Patriot Picket Civil Rights Suit FILED!

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!
  • Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,845
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    I love how their “motion to dismiss”. Admits that Pope directed them to move and conduct their “demonstration” in Lawyers Mall knowing full well that a permit was needed. Then additional charges for not LEAVING Lawyers Mall. A location that video tape clearly shows they were not on! Typical Frosh sh!t!




    And the videotape clearly shows several others to continue on the sidewalk with signs while Jeff and Kevin were being arrested, lol.


    If this actually goes to a trial I can't wait to be in the court room when the video is played.....
     

    Adolph Oliver Bush

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 13, 2015
    1,940
    And the videotape clearly shows several others to continue on the sidewalk with signs while Jeff and Kevin were being arrested, lol.


    If this actually goes to a trial I can't wait to be in the court room when the video is played.....

    Me either.
     

    Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,679
    Prince Frederick, MD
    I was there. Discovery and witness statements will be interesting. Interesting that when Pope was making the arrest he grabbed the signs exhibiting a fit of anger. Clearly he was enraged.
     

    jbrown50

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 18, 2014
    3,470
    DC
    I was there. Discovery and witness statements will be interesting. Interesting that when Pope was making the arrest he grabbed the signs exhibiting a fit of anger. Clearly he was enraged.

    Being pro2A, black and from DC and a DC resident I experience more than my share of stubborn democratic puppets like Pope. The only thing they understand are lawsuits and subtraction of money and power.
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,012
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    Jeff's second citation says he refused to leave Lawyer's Mall. He was never on Lawyer's Mall. :rolleyes:

    I love how their “motion to dismiss”. Admits that Pope directed them to move and conduct their “demonstration” in Lawyers Mall knowing full well that a permit was needed. Then additional charges for not LEAVING Lawyers Mall. A location that video tape clearly shows they were not on! Typical Frosh sh!t!

    Would this then constitute Perjury? Asking for a friend. :shrug:
     

    JohnnyE

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 18, 2013
    9,396
    MoCo
    So,,,Seems that Brian Frosh and company asked for the case to be dismissed. (not unusual at this stage, I don't think but then again IANAL) without reading the entire 33 pages.. well 22 pages.
    Seems that they are going the Qualified immunity route.. I don't think that will get them very far and since I didn't read the entire brief I'll leave it alone. I mean the First Amendment has been around for a while.

    2 more documents exist, however I don't think they need to be posted, it's just BS procedural stuff.

    * NOTE I had to mess with the document as it was too large for MDS standards in the original format it should be complete.

    Seeking immunity for perpetrating unconstitutional acts?! Oh boy, what a misguided thought. :lol2:
     

    JohnnyE

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 18, 2013
    9,396
    MoCo
    Here is the state's MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS, except this has been OCR'd for searching, copying and pasting.
     

    Attachments

    • Memo in support of motion to dismiss 2018-04-09.pdf
      3.4 MB · Views: 348

    Mightydog

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    So it states that Jeff was “the sole sign holder that chose to stay behind in civil disobedience”, and that Kevin was “at the same location videotaping the scene”. So it’s illegal to stand on a public sidewalk and videotape your surroundings? Right there they state that Kevin was not demonstrating but videotaping. Seems like they can’t decide what who was doing other than “failure to obey a lawful order”. Frosh wasting my taxpayer money.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,943
    Marylandstan
    This is exactly why we brought this suit in Federal court, because people in the employ of the State of Maryland have created REAL fear that just by being on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK exercising your 1st Amendment right you are risking your career.

    That is the very definition of a civil rights violation.

    Rack:
    :patriot: "We Have a Moral Responsibility to Disobey Unjust Laws In the Same Way We Should Obey Just Laws"

    Thomas Jefferson; "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

    I too made a MSI donation.
     
    Last edited:

    CypherPunk

    Opinions Are My Own
    Apr 6, 2012
    3,907
    Would this then constitute Perjury? Asking for a friend. :shrug:


    Lawyers aren’t under oath. Plus, word weasels typically use qualifying language, ie “I believe”, “it’s my understanding”...
     
    Last edited:

    FrankOceanXray

    Ultimate Member
    Oct 29, 2008
    12,018
    Will these officers be represented by an FOP? Who is picking up the tab? Will they see departmental judgements?
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,587
    Right now they’re being represented by the State.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    So, by us, basically.

