PDA

View Full Version : Suing Police: The Myth of Recovering Money


hoffmang
07-26-2009, 2:39 PM
I keep hearing through the grapevine that there are gunowners who think that they'll get some state/county/city/law enforcement agency to misbehave, violate the Constitution, and recover money damages.

I want to quickly and fully dispel this myth as it's dangerous to gunowners' legal and personal welfare.

Let me illustrate with something we all think to be illegal. 12031(e) checks are probably a violation of the Fourth Amendment. First, California State Courts hate gunowners so you can't sue for a violation of your rights there. If you are arrested and charged in the State Courts, you have to either have charges dropped or win your case. Most California criminal court gun cases that would arise out of e.g. an UOC 12031(e) check are not likely winners in the criminal context.

So, let's assume you can end any state criminal case. Only if you're state case was resolved in your favor can you then sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in a Federal Court. Unless you have actual damages (like bail you shouldn't have paid) you will not be able to recover any damages personally against the LEO/LEA/City/County. You might get injunctive relief (e.g. The City and these LEO's can not enforce that code section this way in the future.) However, due to qualified immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity), unless the thing they were doing wrong was clearly established in this Circuit, then they get away scot free the first time.

What is clearly established in this circuit? Well, it has to be a binding decision of the Federal Courts and it has to be very close on the facts to what they did to you. I can tell you, for example, that the unconstitutionality of a 12031(e) check is not clearly established in this Circuit. Also, the Supreme Court changed the qualified immunity analysis for the worse for plaintiffs in Saucier (http://www.federalrights.org/area_folder.2006-05-26.6012943467/scotus-overhauls-qualified-immunity-procedure) last term.

So continuing on the hypothetical, if you do win the injunction (and you might not) then the attorneys will win fees.

Shelly Parker and Dick Heller got $0.00 from Heller. Alan Gura and his other attorneys are still waiting for a payout more than a year after the case. They hope that that case - through 5 years - may end up with a total payout to the lawyers of something north of $1M. However, that is a case that made it all the way to SCOTUS and they won. Most civil rights claims don't get very far. Don Kilmer will be lucky to get $200K for his partial victory in Nordyke assuming he can't get or win cert with SCOTUS. If the Nordykes were to win in SCOTUS they might get some of their lost profits by not running gun shows at the Alameda fair grounds, but that would not be easy and it's not at all clear they'll prevail from here. Mr. Kilmer will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of his time that he could have otherwise given to a paying client.

The bottom line on all of this is that there are two realities of civil rights litigation. First, only a lawyer can make anything on these and if they do it will take them years of very high risk investment. Second, the individual whose rights are violated will usually get $1.00 or $0.00. It's no way to get rich or bankrupt a city or county.

Finally, when you think about wanting to create some sort of civil rights litigation, you need to find a lawyer willing to take a very big risk of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of his time with no guarantee of getting a dime back. There are not a lot of them and they will not take these sorts of cases unless they believe or they are slam dunks. Trust me when I say most of these cases are not slam dunks.

-Gene

M. Sage
07-26-2009, 3:05 PM
Qualified immunity needs to be done away with or modified heavily. It's ridiculous the things they can do without being held accountable for the most idiotic of actions.

hoffmang
07-26-2009, 3:08 PM
Qualified immunity needs to be done away with or modified heavily. It's ridiculous the things they can do without being held accountable for the most idiotic of actions.

The idea is that they're held accountable the second time. It does however suck.

-Gene

WokMaster1
07-26-2009, 3:23 PM
Not interested in the $$$$$$. Just like the idea of holding a lit birthday candle under someone's arzz for 5-10 minutes. "It hurts? Then don't do it again!"

I'm just a naive dreamer.....:p

M. Sage
07-26-2009, 3:35 PM
The idea is that they're held accountable the second time. It does however suck.

-Gene

You realize that this means that Legislature could pass a law "allowing" to search homes at-will without a warrant... and that it would be perfectly valid and legal for the police to do it until the law was successfully challenged? Scary thought.

bsim
07-26-2009, 4:12 PM
[another dreamer]
Are pre-emptive suits possible?

i.e. when legislation gets introduced (let's say the DeLeon bill), is it possible to seek injunctive relief on the potential 2A infringement prior to the bill being enacted as law?

Effectively determining 2A validity prior to enactment, and thus not needing "test cases" after the fact?

[/another dreamer]

anthonyca
07-26-2009, 4:14 PM
From Gene's wikipedia link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
Does this mean that the supreme law of the land is less valuable then state search and seizure laws on the first go around? Could they just keep changing the statute a little each rare time it is challenged?

Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal law that arises in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights. This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate "clearly established law." The defense of qualified immunity was created by the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing a court's inquiry into a defendant's subjective state of mind with an inquiry into the objective reasonableness of the contested action. A government agent's liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with "malice," but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his actions violated clearly established law.

navyinrwanda
07-26-2009, 4:14 PM
Government defendants in any civil rights case immediately file a motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. The question of qualified immunity is resolved before any further proceedings, as the privilege is "an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. at 52.

So "holding a lit birthday candle under someone's arzz..." won't cause any pain, as the candle can't even be lit until after qualified immunity is denied.

hoffmang
07-26-2009, 6:35 PM
So "holding a lit birthday candle under someone's arzz..." won't cause any pain, as the candle can't even be lit until after qualified immunity is denied.
Which is why you sue for injunctive relief from the organization that employs the individuals as well. However, that keeps you well away from money damages.

MSage: The new law from the legislature has to be novel. If it's not novel, then the rule of needing a search warrant to enter a home absent certain rare exemptions for example would lead to no qualified immunity.

For an example of what happens when it's not novel, A week or so ago Judge Reinhardt did the federal judiciary branch version of ripping a law enforcement officer a new one in Hopkins v. Bonvicino (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/16/07-15102.pdf) - a case regarding an illegal search and arrest in San Carlos, CA.

-Gene

GaryV
07-26-2009, 7:36 PM
For an example of what happens when it's not novel, A week or so ago Judge Reinhardt did the federal judiciary branch version of ripping a law enforcement officer a new one in Hopkins v. Bonvicino (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/16/07-15102.pdf) - a case regarding an illegal search and arrest in San Carlos, CA.

-Gene

It's worth noting that this is a case that has consistently fallen in the citizen's favor, where his rights were blatantly violated (i.e., a slam dunk case), and yet it has taken 6 years to get this far, and the case is still not settled. So Gene's point should be strongly heeded.

elsensei
07-26-2009, 11:01 PM
1. qualified immunity is not currently a defense under california civil code 52.1, which mirrors 42 usc 1983.
2. attorneys aren't magical creatures. they have no special powers, nor are they able to do anything that you couldn't do yourself, if you study up on what you're doing.
3. most attorneys don't actually work, they have paralegals and clerks for that, and most of their pleadings are modified boilerplate. The same boilerplate is available to everyone.

Not knocking attorneys, or the attorneys who have taken these cases. And I have seen many in action, and I've seen what they've done correctly and what they've done wrong. It's only mysterious if you don't know anythign about the law or how the courts work.

Start reading.

elsensei
07-26-2009, 11:04 PM
4. punitive damages are available under 42 usc 1983.
5. i agree that a pure 12031 suit will have a hard time. It would be better to sue under 1983 for violation of 4th and 14th amendment violations. and those ARE clearly established.

keep reading your law books, kids.

elsensei
07-26-2009, 11:05 PM
6. there is a $25,000 civil penalty under 52.1, personally assessable on each officer present at the time the civil rights violations occur.

read more.

bulgron
07-26-2009, 11:06 PM
3. most attorneys don't actually work, they have paralegals and clerks for that, and most of their pleadings are modified boilerplate. The same boilerplate is available to everyone.

My brother is a public defender in the midwest. I assure you, HE WORKS.

Only fat-cat partners of big law firms fit the description, above, I think. Well, that and attorneys that work for the AG's office, etc, but those are a whole other breed of cat.

oaklander
07-26-2009, 11:11 PM
It depends on what kind of law is being practiced. Family law is mostly forms. The stuff I do in my day job (mass torts) rarely uses forms at all. There is some carry-over from previous pleadings (since there is no need to reinvent the wheel), but the vast portion of most complaints and motions are written from scratch.

There are also a number of other things that attorneys do that are hard to quantify. We are counselors for our clients. We are investigators. We are warriors when appropriate. A lot of this stuff comes from experience, not from reading.

3. most attorneys don't actually work, they have paralegals and clerks for that, and most of their pleadings are modified boilerplate. The same boilerplate is available to everyone.

oaklander
07-26-2009, 11:18 PM
The same is true for auto-mechanics, electricians, and most other trades. You can learn to do the "actions" that are involved in just about any trade. The part that you can't get from a book is the "judgment" part.

That part takes experience.

I'll give you an example. I just got out of a divorce. Family law is very straightforward and works mostly on Judicial Council forms. You would think then that I would have handled my own divorce?

Nope. I hired an expert who had been doing it for 20+ years. Anyone can fill out forms, but it takes an expert to come up with the overall strategy to "win" a case. That expertise comes only from experience.

EDIT: The best analogy is that of a skilled tradesman - i.e. who would you rather have wire your house? Someone who took a class at Home Depot, or someone who is a Journeyman Electrician?

