Patriot Picket Civil Rights Suit FILED!

delaware_export · Mar 19, 2023

Just a question on this case.

is this going to decide the case on the events of the day?

or, as noted in the schedule up a few posts, merely determine if the case should have / be dismissed due to qualified immunity? and only that part?

Mightydog · Mar 19, 2023

Rereading this thread made me join, donate and donate to the litigation fund. Great people doing great things to defend our rights. Man I miss Jeff. It’s been a long road and if I can I’ll be there for the finale. Good work guys!

Deep Lurker · Mar 21, 2023

owldo said:
Salute !

Mightydog said:
Rereading this thread made me join, donate and donate to the litigation fund. Great people doing great things to defend our rights. Man I miss Jeff. It’s been a long road and if I can I’ll be there for the finale. Good work guys!

delaware_export said:
Just a question on this case.

is this going to decide the case on the events of the day?

or, as noted in the schedule up a few posts, merely determine if the case should have / be dismissed due to qualified immunity? and only that part?

Thanks to all for your interest, your generous MSI litigation financial support and remembrance of Jeff, and your question about what will be decided as a result of the oral argument on May 3rd.

Briefly, what will be only ruled upon are limited issues identified by the pending interlocutory appeal:

“An interlocutory appeal, also known as an interim appeal, is one that is permitted at an intermediate stage of a case, either before a trial is commenced or a final resolution is reached. Interlocutory appeals are allowed by the Federal Rules of civil procedure only in specific circumstances, such as in this case, when there has been a denial of qualified immunity in the Court below.”

The MD Attorney General’s Office (representing Sgt. Pope) is appealing legal rulings made by the judge in the District Court.

The MD OAG is arguing these District Court rulings constitute error, and Sgt. Pope 1.) is shielded from suit by qualified immunity, and 2.) there wasn’t a “clearly established” First Amendment right to video and audio record Pope and the other MCP and Annapolis City PD officers before and/or during the arrest.

(The second issue of what constitutes a “clearly established right” is peculiar to the doctrine of qualified immunity.)

Thus the Fourth Circuit has framed the “questions” to be addressed at this oral argument as follows:

“Whether district court erroneously denied qualified immunity for arrests outside state legislature; whether First Amendment right to record the police was clearly established.”

The other claims made in our lawsuit arising from our arrest will not be litigated unless and until there is a civil trial in the District court.

Pope’s appeal brief is here:

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=296&catid=4&m=0

We filed a motion to dismiss Pope’s appeal, here:

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=302&catid=4&m=0

We also filed a response brief to Pope’s appeal, here:

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=314&catid=4&m=0

To read all the filings made to the Fourth Circuit for this appeal, go to the bottom of our MSI legal page here:

Hulbert v. Pope

ACASE SUMMARY: This Federal (“Section 1983”) civil rights lawsuit filed in February of 2018 against Maryland Capitol Police Sgt. Brian T. Pope for violating the civil rights of MSI members Jeff and Kevin Hulbert during a lawful, peaceful public political demonstration near the Maryland...

www.marylandshallissue.org

delaware_export · Mar 21, 2023

DL, thanks for the clarification ! Us people that are not lawyers find explanation of such things helpful

Deep Lurker said:
Thanks to all for your interest, your generous MSI litigation financial support and remembrance of Jeff, and your question about what will be decided as a result of the oral argument on May 3rd.

Briefly, what will be only ruled upon are limited issues identified by the pending interlocutory appeal:

“An interlocutory appeal, also known as an interim appeal, is one that is permitted at an intermediate stage of a case, either before a trial is commenced or a final resolution is reached. Interlocutory appeals are allowed by the Federal Rules of civil procedure only in specific circumstances, such as in this case, when there has been a denial of qualified immunity in the Court below.”

The MD Attorney General’s Office (representing Sgt. Pope) is appealing legal rulings made by the judge in the District Court.

The MD OAG is arguing these District Court rulings constitute error, and Sgt. Pope 1.) is shielded from suit by qualified immunity, and 2.) there wasn’t a “clearly established” First Amendment right to video and audio record Pope and the other MCP and Annapolis City PD officers before and/or during the arrest.

(The second issue of what constitutes a “clearly established right” is peculiar to the doctrine of qualified immunity.)

