MKEgal
Regular Member
.
The Mitchells seek punitive damages for violations of the third, fourth and 14th Amendments, assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress.
the cabinets and closet doors throughout the house had been left open and their contents moved about. Water had been consumed from their water dispenser. Even the refrigerator door had been left ajar and mustard and mayonnaise had been left on their kitchen floor.
The Mitchells seek punitive damages for violations of the third, fourth and 14th Amendments, assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress.
Was included in the title, the OP and the linked article .they really pulled somebody out of their house to watch another one???
I think this would have violated the third amendment too
Henderson police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.
Was included in the title, the OP and the linked article .
You just missed it
....
I want to hear the Henderson PD try to justify this felonious home invasion.
Can I get a senior citizen discount on the price of a ticket to that event?
stay safe.
If you are correcting the title, I recommend also changing the name of the police department. This is Henderson, a suburb of Las Vegas.
On topic: What possible justification can the police have cited for not taking the clear "no" from the victim?? Did they have a warrant (which should not be issued)? Is there a NV law that permits such a seizure without warrant (which would be unconstitutional)?
Or did they do it just because they have the equipment, manpower, and chutzpah to do so?
I want to hear the Henderson PD try to justify this felonious home invasion.
"Officer safety ,man, Officer safety, yeah dude, Officer safety!!!" Can't you just hear it? Doesn't it make you want to puke? What does it make the rest of you want to do? I'll never tell. This cannot, must not go unpunished.
sidestreet
Jeremiah 29 vs. 11-13
we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.
Let me say it one more time:
The only EFFECTIVE reaction to police acting like an hostile army of occupation is to TREAT them like one.
- Refuse to acknowledge their presence or talk to them in ANY way not mandated by LAW.
- Refuse to sell them ANYTHING or provide them with ANY good or service, be it a hamburger or an automobile.
- Refuse to believe ANYTHING they say without detailed documented proof.
- Refuse to vote for ANY levy or tax intended to fund them, much less increase their funding.
- Refuse to vote for ANY politician who does not support this campaign.
You may not be able to stop others from oppressing you. You have NO duty to assist them.
Posse Comitatus Act is not relevant to this thread. Henderson PD is not the Army or Air Force.....obviously.Engaging Posse Comitatus Act?
18USC1385 "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. "
Why bother since USCG became the military arm of Incompetano's DHS? The PCA applies only to the United States Army and the United States Air Force.
I worked under one of the authorized exceptions to the PCA, 18 USC § 831, as facility coordinator for the now defunct Joint Army Navy Nuclear Accident Capability
Will the cops claim that the cops are in a time of war or that the 3A does not apply to cops. I suspect the 3A violation claim will be dismissed. Any lawyer that would include a 3A violation claim or permit it to be included in the suit needs to reread the 3A.Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
That ^
[SUP]1[/SUP] - for those that may have forgotten, the colonists were a bit miffed at not only being forced to have the King's soldiers sleeping under their roof but being forced to feed them and not getting reimbursed.
Contrast that with pre-D Day England when US troops were being put up in private homes while the big military camps were being built. Rent and a food allowance was paid. Some patriotic Brits wanted to refuse the payments but were actually forced to accept them, along with an explanation that the US Army was not going to do to them what the British Army had done some 150 years previously.
US Army occupation forces in Europe were often quartered in civillian homes. Some Germans were conflicted between being seen as "collaborating" and greatly improving their situation by accepting the rent & board payments. (Not to mention having an inside source for American cigarettes and mess hall food.)
SKID you forgot to include that this was taking before the supreme court, and they ruled since it wasn't on US soil. then it was OK to do