2. attorneys aren't magical creatures. they have no special powers, nor are they able to do anything that you couldn't do yourself, if you study up on what you're doing.

elsensei
07-26-2009, 11:30 PM
Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes. The attorneys out there who don't work, well, you know who you are.

And I built my own house from the ground up, 3 stories, no experience, after reading a series of books that I bought at Home Depot.

Yes experience can be important, but when I had 3 plumbers tell me $1000 per fixture to run supply and DWV pipes, I knew there was a lot of BS flying around, and that it was endemic to the trade.

Same thing with many attorneys. I don't know any attorney that is worth 10 cents per second.

hoffmang
07-26-2009, 11:30 PM
keep reading your law books, kids.

A high school principle strip searched a teenage girl based on over the counter pain relievers and he received qualified immunity. You need to read Redding v. Safford Unified School District #1 (http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/190760).

Your odds of receiving punitive damages over a 4th Amendment violation that is not egregious (read you become disabled) is about the same as winning a lottery.

I think you have absolutely no basis to understand what the law actually is. The only recent case (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3898/is_200404/ai_n9399910/?tag=content;col1) I've seen punitive damages in is when a LEA held someone wrongfully for 11 days. In fact it looks like (http://www.acslaw.org/node/12484) punitive damages are going to be capped at compensatory damages going forward. Compensatory damages have to be proven as actual loss. The punitive damage standard under Smith (http://supreme.justia.com/us/461/30/) is "reckless or callous indifference to ... federally protected rights."

I also suggest you read Fischer v. San Jose (http://calapp.blogspot.com/2009/03/fisher-v-city-of-san-jose-9th-cir-march.html). Fischer's rights were horribly violated and he won $1.00 until he was overturned by an en banc court. It seems that pinning a man in his house, breaking his windows, tear gassing him, and then shooting him is all ok, even without a warrant. Even if you had time to tell the local news that nothing was really happening in your siege of his house - everyone is kinda bored and just waiting for the football game. Yep - no time to get a warrant. What they don't mention in the Federal Case is that the SWAT team witheld evidence in Mr. Fischer's state court trial.

Please link to a fourth amendment case with punitive damages along any lines of a case you think you might ever bring.

Now as to state courts, what possibly gives you the idea that they would ever rule in your favor? I mean, the state courts are where 12031(e) was ruled constitutional for goodness sake. With the exception of Harrot, please find me any state court ruling about guns or near guns that was favorable to gun owners.

The one thing a lawyer has on most laymen is that most laymen have:
1. Not been in criminal or civil litigation.
2. Haven't read broadly enough on the right issues to understand the area of the law they are looking at.

I've read very, very broadly and Don Kates smacked me down on equal protections law for example.

What makes you think you've read enough elsensei?

Either way I look forward to your un-overtruned cites that show you have an articulable way to recover a dime in a civil rights case that is absent actual malice by a police officer.

-Gene

oaklander
07-26-2009, 11:35 PM
ROFL - I guess I picked a bad analogy!

EDIT: But Gene brings up a good point - even if you had the best lawyer in the state, it doesn't look like these cases win very often. And if they do win, damages are small (like $1). I won't touch them. . .

Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes. The attorneys out there who don't work, well, you know who you are.

And I built my own house from the ground up, 3 stories, no experience, after reading a series of books that I bought at Home Depot.

Yes experience can be important, but when I had 3 plumbers tell me $1000 per fixture to run supply and DWV pipes, I knew there was a lot of BS flying around, and that it was endemic to the trade.

Same thing with many attorneys. I don't know any attorney that is worth 10 cents per second.

Theseus
07-27-2009, 12:01 AM
It's always nice to know that once again the government has found a way to allow other government officials to get away with the exact kinds of things we developed the rule of law and the Constitution to prevent in the first place.

The courts are not our place for redress it seems. . . Wonder why our forefathers allowed us other methods of redress?

Besides, I don't care if I get rich off anything I do, I just don't want to LOOSE anything. Like in my case, if I could just be whole and not owe anything I would be happy. Well, I would want it documented that 12031 and specifically 12031(e) is unconstitutional.

wildhawker
07-27-2009, 12:04 AM
Take into account the relative risk for a non-tradesman to DIY their own house:

Framing > high
Electrical > high
Roofing > medium
Concrete > medium
HVAC > low
Plumbing > low
Drywall & finishes > low
Insulation > low
Flooring > low

Plumbing your own house is great, but a 3/4 copper line isn't going to kill you. Improper grounding, on the other hand, might.

No matter how well-read we might be on these issues, only a select few (not just here at CGN, but generally) have actually had the experience to apply to a set of facts and understand the realities w/r/t damages.

Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes. The attorneys out there who don't work, well, you know who you are.

And I built my own house from the ground up, 3 stories, no experience, after reading a series of books that I bought at Home Depot.

Yes experience can be important, but when I had 3 plumbers tell me $1000 per fixture to run supply and DWV pipes, I knew there was a lot of BS flying around, and that it was endemic to the trade.

Same thing with many attorneys. I don't know any attorney that is worth 10 cents per second.

hoffmang
07-27-2009, 12:10 AM
1. qualified immunity is not currently a defense under california civil code 52.1, which mirrors 42 usc 1983.
..

Start reading.

I suggest you start with Government Code section 821.6:

A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his
instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding
within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and
without probable cause.


You're hyper technically correct that qualified immunity isn't a defense to 52.1, but you're actually incorrect that Civil Code 52.1 will sustain a recovery for money damages very often.

-Gene

hoffmang
07-27-2009, 12:12 AM
Well, I would want it documented that 12031 and specifically 12031(e) is unconstitutional.

I agree, but for know we're stuck with People v. Delong which Liberty1/Cato has well excerpted (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=27689&forum_id=12&jump_to=471870).

-Gene

hoffmang
07-27-2009, 12:35 AM
I found a great case that illustrates a lot of the themes I've been explaining above.

Take a look at Kilroy v. California (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/C044877.PDF).

This is a State Court case about a tow truck operator who had a CHP officer somewhat trump up a case and search warrant against him. During the search the CHP finds a firearm and the tow truck operator is a felon. Kilroy is charged as a felon in possession in Federal Court but the Federal Judge granted a motion to suppress the evidence because it appears he thought the search wasn't legitimate. Kilroy has his Federal Criminal case terminate in his favor so he decides its time to sue for a violation of his civil rights.

He brings a combined 1983 and CCC 52.1 case in State court and asks for judicial notice of the granted motion to supress. This looks like a cakewalk - I mean he's got a Federal Judge that agrees that the warrant had problems. His only problem is the California Court.

This is a firearms case. He's a felon in possession and California Appellate judges are not going to enrich a gunowner, much less a felon gun owner. So they reverse it all and Kilroy loses. He even ends up having to pay the costs of the appeal to the State.

Goes to show:
1. State courts don't like gunowners.
2. Federal courts are better to gunowners.
3. It's really hard to win damages - even when a Federal Judge thinks your arresting officer violated the Constitution.

-Gene

elsensei
07-27-2009, 1:36 AM
I suggest you start with Government Code section 821.6:


You're hyper technically correct that qualified immunity isn't a defense to 52.1, but you're actually incorrect that Civil Code 52.1 will sustain a recovery for money damages very often.

-Gene

aaaand then segue right into 820.4, A public employee is not liable for his act or omission,
exercising due care, in the execution or enforcement of any law.
Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee from liability
for false arrest or false imprisonment.

and 820.8 Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee
is not liable for an injury caused by the act or omission of another
person. Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee from
liability for injury proximately caused by his own negligent or
wrongful act or omission.

and 821.6 states judicial or administrative employees. Without delving into it at 2:40AM, i'd bet that police are neither, especially considering 820.4.

Also in Kilroy, rightly or wrongly, the guy did break the law one way or another and while you and I know it's BS, i can see how a judge would look askance at his claim.

artherd
07-27-2009, 1:49 AM
Not interested in the $$$$$$. Just like the idea of holding a lit birthday candle under someone's arzz for 5-10 minutes. "It hurts? Then don't do it again!"

I'm just a naive dreamer.....:p

Prepared to spend $100k and wait 4 years? This is MUCH harder than the average joe with no litigation experience thinks.

artherd
07-27-2009, 1:52 AM
I don't know any attorney that is worth 10 cents per second.

You are hanging with the wrong crowd.

artherd
07-27-2009, 1:59 AM
Name for me, the number of Pro Se Appellants who have won large victories for anything as unsettled as say 12031(e)?

Or say CPC 626.

<crickets>


1. qualified immunity is not currently a defense under california civil code 52.1, which mirrors 42 usc 1983.
2. attorneys aren't magical creatures. they have no special powers, nor are they able to do anything that you couldn't do yourself, if you study up on what you're doing.
3. most attorneys don't actually work, they have paralegals and clerks for that, and most of their pleadings are modified boilerplate. The same boilerplate is available to everyone.

Not knocking attorneys, or the attorneys who have taken these cases. And I have seen many in action, and I've seen what they've done correctly and what they've done wrong. It's only mysterious if you don't know anythign about the law or how the courts work.

Start reading.

artherd
07-27-2009, 2:06 AM
Good points.

