Vegas Library Lawsuit Thread

[njkennelly]

It was mentioned a couple times, in the novel above, the the librarian was just doing what she was told by her superiors. What she was told to do was to break the law. Being ignorant of that fact is not an excuse. The librarian should be held liable (along with everyone else in the library chain of command).

 

[garand_guy]

Minor update

 

[davidmcbeth]

Minor update

The agenda item "litigation and labor issues" is not sufficient to apprise the public for the reason for an executive session.

If they go into executive session based on this agenda item, then it should be open to the public and also subject to being recorded w/o permission.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Well heres the sad thing, officers are sworn in to support and defend the Constitution, both state and federal, including county workers
and they are taking our tax dollars, as wages.
That means breaking their oath is is commiting a fraud, and that just might be a felony.
These are the chains that bind them to our Constitution, to keep their oath, or suffer for not doing that
which is there sworn duty to we the people !

Cops don't take oaths .. they only make non-binding promises. You violate and oath and you lose your freedom ~ violate a promise and you might get fired at worse.

I wish people would stop complaining about fake oaths ....

 

[garand_guy]

The agenda item "litigation and labor issues" is not sufficient to apprise the public for the reason for an executive session.

If they go into executive session based on this agenda item, then it should be open to the public and also subject to being recorded w/o permission.

I don't see why the government gets attorney-client privilege in civil matters. Prosecution before trial, sure, until discovery, but so these folks can cover up their shenanigans? I don't think so. Even so, I have a plan. Stay tuned for the long game.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I don't see why the government gets attorney-client privilege in civil matters. Prosecution before trial, sure, until discovery, but so these folks can cover up their shenanigans? I don't think so. Even so, I have a plan. Stay tuned for the long game.

Agencies have attny-client privilege like any other person, you should not get offended by it.

Its not unlimited, like all privileges - learn the rules of the game. I've cut through that attny-client privilege when it was just being claimed and not really in effect.

Perhaps they want to discuss a settlement offer - this should be done behind closed doors (at least the details -- with final decisions in public).

I do take issue with their agenda items being listed -- I have no idea what they want to discuss in their executive session.

 

[garand_guy]

Agencies have attny-client privilege like any other person, you should not get offended by it.

Its not unlimited, like all privileges - learn the rules of the game. I've cut through that attny-client privilege when it was just being claimed and not really in effect.

My issue with privilege is the potential for abuse. I've been denied documents before which would probably outline the fact something was illegal, but was done anyway, but for privilege being claimed. The government shouldn't get to hide anything it does, except for personnel matters. Look at how hard they are fighting Bundy; different set of circumstances, but the government uses secrecy to its benefit and the public's detriment.

And yes, I've figured out where the wiggle room lies.

 

[garand_guy]

Peruta v. Gore, Part I: Open Carry is Constitutionally Protected

My take on whole thing, at least for the benefits to open carry. This plays right into our hands when it comes to the library thing.

 

[Vegassteve]

Peruta v. Gore, Part I: Open Carry is Constitutionally Protected

My take on whole thing, at least for the benefits to open carry. This plays right into our hands when it comes to the library thing.

I get it, but this shouldnt have to play into anything. The state leg made it very clear for us. It is sad that it has had to come to this. I am more than a little disappointed that it seems we have had zero help from the legislators who got preemption passed, sure I saw Shelly Shelton at the one library meeting we went to. They should have been on the phone and in faces of these library folks demanding they follow the law long ago. On the other hand I am not surprised the nvfac has had zero interest in helping as well.

 

[MAC702]

... I am not surprised the nvfac has had zero interest in helping ...

Are they still around?

 

[Felid`Maximus]

I get it, but this shouldnt have to play into anything. The state leg made it very clear for us. It is sad that it has had to come to this. I am more than a little disappointed that it seems we have had zero help from the legislators who got preemption passed, sure I saw Shelly Shelton at the one library meeting we went to. They should have been on the phone and in faces of these library folks demanding they follow the law long ago. On the other hand I am not surprised the nvfac has had zero interest in helping as well.

While our preemption law should be clear, and while it has now been strengthened a bit with the monetary damages clause, the government will not learn from it.

Eventually the courts might order counties or government entities have to pay out damages, but the people at the helm do not care if they have to use taxpayer money to pay for pushing their anti-gun agendas. It is not their personal money being wasted afterall, but public money.

The only way to give a preemption law any teeth is for the individuals who violate preemption laws to face personal consequences. The individuals who violate preemption should have to face direct consequences. In Florida, criminal penalties apply. So an officer or other local government official in Florida violating preemption laws can face a criminal penalty. Now that is a law that actually has some teeth.

 

[garand_guy]

The only way to give a preemption law any teeth is for the individuals who violate preemption laws to face personal consequences. The individuals who violate preemption should have to face direct consequences. In Florida, criminal penalties apply. So an officer or other local government official in Florida violating preemption laws can face a criminal penalty. Now that is a law that actually has some teeth.

Yeah, that would solve the problem, but I think there is too much cronyism in Nevada for that to succeed. I have pretty good (legal and ethical) plan to humiliate them in the end. I will need help with it though.

Arizona added this:

J. If a court determines that a person has knowingly and wilfully violated this section while acting in the person's official capacity through enactment of any ordinance, regulation, tax, measure, directive, rule, enactment, order or policy, the person may be subject to termination from employment to the extent allowable under state law.

Should have added forfeiture of office for elected or appointed officials.

 

[SW40VE-OC]

I have a candidate for some of your "plan to humiliate" up here, up north. I look forward to your efforts, and hope I will be able to help. Then if your efforts are noticed, more people will become involved.

Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk

 

[garand_guy]

I have a candidate for some of your "plan to humiliate" up here, up north. I look forward to your efforts, and hope I will be able to help. Then if your efforts are noticed, more people will become involved.

I think we have different ideas, but I'd love to hear yours. Mine involves accountability for these people and their actions. I'll shine daylight where it needs to be shined. But like I said, it's gonna take a while before it's ready. The wheels of justice may turn slowly, but they do turn.

 

[garand_guy]

It's in the RJ now:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/las-vegas-clark-county-library-district-faces-lawsuit-after-banning-gun-carrying

Trustee and and Democratic assembly candidate Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod said:

“I think it’s going to be something we’re going to have to take up in the Legislature to make that distinction (regarding where libraries fall when it comes to open carry)... I think it was a complete oversight.”

 

[MAC702]

Saying that the Legislature needs to look at it is an admission that what the library and cops did was currently illegal.

 

[Vegassteve]

Updates on todays court proceedings?

 

[garand_guy]

Updates on todays court proceedings?

http://news3lv.com/news/local/library-vs-gun-toting-mom-judge-rules-in-case-amid-a-divided-courtroom

Basically, library lied about what happened. She was never asked to leave, from what she states. Judge did not look at the legal issues behind the matter (which isn't unusual). Using the Michigan Open Carry vs. CADL as an example, this case will likely be won on appeal.

 

[mp06011999]

That's disgusting. I just read the docs in the link and it even says clearly that the Library has no authority to make ANY rules pertaining to open carry. And yet the article is still written as if though something more needs to be decided at the next session. Uh, no, it already was. What BS! And of course the library used the "sit-in" story to win.

I just got back onboard with this story because I became curious about open carry at the cop shop. Doesn't look likely... Once again, might is right.