Thus the Fourth Circuit has framed the “questions” to be addressed at this oral argument as follows:

“Whether district court erroneously denied qualified immunity for arrests outside state legislature; whether First Amendment right to record the police was clearly established.”

The other claims made in our lawsuit arising from our arrest will not be litigated unless and until there is a civil trial in the District court.

Pope’s appeal brief is here:

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=296&catid=4&m=0

We filed a motion to dismiss Pope’s appeal, here:

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=302&catid=4&m=0

We also filed a response brief to Pope’s appeal, here:

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=314&catid=4&m=0

To read all the filings made to the Fourth Circuit for this appeal, go to the bottom of our MSI legal page here:

Hulbert v. Pope

ACASE SUMMARY: This Federal (“Section 1983”) civil rights lawsuit filed in February of 2018 against Maryland Capitol Police Sgt. Brian T. Pope for violating the civil rights of MSI members Jeff and Kevin Hulbert during a lawful, peaceful public political demonstration near the Maryland...

www.marylandshallissue.org

Deep Lurker · Apr 20, 2023

I have received two notices of recent docket activity in our lawsuit, currently pending on appeal to the Fourth Circuit.

1.) Sgt. Pope’s attorney sent a “letter of supplemental authority” yesterday to the Clerk of the Court to bring to the Court’s attention a ruling handed down last month by the Fourth Circuit; the State regards this ruling as persuasive in our case:

It is significant to note that the MD AG explicitly asserts in the letter above that the Courts “create rights.”

Also note that both Frosh and now Brown, while serving as MD AG, have strenuously argued against the exercise of your First Amendment rights in Maryland, as the court record in our own case continues to demonstrate.

2.) Our oral argument is still scheduled for early next month on Wednesday, 3 May 2023, but the Clerk has notified us that the start time for our argument session has been moved up 30 minutes, and will now commence at 9:00 AM.

If you are attending the oral argument in person, the recommended check-in time at the Courthouse to pass through the airport-level security with your state-issued photo ID has also been moved up, to 8:15 - 8:30 AM; no phones are allowed in the Courthouse.

jc1240 · Apr 20, 2023

Am I reading that correctly that the because the person filming was the person being arrested, that there is no right to film/record? Is that exactly what happened with the motorcyclist many years ago (on the BW Parkway I think) when the cop argued the guy recorded him without permission and the cop's argument was tossed?

Deep Lurker · Apr 20, 2023

jc1240 said:
Am I reading that correctly that the because the person filming was the person being arrested, that there is no right to film/record? Is that exactly what happened with the motorcyclist many years ago (on the BW Parkway I think) when the cop argued the guy recorded him without permission and the cop's argument was tossed?

This is where the MD AG is comically wrong, as usual, and is apparently intentionally introducing error into our court record: Sharpe in the Winterville case was NOT arrested, nor was he “recording and broadcasting” as the MD AG’s letter above asserts.

Sharpe instead was only prevented from livestreaming after the Winterville Police attempted to grab his phone during a traffic stop, and never arrested.

Sharpe was livestreaming on FB, which is a different technology than video “recording and broadcasting” - - which is what I did with my own camera phone: video recording.

I never live-streamed during the 2/5/18 arrest, but an edited version of my video recording was broadcast on YouTube in the hours after our arrest:

Here is more about the Sharpe v. Winterville PD case before the appeal to the Fourth Circuit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/11/29/livestreaming-police-traffic-stop/

Article describing the Fourth Circuit ruling:

Yes, you have a First Amendment right to livestream cops

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit confirmed that you are well within your First Amendment rights to livestream video of police officers in action.

reason.com

Bob A · Apr 20, 2023

jc1240 said:
Am I reading that correctly that the because the person filming was the person being arrested, that there is no right to film/record? Is that exactly what happened with the motorcyclist many years ago (on the BW Parkway I think) when the cop argued the guy recorded him without permission and the cop's argument was tossed?

Actually, this encounter was being filmed by one of the two brothers arrested, as well as others on the PP group.

Pope's lawyers are grasping at straws, hoping to influence a sympathetic judge.

As for civil rights in Maryland, they're doled out to the favored, and suppressed for the rest, to the fullest extent of the MD AG's office. Best not to get uppity with The Man unless he owes you for campaign contributions or the like.