The analogy here is less like building your own house than building your own atomic bomb... which is slightly more difficult - and WILL have consequences far outside just getting you killed...


By the way I'm an Engineering Contractor, Federal Contractor, and own an Systems Integration firm. I'd encourage someone competent and confident to owner/build a simple residence any-day.

I would not recommend you owner-build a Nuclear Power-plant.


Plumbing your own house is great, but a 3/4 copper line isn't going to kill you. Improper grounding, on the other hand, might.

No matter how well-read we might be on these issues, only a select few (not just here at CGN, but generally) have actually had the experience to apply to a set of facts and understand the realities w/r/t damages.

elsensei
07-27-2009, 2:27 AM
dang it, you guys are 100% right.

I'll get back to writing my pleading now.

Adios.

artherd
07-27-2009, 2:35 AM
dang it, you guys are 100% right.

I'll get back to writing my pleading now.

Adios.

Let me know how that goes. Close friends are litigants on the case law Gene has above.

But hey maybe you can do what best minds in the state couldn't...

Can you be my hero?

klWluYoa0_8

Aegis
07-27-2009, 6:51 AM
Say one of the cases reaches SCOTUS regarding the RKBA and it is ruled that Heller is incorporated to the states, which is what the 9th circuit ruled. Then cases are filed or already in progress that challenge California law restricting CCW and LOC. If monetary damages are not applicable, it seems there is no incentive for the state or local LEO to issue permits. These LEO, cities or counties could simply refuse to issue and get a slap on the wrist.

What will force change?

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 7:04 AM
These LEO, cities or counties could simply refuse to issue and get a slap on the wrist.

What will force change?

The cost of defending a loosing case for one. Look at how fast the cities around Chicago (save one) folded on their handgun bans or how fast DC moved to moot the roster suit.

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 7:08 AM
Where civil rights litigants seem to do OK is when the city settles for an out of court settlement to make the case go away ($10,000 to 100,000 in my observations) but then there is no finding to officially correct the problem one is suing over. And the above will barely cover costs/time invested.

7x57
07-27-2009, 7:16 AM
Good points.

The analogy here is less like building your own house than building your own atomic bomb...

Hey, wait, is there a project to do that? Count me in. :43:

7x57

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 7:56 AM
For an example of what happens when it's not novel, A week or so ago Judge Reinhardt did the federal judiciary branch version of ripping a law enforcement officer a new one in Hopkins v. Bonvicino (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/16/07-15102.pdf) - a case regarding an illegal search and arrest in San Carlos, CA.

-Gene

The excessive force decision (at the end of the document) is interesting: one officer had his gun drawn during handcuffing.

Combine this with Robinson v Solono County 278 F.3d 1007 (9th Circuit 2002) and People v. DeLong (CA) and I wonder IF guns drawn during a mere 12031 "e" inspection, where there is NO other RAS to detain, is an excessive use of force transforming "e" inspections into 4th A. violating detentions or even into a criminal "brandishing" offense?


I've started a thread to discuss this excessive force side topic here http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=206871

WokMaster1
07-27-2009, 8:06 AM
Prepared to spend $100k and wait 4 years? This is MUCH harder than the average joe with no litigation experience thinks.

That's cheap in comparison to what I'm going through right now with my business landlord. 5 years & counting. When it is all over, I'll tell you all about it over karaoke & beers.:)

M. Sage
07-27-2009, 9:05 AM
Plumbing your own house is great, but a 3/4 copper line isn't going to kill you. Improper grounding, on the other hand, might.

Plumbing is rather straight-forward, too. Ditto with electrical (IMO - I guess I'm weird in that I actually understand electricity). They're both ruled by very basic laws of physics available to anybody.

Legal matters aren't so straight-forward, even if they probably should be.

bulgron
07-27-2009, 9:54 AM
Plumbing is rather straight-forward, too. Ditto with electrical (IMO - I guess I'm weird in that I actually understand electricity). They're both ruled by very basic laws of physics available to anybody.

Legal matters aren't so straight-forward, even if they probably should be.

Basic wiring isn't hard to do. I learned what I need to know to wire up a room in a High School shop class. I refined that knowledge by paying attention to what my contractor was doing when he remodeled by bathroom. It really isn't rocket science.

Plumbing also isn't very difficult. The most difficult part is sweating copper. I always get nervous holding a torch near studs.

For the most part, this stuff only requires a High School level of education to get it right.

The law should be similar. But over the centuries lawyers figured out how to make the law as bloody difficult and convoluted as possible so as to justify charging big bucks. We hang out in this forum talking about really complicated legal theories, rules, procedures, etc. But sometimes I have to just shake my head and wonder how our civilization arrived at a point where it takes 10 years and millions of dollars just to settle out the question of whether the 2A actually means what it says.

command_liner
07-27-2009, 9:59 AM
Good points.