    Annoying.

    Kind of like how the Chinese govt makes the families pay for the bullets used to execute those members who have fallen into disfavor.
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    Commented on in last paragraph of page eight in state's motion.

    The State's (aka Frosh's) ruminations aside ...
    Whether the demonstrators had n permit to go into Lawyers· Mall is irrelevant because Officer Pope was clearly giving them permission by his order to go inside the Mall area. From there, the Plaintiffs could continue their demonstration within feet from where they were located previously. and in view of pedestrians and oncoming traffic. Consequently, rhe Plaintiff free speech rights were not violated thus clearing the first prong of entitlement lo qualified immunity enunciated in Wesby.

    Assuming arguendo that the order and arrest violated a constitutional right. the Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity unless the unlawfulness of their actions were clearly established at the Lime. Here, Officer Pope was confronted by a group of demonstrators who were carrying on a demonstration on the sidewalk before the General Assembly Building in front of Lawyers· Mall Officer Pope. as an officer of MCP. is sworn to enforce COMAR 04.05.OJ .02 as well as COMAR 04.05.03. regarding the proper use of sidewalks on DGS owned property
    INAL but, do the COMAR regs noted give Sgt. Pope authority to relax the requirement of a permit for the use of Lawyers Mall ? And, in the arrest video Sgt. Pope can be heard telling either Kevin or Jeff to shut up. I'll see if I can find that clip in my archive. Their intent was clearly to stifle free speech, not only for the group that night, but future protests which were becoming a major annoyance and political liability to Miller and company, including Frosh who was also tired of being confronted in Annapolis and other venues.
    (see Frosh "The Ice Cream Social-ist", Frosh Town Hall in Howard County, Spinny Vinny wants to buy the Frosh sign, and others on YouTube - 2A_for_MD.

    The State's motion for dismissal attempts to address the complaint by answering a charge of 1A infringement with an argument meant to counter a clam of false arrest.
     

    Schipperke

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 19, 2013
    18,434
    When the Complaint is carefully read there is no factual allegation that the Plaintiffs and the accompanying demonstrators were deprived of their First Amendment Rights of free speech. The allegations clearly show that Officer Pope had ordered the demonstrators to move back from the sidewalk in front of Lawyers Mall into the Mall area. ln reading paragraphs 27. 28. 29 and 32 together, it is clear that Officer Pope ordered Kevin Hulbert, Jeff Hulbert and those accompanying them to move back into the area of Lawyers' Mall. The physical layout and location of the sidewalk in relation to the Mall as described in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint make clear thai the demonstrators were being ordered to move a distance of a matter of feet. Contrary to the allegation that the police "ordered them away" in paragraph I, it is clear that Officer Pope had first told Kevin Hulbert and later Jeff Hulbert and the other demonstrators with him to move back from the sidewalk into Lawyers' Mall . It is clear from paragraph 32 that all
    the demonstrators heard the order because the other demonstrators. besides the. Hulbert brothers began to move toward Lawyers' mall.

    Quoted is the beginning of paragraph, up until where you began copy of. The very first sentence is very remarkable [my emphasis]. The state does not agree there has been any 1A violation. The state is defending it's officers and itself. Plaintiff's council's turn to knock holes in states motion.
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    Quoted is the beginning of paragraph, up until where you began copy of. The very first sentence is very remarkable [my emphasis]. The state does not agree there has been any 1A violation. The state is defending it's officers and itself. Plaintiff's council's turn to knock holes in states motion.

    I see what you're saying.

    I wonder if counter arguments can be made from transcripts of the raw video footage (both Kevin's and that of Brian Sears) and that of the video the following day ... and whether they can be admitted with point-by-point written arguments. It's pretty clear to me that The State (e.g. Frosh) is parsing words in their request for a dismissal, but when a full transcript is presented, Pope's orders were clear ... get them off of the public sidewalk by any means necessary. If it ever gets to trial, the video as co-council Mark Penak noted, is EVIDENCE ... and I am sure that Frosh wants to avoid having it played before a judge and jury.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,702
    Messages
    7,249,014
    Members
    33,310
    Latest member
    Skarface

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom