Glad you were amused and good idea!
-
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.
Handcuffed and ejected from Festival in the Park
- Thread starter Tosta Dojen
- Start date
Glad you were amused and good idea!
This is actually an improvement...
I hate to say it, but the events as described are actually an improvement for the RCP. I don't mean about the arrest and search, they could have been told anything buy the 'security' goons, but about knowing the law. This was not the case a few years back when they chased me off from the 4th of July fireworks.
That said, the 10-009 opinion is a kick in the teeth. Just how is it that a city can transfer a right they do not have (arms prohibition) to a lessee?
I hate to say it, but the events as described are actually an improvement for the RCP. I don't mean about the arrest and search, they could have been told anything buy the 'security' goons, but about knowing the law. This was not the case a few years back when they chased me off from the 4th of July fireworks.
That said, the 10-009 opinion is a kick in the teeth. Just how is it that a city can transfer a right they do not have (arms prohibition) to a lessee?
Tosta Dojen
Regular Member
I'd love to know all about them. I'm sure there's relevant information in the police report, but the department is refusing to release that document. It's almost as if somebody doesn't want me to know the identities of the individuals responsible.
I also received the City's official response to my remarks from the City Attorney. I don't have a scanner at hand, but it can be summed up as 'Not Our Problem.'
They did that last year too.
jmelvin
Founder's Club Member
And all of this will continue if they don't see some agressive legal action. Let us know how we can help, because this crap affects us all.
Repeater
Regular Member
Ironic.
Well, as we can see, it DID happen again. I wonder if the OP in on their RADAR?
Well, as we can see, it DID happen again. I wonder if the OP in on their RADAR?
Tosta Dojen
Regular Member
On Friday I filed a civil action against several responsible parties.
I have decided to release some of the records that I intend to introduce as evidence in this matter.
Recording of confrontation by Stuart Israel and Robert Alexander
Recording of confrontation by Jeff Taylor
Incident report authored by Stuart Israel
I have decided to release some of the records that I intend to introduce as evidence in this matter.
Recording of confrontation by Stuart Israel and Robert Alexander
Recording of confrontation by Jeff Taylor
Incident report authored by Stuart Israel
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Go get 'em! Best of luck.
Definitely looking forward to watching this progress and certainly hope that all goes in your favor!
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Thank you.
user
Accomplished Advocate
I notice that the complaint is drafted in the style appropriate for federal courts. I can't help wondering how much work you're going to be willing to put in on learning Virginia civil procedure and rules of evidence. Well, if you come across any specific questions, please send me an email, at least.
wylde007
Regular Member
One quick question -- great that you were able to get those two conversations recorded, but I was curious if they knew you were recording? Mind you, simply amazed at what someone might say and wondered if they did so in spite of the recording (and are then ubber idiots). But certainly goes to the point raised (often) here about having a recorder running!
I wish you good luck, but fear you have had any leg you might have stood on cut out from underneath you. http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions and Legal Resources/Opinions/2010opns/10-009-Greason.pdf
I could say many things about that opinion, but then I'd have to get my mouth washed out and go to church for several months of Sundays, which would put the congregants in great danger of electrocution by lightening or being hurt when the earth opened to swallow me. In deference to the safety of those congregants, I will say nothing.
stay safe.
I could say many things about that opinion, but then I'd have to get my mouth washed out and go to church for several months of Sundays, which would put the congregants in great danger of electrocution by lightening or being hurt when the earth opened to swallow me. In deference to the safety of those congregants, I will say nothing.
stay safe.
wylde007
Regular Member
It may have been a private entity "leasing" the property, but it did so under the purview and with the consent of the City of Roanoke, it did not prohibit entry to unticketed visitors, meaning that the park and its premises were still open and accessible (unprohibited) to the general public.
Further, that would not reconcile the numerous falsehoods, improper assumptions of authority, negligence, ignorance, assault and battery undertaken by or in the name of the defendants. Further, the seizing of the plaintiff by the constabulary was made under false pretenses and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Since the park was open to the public, the "private security" could in no way eject a citizen from the grounds, as a public venue is a public venue regardless of the occupant or event.
I am frankly surprised at the very small amount being requested as compensation. I would have gone for the jugular myself.
Further, that would not reconcile the numerous falsehoods, improper assumptions of authority, negligence, ignorance, assault and battery undertaken by or in the name of the defendants. Further, the seizing of the plaintiff by the constabulary was made under false pretenses and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Since the park was open to the public, the "private security" could in no way eject a citizen from the grounds, as a public venue is a public venue regardless of the occupant or event.
I am frankly surprised at the very small amount being requested as compensation. I would have gone for the jugular myself.
Go tell that to Ken. maybe he'll listen to you. He has not listened to me.
stay safe.
Indeed was relating the same opinion to this situation myself.
There are other points to the complaint though, which I beleive will stand up.
Agree (AKA, Yep!):lol:
I'm not reading the same thing though. The OAG opinion seems to specifically relate to entities leasing the property from a local government, yes? In this case (referring to # para. 14) states that "City of Roanoke executed a written agreement engaging the services....to operate Festival in the Park...." Which is an entirely different matter -- or am I missing something?