The analogy here is less like building your own house than building your own atomic bomb... which is slightly more difficult - and WILL have consequences far outside just getting you killed...


By the way I'm an Engineering Contractor, Federal Contractor, and own an Systems Integration firm. I'd encourage someone competent and confident to owner/build a simple residence any-day.

I would not recommend you owner-build a Nuclear Power-plant.

Building basic atomic bombs is dead simple. I certainly have all the
machinery to do it in my garage. Remember, this is early 1940s
machining technology. You can buy the needed machines for a bit
more than scrap prices on EBay. The information is all declassified
and anybody with a good physics education knows the basic outline.

Getting the ingredients, well that is the hard part. Sifting through a few
dozen tons of U for the right bits is tricky. The rest of it can be done
by one man in a one-car garage. Read "Genius" the book on Feynman.
The first nuclear detonation was _almost_ caused by somebody stacking
U bricks. Luckily he noticed that the air was turning blue from neutron
discharge, and pushed the stack over with his body. He died a few
minutes later. But then we knew _exactly_ how much U was needed.

Fusion bombs are much more complex.

Sgt Raven
07-27-2009, 10:44 AM
The same is true for auto-mechanics, electricians, and most other trades. You can learn to do the "actions" that are involved in just about any trade. The part that you can't get from a book is the "judgment" part.

That part takes experience.

I'll give you an example. I just got out of a divorce. Family law is very straightforward and works mostly on Judicial Council forms. You would think then that I would have handled my own divorce?

Nope. I hired an expert who had been doing it for 20+ years. Anyone can fill out forms, but it takes an expert to come up with the overall strategy to "win" a case. That expertise comes only from experience.

EDIT: The best analogy is that of a skilled tradesman - i.e. who would you rather have wire your house? Someone who took a class at Home Depot, or someone who is a Journeyman Electrician?

I may not be able to afford him, but I'd prefer a Master Electrician.:p

yellowfin
07-27-2009, 10:45 AM
But sometimes I have to just shake my head and wonder how our civilization arrived at a point where it takes 10 years and millions of dollars just to settle out the question of whether the 2A actually means what it says. I honestly wish we could drop the charade of "what does it mean" and address the matter for what it really is.

7x57
07-27-2009, 11:01 AM
The analogy here is less like building your own house than building your own atomic bomb...


Building basic atomic bombs is dead simple. I certainly have all the
machinery to do it in my garage. Remember, this is early 1940s
machining technology. You can buy the needed machines for a bit
more than scrap prices on EBay. The information is all declassified
and anybody with a good physics education knows the basic outline.


The main challenge isn't physics or basic outline, though; it is pure engineering, for example in the speedy assembly of the critical mass. Apparently designing an implosion-based bomb requires considerable engineering in designing the explosive trigger. I don't think a casual craftsman is going to succeed at that, though quite likely it wouldn't take a terribly bright mechanical engineer to do it.

The Hiroshima-style gun design might be doable without serious engineering, as long as it's uranium fueled. That is a rather unfortunate fact, however governments generally don't seem to have a problem starting with implosion anyway. It's only a practical worry in that this machinist with time on his hands and an interest in really big booms might be a terrorist, or in the employ of one.

The other problem is getting it all in a self-contained, portable package, at least a shipping container (my biggest worry is how easy it would be to ship such a thing into a harbor). It also bothers me that a terrorist, who unlike a government can use a single bomb and can work on enemy territory, might get around this by building in an empty warehouse or something.

However, the wild card here is that it seems to be hard to get the details right the first time, and so an amateur bomb is likely to fail even if the design is sound. Governments have the resources to do tests no individual can do. We can hope that terrorists won't get a second chance, at least, even if they're hard to deny the first one.

Just in case it isn't clear, that's a *good* thing--it means even if the worst happens we get a free roll the dice to survive. It's just unfortunate that it applies more to sophisticated, efficient bombs than it does to simple, low-yield, low-efficiency bombs.

Who knew there was a "saving throw" against nuclear terrorism?" :rolleyes:

Hey, if I didn't make geeky jokes I wouldn't know anything about nuclear physics.


Read "Genius" the book on Feynman.
The first nuclear detonation was _almost_ caused by somebody stacking
U bricks. Luckily he noticed that the air was turning blue from neutron
discharge, and pushed the stack over with his body. He died a few
minutes later. But then we knew _exactly_ how much U was needed.


