which is a city ordinance, which has to be tried after the ccw charge 'cause it's based on the same bad info.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
No real updates.
Hearing on Fri. the 20th, trial Mon. & Tues. the 23rd & 24th.
If people in the area are able, I'd appreciate having some friendly faces in the gallery, esp. on the 2nd day.

Haven't met w/ Rebecca (lawyer) to discuss testimony since late April, though we expect at least once more before the trial.
She also needs to figure out what the final cost will be... :uhoh:
I'm not too concerned about that right now, since people have been generous (as much as they're able) & she's being very understanding about me making payments as I can.

And then there's the loitering charge, which is a city ordinance, which has to be tried after the ccw charge 'cause it's based on the same bad info.

Best of luck too you!

Loitering laws are unconstitutional......http://libertarianrock.com/1999/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-loitering-law/
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
That was about being on PUBLIC streets, not private property.

It also struck down THAT law because its details made it overly burdensome. It did not declare all "loitering laws to be unconstitutional."

If it is private property than it isn't loitering you would be worried about it would be ignoring a trespass, and to do that you would have to be trespassed.

“It criminalized status, not conduct,” Stevens wrote. “It allows and even encourages arbitrary police enforcement.” It is “impermissibly vague on its face and an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties.”

Can you explain to me how a law simply stating you can't hang out and do nothing, will ever not be overly burdensome or broad?

This law was meant to get gang members and it was still struck down.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
sudden valley gunner said:
If it is private property than it isn't loitering you would be worried about it would be ignoring a trespass, and to do that you would have to be trespassed.
The Milwaukee ordinance about loitering doesn't require trespass. That's a different bit of code.

106.31
LOITERING
Loiters or prowls in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals [clause 1] under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons or property [clause 2] in the vicinity.

Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm is warranted is the fact that the actor takes flight upon appearance of a peace officer, refuses to identify himself [see below, 1] or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object [see below, 2].

Unless flight by the actor or other circumstances makes it impracticable, a peace officer shall prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the actor an opportunity to dispel any alarm which would otherwise be warranted, by requesting him to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct.

No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the peace officer did not comply with the preceding sentence, or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the actor was true and, if believed by the peace officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm.
I agree it's unusual to sit in your car at midnight, near a couple street lights, with your dome light on & a laptop open on your lap, in front of a building which has a sign in the window saying "FREE WI-FI".
[For those who aren't clear, that was sarcasm.]
I don't see how that "warrants alarm for safety".
And I did explain that I was using my laptop on their free wifi. (Would have been obvious if they'd bothered to look over the situation.)
I gave the name of the owner (which is a little unusual), explained that he leaves the wifi on for people to use whenever they need, he lives very nearby, & urged them to call him.
They didn't bother to investigate. It was much easier to hassle me.
(He lives within sight of the coffee shop, & it took me maybe 2-3 minutes on the internet to find his home phone #. Surely with PD resources they could have done it faster if they'd bothered to try.)

1) The WI Supreme Court has said that it's not illegal (& not the grounds for persecution) to not give your name to police. They originally also gave me a ticket for obstruction, but it mysteriously disappeared.
No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or her name.
Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction.
Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).

2) To support both the claim of loitering & the charge of ccw, there is only the word of one unobservant, lying officer [we have proof of both, from their own reports & records, & an independent uninvolved witness] that she didn't see my pistol when she first looked in my car.
The evidence the PD provided clearly shows that she's unobservant, & her own reports show she's lying.
As long as the jury can understand the evidence they're seeing, they won't convict me on either charge.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The Milwaukee ordinance about loitering doesn't require trespass. That's a different bit of code.

106.31

I agree it's unusual to sit in your car at midnight, near a couple street lights, with your dome light on & a laptop open on your lap, in front of a building which has a sign in the window saying "FREE WI-FI".
I don't see how that "warrants alarm for safety".
And I did explain that I was using my laptop on their free wifi. (Would have been obvious if they'd bothered to look over the situation.)
I gave the name of the owner (which is a little unusual), explained that he leaves the wifi on for people to use whenever they need, he lives very nearby, & urged them to call him.
They didn't bother to investigate. It was much easier to hassle me.
(He lives within sight of the coffee shop, & it took me maybe 2-3 minutes on the internet to find his home phone #. Surely with PD resources they could have done it faster if they'd bothered to try.)

1) The WI Supreme Court has said that it's not illegal (& not the grounds for persecution) to not give your name to police. They originally also gave me a ticket for obstruction, but it mysteriously disappeared.


2) To support both the claim of loitering & the charge of ccw, there is only the word of one unobservant, lying officer [we have proof of both, from their own reports & records, & an independent uninvolved witness] that she didn't see my pistol when she first looked in my car.
The evidence the PD provided clearly shows that she's unobservant, & her own reports show she's lying.
As long as the jury can understand the evidence they're seeing, they won't convict me on either charge.

I think SCOTUS would find that loitering law unconstitutional too.

My comment on trespass was in reply to the comment that the SCOTUS decision wouldn't apply to private property, I agree with that and feel you would have to be trespassed to have broken a law and loitering simply cannot be one especially if the owner of the property doesn't mind you using his property and didn't trespass you.

Your cops just don't like you.....Their case is a blatant attempt at trying to teach you a lesson. I am confident you'll beat the charges.

Hopefully lying cop will loose his job. Brady vs. Maryland.
 
Last edited:

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
I think SCOTUS would find that loitering law unconstitutional too.

My comment on trespass was in reply to the comment that the SCOTUS decision wouldn't apply to private property, I agree with that and feel you would have to be trespassed to have broken a law and loitering simply cannot be one especially if the owner of the property doesn't mind you using his property and didn't trespass you.

Your cops just don't like you.....Their case is a blatant attempt at trying to teach you a lesson. I am confident you'll beat the charges.

Hopefully lying cop will loose his job. Brady vs. Maryland.

Lose his job plus several of his rights after a felony perjury conviction.:cool:
 

pfries

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
182
Location
East Tennessee
Better late than never,
I just recently joined and found out. I am thankful that you have the support of many in your plight (although not one you chose intentionally). Stay strong, be positive and remain vigilant.
Pat
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
OK, folks...
The trial is Monday, possibly into Tuesday (apparently this judge is wanting to hurry things along).

Today I was told (repeatedly, forcefully) that it would be a Bad Idea (TM) for people coming to support me to wear holsters or WCI / NRA shirts.
This could very easily be used against me.
PLEASE DON'T.
Probably even buttons would be bad.
Just dress office casual. Pretend you're normal. :rolleyes:

And it would be bad to talk about the case amongst yourselves in the hall, bathroom, elevator, courtroom (during breaks).
Again, PLEASE DON'T.

My lawyer asks that if you can't do these things, please don't come to the trial, because it might end up hurting my case. I want to win at this level, not have the stress, hassle, & expen$e of going to an appeal.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
I agree with you completely about the holsters, but how could wearing a t-shirt hurt your case? It has nothing to do with the law or the evidence presented. I can certainly understand your worrying about the situation though, and I hope everything goes well for you and that everyone that shows to support you does as you wish.

Either way you will have plenty of folks praying and hoping for you I am sure. I have never commented on any of this before, but I have watched the threads closely regarding the issue you find yourself in, and I will be thinking about you on Monday! Good luck to you, and may the jury come to a verdict based on the facts and the law and nothing more!
 
Top