Any updates on Mack Worley?

[Schlepnier]

You misunderstand the meaning of stipulate, or you misunderstand the role of the attorney general, or both.

The AG gives an opinion about a law, and that's about it (in this context). They've no authority to cause police officers, courts, or juries to conform to their legal opinions.


Really? What crime is that?

Perhaps stipulate was to strong a word in relation to the AGs opinion, while it's true it cannot force action on lower courts, municipalities, or LEOs, it still holds some weight as it gives the state view on the laws in question should they advance to that level.


As far as casad goes, the case has been referenced here many times, as I recall rapgood clarified it could not be used as it was unpublished and therefore inadmissible under Washington state law. with certain penalties should you try to reference it directly.

Given all that I'm surprised this case even made it to trial. ther was no RAS of crime as stated by the female officer in violation of terry, they were stopping him for lawful carry in violation of DeBerry, further since they detained him illegally they were in violtion of RCW 9A 080 010 violation of civil liberties under color of authority-official misconduct

 

[509rifas]

How about a protest by having as many OCers as possible go to Vancouver, wearing the same description (everyone in khakis and a black shirt with at least two cameras on) and see if they keep up their habit of breaking the 2A. Do it all in the same general area, so the different responding officers will have to pick which OCer to confront. Just with sidearms, no way to say that's "causing alarm."

 

[CitizenJohn]

Given all that I'm surprised this case even made it to trial. ther was no RAS of crime as stated by the female officer in violation of terry, they were stopping him for lawful carry in violation of DeBerry, further since they detained him illegally they were in violtion of RCW 9A 080 010 violation of civil liberties under color of authority-official misconduct

Upon watching the YouTube clip and listening to the blog link, I have to wonder if Worley's lawyer missed a procedural step that didn't allow the judge to kick the case pre trial? I'm not educated in the subject of what it takes to bring a case to trial but this story is pretty flabbergasting! Prior to reading this story, I would not have worried about being arrested, much less convicted, for walking down the street in Vancouver with a rifle at the sling. Silly me!

 

[Tackleberry1]

Upon watching the YouTube clip and listening to the blog link, I have to wonder if Worley's lawyer missed a procedural step that didn't allow the judge to kick the case pre trial? I'm not educated in the subject of what it takes to bring a case to trial but this story is pretty flabbergasting! Prior to reading this story, I would not have worried about being arrested, much less convicted, for walking down the street in Vancouver with a rifle at the sling. Silly me!

From what I've gathered, Mack's "public defender" was a go along to get along hack who made more than a few mistakes.

Mack is a young guy without a lot of resources and his appeals outcome has ramifications for all of us so anyone who can afford to contribute should do so, even if it's 10 bucks, give what you can.

 

[amzbrady]

What ever happened to the guy that was arrested for openly carrying a firearm in public by a pizza place. That one kind of dropped away. It seems Vancouver needs to be taught a lesson they are not above the law and need to follow state preemption.

 

[deanf]

It seems Vancouver needs to be taught a lesson they are not above the law and need to follow state preemption.

Wrong argument. They are enforcing their interpretation of state law. Preemption's got nothing to do with it.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Wrong argument. They are enforcing their interpretation of state law. Preemption's got nothing to do with it.[/COLOR]

Law is clearly written, if it needs interpretation then the law might as well be given out by Taro card readers.

 

[deanf]

if it needs interpretation then the law might as well be given out by Taro card readers.

All laws pretty much are. At the very end of the process, laws are interpreted by a single person. That's our system.

 

[Freedom1Man]

All laws pretty much are. At the very end of the process, laws are interpreted by a single person. That's our system.[/COLOR]

Then no-one should ever be charged with any law violations. How can I follow any law that I cannot understand?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

All laws pretty much are. At the very end of the process, laws are interpreted by a single person. That's our system.[/COLOR]

No that's how they behave.

Law should be clear and unambiguous not up for "interpretation, otherwise the rule of lenity applies.

 

[FrayedString]

What ever happened to the guy that was arrested for openly carrying a firearm in public by a pizza place. That one kind of dropped away. It seems Vancouver needs to be taught a lesson they are not above the law and need to follow state preemption.

He lost his jury trial, and his appeal was denied.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?52346-LEO-gave-me-a-ticket


Hence why I said Vancouver seems like a very bad place to be in possession of a visible firearm. Even when you have the law on your side you can, and will it seems, be convicted.

 

[davidmcbeth]

From what I've gathered, Mack's "public defender" was a go along to get along hack who made more than a few mistakes.

Mack is a young guy without a lot of resources and his appeals outcome has ramifications for all of us so anyone who can afford to contribute should do so, even if it's 10 bucks, give what you can.

Well in some states a citizen can file an appearance in addition to his lawyers and not diminish his lawyer's ability but still allow the actual person, pro se, to file motions, requests etc.