And also that it's bad when the air glows blue, a fact seemingly known to every Hollywood special effects crew. :p

While I haven't read the book, that would have only created a fizzle, not a true detonation (though that wouldn't comfort those very close, or those who died from radiation later. The speed of assembly is extremely critical, and this method is about as slow as can be. I'm not sure if you can get a small boom that way, but I'm quite sure you get no big boom of the type people associate with nuclear weapons. I suspect more like a really, really dirty conventional explosive. In fact, a conventional explosive that scatters radioactive dust might be worse, depending on how the tradeoffs go.

Not, however, a good thing to have happen in any way. And in case anyone is wondering, while this was never my field I wouldn't even say that much in an open forum if it weren't so absolutely obvious that anyone who has the ability already knows it. That horse has been out of the barn for a long time. But even the casual knowledge I have makes me take it much more seriously than most people. :chris:

Thus the emphasis on controlling access to suitable fissiles--you can't control the information. And that's a problem--"bomb control" at the state level seems to be failing just as gun control does at the individual level, albeit more slowly. It's too easy, and all anyone has to do that doesn't have home-grown expertise is send a few bright kids to the US for good physics and engineering training. :chris:

Since we're on accidental reactors, it seems that when the U235/238 ratio was more favorable in naturally occuring uranium a chain reaction started naturally a handful of times. No boom, just a surprisingly controlled natural reactor.


Fusion bombs are much more complex.

And require you to have already solved the problem of reliable fission bombs. :-)


I would not recommend you owner-build a Nuclear Power-plant.

This sort of equates building a bomb and a power-plant. That's entirely wrong--it's far, far more difficult to control the reaction than to let it run away. Controlled fission is perhaps the real metaphor you were looking for, not the much easier uncontrolled bomb.

That's for the reactors we actually build, where we care a lot about radiation and efficiency. If you don't care how much radiation gets out, building some analog of the natural process is probably doable without much knowledge. The question of how low-tech a useful reactor can be is sort of theoretically interesting, though I hope never more than theoretical.

This isn't quite on topic, is it? Still, it's just nuclear reactions--much safer and more predictable than something like the law. :chris:

7x57

hoffmang
07-27-2009, 11:09 AM
dang it, you guys are 100% right.

I'll get back to writing my pleading now.

Adios.

Can you please link to any false arrest case where the plaintiff prevailed and the arrest was not clearly and obviously excessive?

You keep telling me that you're right and I'm wrong but you don't actually link to any legal authority to support your position.

-Gene

hoffmang
07-27-2009, 11:36 AM
aaaand then segue right into 820.4, A public employee is not liable for his act or omission,
exercising due care, in the execution or enforcement of any law.
Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee from liability
for false arrest or false imprisonment.


Well, here is what a California court thinks about that. I'd suggest you read Wood v. Emerson (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/D050447.DOC) where the officer was found not liable after specifically raising 820.2 and 820.4. You'll note that the money damages first awarded in the case were reversed and the plaintiffs ordered to pay costs of the appeal to the law enforcement officers and city.

I'll be waiting for a case you can cite where a plaintiff prevailed to win money damages where the conduct by police wasn't egregious. :gene:

-Gene

pnkssbtz
07-27-2009, 1:02 PM
I found a great case that illustrates a lot of the themes I've been explaining above.

Take a look at Kilroy v. California (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/C044877.PDF).

This is a State Court case about a tow truck operator who had a CHP officer somewhat trump up a case and search warrant against him. During the search the CHP finds a firearm and the tow truck operator is a felon. Kilroy is charged as a felon in possession in Federal Court but the Federal Judge granted a motion to suppress the evidence because it appears he thought the search wasn't legitimate. Kilroy has his Federal Criminal case terminate in his favor so he decides its time to sue for a violation of his civil rights.

He brings a combined 1983 and CCC 52.1 case in State court and asks for judicial notice of the granted motion to supress. This looks like a cakewalk - I mean he's got a Federal Judge that agrees that the warrant had problems. His only problem is the California Court.

This is a firearms case. He's a felon in possession and California Appellate judges are not going to enrich a gunowner, much less a felon gun owner. So they reverse it all and Kilroy loses. He even ends up having to pay the costs of the appeal to the State.

Goes to show:
1. State courts don't like gunowners.
2. Federal courts are better to gunowners.
3. It's really hard to win damages - even when a Federal Judge thinks your arresting officer violated the Constitution.

-Gene

Gene, you are arguing two separate things (of which your ultimate conclusion I do not disagree with, but I want to point out the distinction.)


First, there is what the law says.
Second, there is what the stupid idiot's in CA's court system do.


They are not the same.


What you say, and illustrate in the case of Redding v. Safford Unified School District #1. and Kilroy v. California support your argument about the net outcome at the result of the atrocious and arbitrary entity that is the CA court system.