It's a pity that the former Lt Gov Rutherofrd isn't being sued; he was the one who didn't want to be troubled by peasants seeking redress of grievances. As you know, turds roll downhill, and that's what knocked Sgt Pope under the bus. Lt Gov turds ain't nothing to play with; they be some potent sh!t.

teratos · Apr 20, 2023

Filming in public in general, and filming the police specifically has been upheld by several circuits. Should be fun!

44 Bulldog · Apr 21, 2023

You brothers will get paid and the case thrown out

fabsroman · Apr 21, 2023

jc1240 said:
Am I reading that correctly that the because the person filming was the person being arrested, that there is no right to film/record? Is that exactly what happened with the motorcyclist many years ago (on the BW Parkway I think) when the cop argued the guy recorded him without permission and the cop's argument was tossed?

You are not reading that correctly.

What the attorney is saying is that there was no clearly established precedent regarding a subject of an arrest recording the incident, so Pope would not have known that he was violating anybody's First Amendment Right, and therefore Pope is entitled to Qualified Immunity.

Thing is, Pope wasn't arresting either of the brothers for filming, but for not following an order to move off the sidewalk. The Plaintiffs in this case shouldn't have a hard time distinguishing the case cited in the letter from the current case before the court. Two completely different things.

jc1240 · Apr 21, 2023

Ah, thanks. Well, for "not knowing he was violating someone's rights", I would offer to Sgt. Pope "ignorance of the law is not an excuse."

Bob A · Apr 21, 2023

fabsroman said:
You are not reading that correctly.

What the attorney is saying is that there was no clearly established precedent regarding a subject of an arrest recording the incident, so Pope would not have known that he was violating anybody's First Amendment Right, and therefore Pope is entitled to Qualified Immunity.

Thing is, Pope wasn't arresting either of the brothers for filming, but for not following an order to move off the sidewalk. The Plaintiffs in this case shouldn't have a hard time distinguishing the case cited in the letter from the current case before the court. Two completely different things.

I suspect that Pope's lawyers are not so stupid as to miss the essence of the situation; they're really tossing legal chum to give the court something to chew on in Pope's favor, if it is so inclined.

BeoBill · Apr 21, 2023

Bob A said:
I suspect that Pope's lawyers are not so stupid as to miss the essence of the situation; they're really tossing legal chum to give the court something to chew on in Pope's favor, if it is so inclined.

I agree. Distraction is the stock in trade for Liberals. Remember "LOOK! A BABY!"?

GTOGUNNER · Apr 21, 2023

fabsroman said:
You are not reading that correctly.

What the attorney is saying is that there was no clearly established precedent regarding a subject of an arrest recording the incident, so Pope would not have known that he was violating anybody's First Amendment Right, and therefore Pope is entitled to Qualified Immunity.

Thing is, Pope wasn't arresting either of the brothers for filming, but for not following an order to move off the sidewalk. The Plaintiffs in this case shouldn't have a hard time distinguishing the case cited in the letter from the current case before the court. Two completely different things.

Exactly. I have said this over and over.

GTOGUNNER · Apr 21, 2023

Cary Hansel has something to say about his as well

Deep Lurker · Apr 21, 2023

GTOGUNNER said:
Cary Hansel has something to say about this as well

Thanks GTOGUNNER!

Posting images here from your PDF of the 2-page reply by Hulbert/MSI counsel Cary Hansel to Pope’s letter of supplemental authority, which directs the Court’s attention to the Sharpe v. Winterville PD livestreaming case.

Our lawsuit against Pope is the “present case” Cary referred to in his reply below:

teratos · Apr 21, 2023

Deep Lurker said:
Thanks GTOGUNNER!

Posting images here from your PDF of the 2-page reply by Hulbert/MSI counsel Cary Hansel to Pope’s letter of supplemental authority, which directs the Court’s attention to the Sharpe v. Winterville PD livestreaming case.

Our lawsuit against Pope is the “present case” Cary referred to in his reply below:

View attachment 410637 View attachment 410638

I hope Pope puckers up in the end.

Allen65 · Apr 22, 2023

teratos said:
I hope Pope puckers up in the end.

I hope Pope turns around and sues those who directed him.

Bob A · Apr 22, 2023

Allen65 said:
I hope Pope turns around and sues those who directed him.

Perhaps the Hulberts will be inclined to follow this up the chain of command.

Patriot Picket Civil Rights Suit FILED!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

My hair is amazing

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Crank in the Third Row

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

Attachments

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics