If anyone doesn’t know what the constitution and amendments are about the sure as hell shouldn’t be a police officer. The ruling protects split second decisions of loe then explains that Private Pipe had and hour to decide what to do.
Patriot Picket Civil Rights Suit FILED!
- Thread starter Rack&Roll
- Start date
-
- Tags
- comeuppance recompense
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
interesting fact.
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
Yesterday our legal counsel Cary Hansel filed our petition for a rehearing/rehearing en banc of the Fourth Circuit’s panel decision dismissing our false arrest lawsuit earlier this month.
I’m grateful to be able to report that the fight to restore and preserve our Constitutional rights in Maryland CONTINUES.
I want to thank everyone here on MDS and at Maryland Shall Issue who participated in the events and decisions that produced this lawsuit, who courageously rallied to our side both that fateful night as well as those who faced arrest themselves when they joined us in the hundreds to demonstrate in front of the Statehouse the following week, or who supported us here online, who joined or donated legal defense funds to MSI.
Thank you as well to all who have taken the time to read, understand and thoughtfully comment here on some or all of the filings in this case, dating back five years and a half years now to the day our suit was filed.
I am so grateful to Cary Hansel and his associates at Hansel Law for the investment of hundreds of hours of legal research, for the hundreds of pages of depositions taken and hundreds of pages of legal filings submitted in their Herculean legal persistence on behalf of my late brother Jeff, myself and our co-plaintiff MSI and its members, to vindicate all our Constitutional rights.
I’m grateful to be able to report that the fight to restore and preserve our Constitutional rights in Maryland CONTINUES.
I want to thank everyone here on MDS and at Maryland Shall Issue who participated in the events and decisions that produced this lawsuit, who courageously rallied to our side both that fateful night as well as those who faced arrest themselves when they joined us in the hundreds to demonstrate in front of the Statehouse the following week, or who supported us here online, who joined or donated legal defense funds to MSI.
Thank you as well to all who have taken the time to read, understand and thoughtfully comment here on some or all of the filings in this case, dating back five years and a half years now to the day our suit was filed.
I am so grateful to Cary Hansel and his associates at Hansel Law for the investment of hundreds of hours of legal research, for the hundreds of pages of depositions taken and hundreds of pages of legal filings submitted in their Herculean legal persistence on behalf of my late brother Jeff, myself and our co-plaintiff MSI and its members, to vindicate all our Constitutional rights.
We are here for you, DL. Much Like Jeff, We will not Comply
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,925
6th Circuit decision on Qualified Immunity: mixed bag. QI protected elevator inspector regarding the Takings clause (not a good thing for our bump stocks) but denied QI protection from a civil suit.
Not applicable to MD 4th Circuit, but at least the courts are starting to poke a few holes in it.
I'd really like Rutherford to get slammed for his part in initiating the fiasco. By that time, most of the principals will have passed on, I suppose.
reason.com
Not applicable to MD 4th Circuit, but at least the courts are starting to poke a few holes in it.
I'd really like Rutherford to get slammed for his part in initiating the fiasco. By that time, most of the principals will have passed on, I suppose.
Qualified Immunity Meets the Takings Clause
A Sixth Circuit decision holds qualified immunity protects a state elevator inspector from being sued for taking a hotel's property.
reason.com
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
Thank you; this has been a stressful 2 months, especially given these recent legal developments closely coincide with anniversaries of events in Jeff’s life and passing.
Oral argument in our suit was heard on May 3rd, the exact day of Jeff’s passing in 2021; the anniversary of Jeff’s church memorial service was this past Monday, and then yesterday - - the same day our en banc petition was filed - - was also the anniversary of a very memorable Bill of Rights adventure 13 years ago.
In 2010 Jeff and I camped out” overnight on the sidewalk in front of the US Supreme Court so we could obtain two much-coveted tickets to sit in the Courtroom to witness Second Amendment history when the landmark “McDonald v. Chicago” decision was handed down on June 28, 2010:
We happily posed with our numbered Courtroom seat assignments and then changed out of our “camping” T-shirts into dress shirts and ties before the Court session convened:
We enjoyed meeting and talking with (and later congratulating) lead plaintiff Otis McDonald, SAF lead counsel Alan Gura, VP Alan Gottlieb of SAF, and our friend Dick Heller both before and after the Court convened to announce the decision:
Jeff, and all us us, deserve Constitutional justice for having illegal interference inflicted on us (and our rights) by the agents of government, during our lawful, responsible and peaceful demonstration on a public sidewalk at the seat of the legislature.
The US Supreme Court has ruled the public sidewalk is a public forum, political speech is the speech most deserving of First Amendment protection, and political speech delivered at the seat of the legislature is the highest expression of this sacred right.
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
6th Circuit decision on Qualified Immunity: mixed bag. QI protected elevator inspector regarding the Takings clause (not a good thing for our bump stocks) but denied QI protection from a civil suit.
Not applicable to MD 4th Circuit, but at least the courts are starting to poke a few holes in it.
I'd really like Rutherford to get slammed for his part in initiating the fiasco. By that time, most of the principals will have passed on, I suppose.
Qualified Immunity Meets the Takings Clause
A Sixth Circuit decision holds qualified immunity protects a state elevator inspector from being sued for taking a hotel's property.
Thank you Bob. Our brief, submitted with our petition for en banc hearing, includes a reference to this new scholarship:
“Qualified Immunity’s Flawed Foundation”
Qualified Immunity’s Flawed Foundation — California Law Review
Qualified immunity has faced trenchant criticism for decades, but recent events have renewed focus on this powerful defense to liability for constitutional violations. This Article takes aim at the roots of the doctrine—fundamental errors that have never been excavated. First, this Article demonstra
www.californialawreview.org
Suddenly has gotten misty in here looking at those photos and remembering Jeff. We’re here for all of you! Keep up the fight! Looks like another donation to MSI is coming.
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
Many thanks, we were also privileged early that spring to witness the oral argument in “McDonald” by lining up on March 2, 2010 to get a seat in the Courtroom:
Good times.
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
Archiving for historical reference here the Fourth Circuit’s published 3-judge panel ruling on the State’s interlocutory appeal in our lawsuit, argued on 3 May 2023, and handed down on 14 June 2023:
We filed a petition for rehearing en banc on June 28, 2023:
The Fourth Circuit immediately issued a stay of the panel decision pending a poll of the judges of the court on our petition for rehearing en banc:
We filed a petition for rehearing en banc on June 28, 2023:
The Fourth Circuit immediately issued a stay of the panel decision pending a poll of the judges of the court on our petition for rehearing en banc:
Last edited:
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
This morning the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied our en banc petition:
Bertfish
Throw bread on me
I guess its appeal to SCOTUS or stop
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
“A petition for rehearing en banc is distributed to all active judges of the court, to senior judges of the court who request distribution, and to any senior or visiting judge who may have heard and decided the appeal. Loc. R. 35(a).”
”Unless a judge requests that a poll be taken on the petition for rehearing en banc none will be taken. Fed. R. App. P. 35(f).
A poll on whether to rehear a case en banc may be requested, with or without a petition, by an active judge of the court or by a senior or visiting judge who sat on the panel that decided the case originally.
If no poll is requested, the panel's order on a petition for rehearing will bear the notation that no member of the court requested a poll. Loc. R. 35(b).
If a poll is requested and hearing or rehearing en banc is denied, the order will reflect the vote of each participating judge. Loc. R. 35(b).
If the court votes to grant a hearing or rehearing en banc, the order will simply recite that a majority of the judges in regular active service voted to grant hearing or rehearing en banc, but will not reflect the vote of each judge.”
”Unless a judge requests that a poll be taken on the petition for rehearing en banc none will be taken. Fed. R. App. P. 35(f).
A poll on whether to rehear a case en banc may be requested, with or without a petition, by an active judge of the court or by a senior or visiting judge who sat on the panel that decided the case originally.
If no poll is requested, the panel's order on a petition for rehearing will bear the notation that no member of the court requested a poll. Loc. R. 35(b).
If a poll is requested and hearing or rehearing en banc is denied, the order will reflect the vote of each participating judge. Loc. R. 35(b).
If the court votes to grant a hearing or rehearing en banc, the order will simply recite that a majority of the judges in regular active service voted to grant hearing or rehearing en banc, but will not reflect the vote of each judge.”
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
Correct.
Just renewed my MSI membership a little early, with an additional donation to help with litigation expenses.
I wonder how the 4CA panel would have ruled if the exercise of 1A in question wasn't related to support of 2A rights?
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
Thank you for your longstanding generosity and support, and especially for your personal participation in past years demonstrating peacefully and lawfully with Patriot Picket for our 2A rights in Annapolis and elsewhere in MD, as we always have.
Over the past few days, since the denial of our en banc petition last week, I spoke briefly with the Mark Pennak, President of MSI and also was in email contact with our lawsuit counsel Cary Hansel of Hansel Law.
Cary was occupied at trial all last week, so we will have to wait for an opportunity (hopefully this coming week) to discuss the way forward in this suit.
Last edited:
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
This 4th Circus ruling in our lawsuit remains Constitutionally bizarre and contradictory; likewise the actions of the MD politicians and the MD cops who conspired to have us moved, in violation of our Constitutional free speech and assembly rights, and then arrested us when we refused.
Note there were never any public/citizen complaints about any of our lawful and peaceful Patriot Picket demonstrations in Annapolis since 2016.
MD elected officials and MD cops were the only “actors” responsible our harassment, infringement and arrest.
These two classes of entitled persons in Annapolis had actually raised their right hand and literally sworn an oath to protect and defend our Constitutional rights, and then actively cooperated to infringe them.
From the first phone call from the MARYLAND STATE POLICE to the MARYLAND CAPITOL POLICE complaining about us, to the last ratcheting of the handcuffs being removed from our wrists (when Maryland Capitol Police finally released Jeff and I from custody at the Annapolis City Police precinct) IT WAS ALL COPS AND POLITICIANS WHO VIOLATED OUR RIGHTS, and controlled the outcome.
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
As with me, you might be shocked to learn what this latest appellate panel decision means for your Constitutional rights in Annapolis going forward.
IANAL, but you haven’t read this 4th Circuit panel decision, this is my takeaway.
To begin with, the Constitutional rights clock in Annapolis has been turned BACKWARDS.
This decision:
- exonerates all actions of Maryland Capitol Police on 2/5/18
- RESETS MCP powers to the time BEFORE our arrest
- empowers police to resume total control of the public sidewalks near the Capitol
- empowers police to prevent all free speech/free assembly on the public sidewalks
- empowers police to order you to move/leave the public sidewalks FOR ANY REASON
- explicitly associates our lawful Patriot Picket 1A activity with armed mob violence
- compared our lawful Patriot Picket demonstration to the J6 insurrection
- exhorts police to act more aggressively in the future to limit 1A activity near the Capitol
- grants police the excuse of “public safety” to justify any police action
- dismissal of our case is now a PUBLISHED ruling of the 4th Circuit
- as a PUBLISHED ruling it will be cited by police to justify First Amendment repression
And that’s not all:
According to the 4th Circuit the public STILL has “NO ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT” to record police in the public performance of their duties.
This 4th Circuit literally mocks your Constitutional right to record police when they snarkily assert in their ruling: there is no right to have a video “close-up.”
IANAL, but you haven’t read this 4th Circuit panel decision, this is my takeaway.
To begin with, the Constitutional rights clock in Annapolis has been turned BACKWARDS.
This decision:
- exonerates all actions of Maryland Capitol Police on 2/5/18
- RESETS MCP powers to the time BEFORE our arrest
- empowers police to resume total control of the public sidewalks near the Capitol
- empowers police to prevent all free speech/free assembly on the public sidewalks
- empowers police to order you to move/leave the public sidewalks FOR ANY REASON
- explicitly associates our lawful Patriot Picket 1A activity with armed mob violence
- compared our lawful Patriot Picket demonstration to the J6 insurrection
- exhorts police to act more aggressively in the future to limit 1A activity near the Capitol
- grants police the excuse of “public safety” to justify any police action
- dismissal of our case is now a PUBLISHED ruling of the 4th Circuit
- as a PUBLISHED ruling it will be cited by police to justify First Amendment repression
And that’s not all:
According to the 4th Circuit the public STILL has “NO ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT” to record police in the public performance of their duties.
This 4th Circuit literally mocks your Constitutional right to record police when they snarkily assert in their ruling: there is no right to have a video “close-up.”
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
Clearance Liqui Moly Motorbike 4T SAE 15W-50 Street | Full Synthetic Motor Oil | 4 Liter (8 Viewers)- Latest: MaxVO2
-
-
-
-
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Clearance Liqui Moly Motorbike 4T SAE 15W-50 Street | Full Synthetic Motor Oil | 4 Liter (8 Viewers)- Started by mpollan1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
-
-