I did this in one case I had .. and I leveraged it to make my lawyer file a motion to dismiss part of the answer to a complaint (they asked for lawyers fees and costs in their answer itself, not in a prayer of relief). My lawyer did not want to file a motion to strike when I asked him to...so I wrote up my own, gave it to my lawyer and told him that this is what I would be filing to strike the costs/lawyers fees part of their answer. So he took it and filed it himself ... and I won the motion. So knowing that they would not be able to recover lawyers fees, it made it easier to file other motions (not easier but knowing that I had nothing to lose, more inviting to file motions).

Its a nuance of court rules that vary in each state. If you have the ability to add yourself as a pro se consul, I always recommend doing it. At worst, it will force your lawyer to explain in detail why a motion should not be brought. Many lawyers simply do not want to do too much work ~ but the record you produce at your hearing processes is the only record that a reviewing court will look to...objections not made are waived, motions not filed are irrelevant. Just like when you have your first contact with the po po, you have no idea what may be important, help your case or hurt it at that time. With the po po, best is to just shut up; with the court case, its best to file motions to suppress, object etc. as long as the pleadings and evidence disclosed will not hurt your case.

One has to be able to write motions, memorandum of law, requests etc. Not hard to do but requires learning a new skill set. But its a useful set of skills to learn IMO. The last position you would want to be in is to say: I should have gotten a lawyer that filed this filing that I thought may swing the case upon appeal...

 

[jhfc]

He lost his jury trial, and his appeal was denied.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?52346-LEO-gave-me-a-ticket


Hence why I said Vancouver seems like a very bad place to be in possession of a visible firearm. Even when you have the law on your side you can, and will it seems, be convicted.

There may be others, but I know of three recent cases in Vancouver: 1. Kirby, 2. Josh (referenced in the link above) and now, 3. Mack Worley.

0 for 3 in Vancouver. I figure that's about a 100% loss rate.

 

[davidmcbeth]

He lost his jury trial, and his appeal was denied.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?52346-LEO-gave-me-a-ticket


Hence why I said Vancouver seems like a very bad place to be in possession of a visible firearm. Even when you have the law on your side you can, and will it seems, be convicted.

I read the 100+ post thread ... I don't think he had an actual "appeal" lost; maybe a motion to reconsider.

They stopped posting to the thread so maybe they never actually filed an appeal.

 

[FrayedString]

I read the 100+ post thread ... I don't think he had an actual "appeal" lost; maybe a motion to reconsider.

They stopped posting to the thread so maybe they never actually filed an appeal.

There is a post in the thread that states that they did file an appeal, but the appeals court denied to hear the case.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-me-a-ticket&p=1825112&viewfull=1#post1825112

 

[Freedom1Man]

There is a post in the thread that states that they did file an appeal, but the appeals court denied to hear the case.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-me-a-ticket&p=1825112&viewfull=1#post1825112

So the courts are that corrupt.

 

[davidmcbeth]

There is a post in the thread that states that they did file an appeal, but the appeals court denied to hear the case.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-me-a-ticket&p=1825112&viewfull=1#post1825112

I read the thread and it looks like at the end that they were in the process of deciding to file an appeal....I think that the OP there, who seems to have no grasp of the legal process, confused a motion to reconsider and an appeal.

Indeed, I cannot find any appeal filed in the court case lookup web page.

 

[OC Freedom]

Whats happening with Mack Worley, is he appealing this guilty verdict, or has he moved on?

I am starting to wonder about Washington state, it seems that the State is at war with open carriers. This injustice Freedom1man is going through doesn't help matters any.

I went to Kennewick on Monday to renew my CPL since its closest to Boise and due to all this crap going on in Washington I didn't open carry while in Kennewick. Washington needs something in Law or a court case clearly defining that open carry is legal before I open carry in Washington again. Am I chicken, YES, I know what happens behind closed doors in LE and the court system to know not to take to high of a risk doing something that is perceived to be lawful. I'll keep on open carrying in Idaho for this issue has been clearly defined as lawful activity. Gold star states only for me now on.

 

[rapgood]

As noted previously, Mac lost at trial. No surprise there. However, today his trial attorney (my colleague who stepped in to handle the case when I was nursing my dying wife) and I argued a motion to vacate the verdict and dismiss the case based upon insufficient evidence to convict. The court listened carefully to arguments from us and from the City and, noting that he believed that the jury gave a verdict based upon emotion, and not the evidence, vacated the conviction and remanded to the lower court with instructions to dismiss. The court noted that in the entire time he has been on the bench, he has considered 10 motions to vacate and dismiss based upon insufficiency of evidence (including this one), and has ruled 9 times that there was sufficient evidence to convict.

Mac, who was not there because he has moved to Kentucky, was elated by the news. The City now has 30 days in which to consider appealing the decision. City attorneys, being on limited budgets, pick carefully the cases upon which they spend their money. I will be surprised if they decide to appeal.

 

[golddigger14s]

Thanks for the update. Also it was great to meet you in person at the camp out. "Get-r-Done!"