And this injustice and political nature of the CA court system should be noted by anyone attempting to recover "damages" for civil rights violations. But what these rulings have conclude and what the law say are not necessarily in alignment.

pnkssbtz
07-27-2009, 1:08 PM
The main challenge isn't physics or basic outline, though; it is pure engineering, for example in the speedy assembly of the critical mass. Apparently designing an implosion-based bomb requires considerable engineering in designing the explosive trigger. I don't think a casual craftsman is going to succeed at that, though quite likely it wouldn't take a terribly bright mechanical engineer to do it.Maybe in 1940. Now, with a trip to Fry's electronics, no it doesn't.

I'm not going to get into too much detail... but no, it's not really that difficult once you get the fissile material.

bulgron
07-27-2009, 1:50 PM
Maybe in 1940. Now, with a trip to Fry's electronics, no it doesn't.

I'm not going to get into too much detail... but no, it's not really that difficult once you get the fissile material.

I read an article once in which the author described how to make a low-yield dirty nuke using two pieces of plutonium, a three story building, and a pipe running from the top story to the basement. You wouldn't survive constructing the device, much less detonating it, but according to the author it is that easy.

7x57
07-27-2009, 2:53 PM
I read an article once in which the author described how to make a low-yield dirty nuke using two pieces of plutonium, a three story building, and a pipe running from the top story to the basement. You wouldn't survive constructing the device, much less detonating it, but according to the author it is that easy.

Hmm. I guess I don't think low-tech enough. I can believe that might work. :(

7x57

7x57
07-27-2009, 3:00 PM
Maybe in 1940. Now, with a trip to Fry's electronics, no it doesn't.

I'm not going to get into too much detail... but no, it's not really that difficult once you get the fissile material.

I'm talking about design, not implementation. Frys might have the stuff to implement it, but I doubt they have actual design drawings for the explosive lenses.

However, it might be easier than I think. One could go way way out in the desert and test prototypes with non-fissile pits, so maybe it isn't that bad to get it right after a few tries as long as BLM rangers don't notice someone setting off explosives.

It's also true that I don't spend a lot of time thinking about this, and it's possible that the difficulty has been overstated for obvious reasons. Someone might have wanted to discourage casual experimentation.

One fortunate thing is that the poor designs are inefficient enough to require more fuel, increasing the difficulty of getting enough by just a little bit. Bulgron's tall pipe design must take a lot of enriched uranium to make work if you want a boom instead of just an enormous flood of neutrons and a puddle of uranium burning it's way through the floor.

7x57

nobody33
07-27-2009, 3:30 PM
Qualified immunity needs to be done away with or modified heavily. It's ridiculous the things they can do without being held accountable for the most idiotic of actions.

What would the point be of bleeding the government of money? WE are the government. We elected the leaders. We pay the taxes.

bulgron
07-27-2009, 3:52 PM
What would the point be of bleeding the government of money? WE are the government. We elected the leaders. We pay the taxes.

It isn't about bleeding the government. It's about suing your elected officials and LEOs personally when they egregiously cross the line.

But as has been noted repeatedly in this thread, even if you can get qualified immunity waved, actually arriving at damages is next to impossible.

elsensei
07-27-2009, 5:58 PM
Well, here is what a California court thinks about that. I'd suggest you read Wood v. Emerson (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/D050447.DOC) where the officer was found not liable after specifically raising 820.2 and 820.4. You'll note that the money damages first awarded in the case were reversed and the plaintiffs ordered to pay costs of the appeal to the law enforcement officers and city.

I'll be waiting for a case you can cite where a plaintiff prevailed to win money damages where the conduct by police wasn't egregious. :gene:

-Gene

I'm not going to argue with any of you any longer. It's pointless. If I file a case and "lose" then you'll say "I told you so". If I file and "win" you'll just shake your heads and claim dumb luck. Therefore, there is no upside for me as far as your opinion is concerned. It was my mistake to even enter this discussion.

I've spent a good chunk of my adult life doing things that the "experts" said were "impossible". Don't ask me to explain because I'm too busy actually doing stuff instead of hanging around dissuading other people.

One last thing: I'm not doing any of this for the money, and what you consider winning vs losing may not be congruent with the conditions I, in my infinite narcissism, envision. Some of us still have principles. You may be one of them.

bwiese
07-27-2009, 6:03 PM
I'm not going to argue with any of you any longer. It's pointless. If I file a case and "lose" then you'll say "I told you so". If I file and "win" you'll just shake your heads and claim dumb luck.

No, the world would have to tilt its axis to the side for you to win. You are delusional, as are most pro se litigants.

Do you know Don Hamrick? <bseg>

One last thing: I'm not doing any of this for the money, and what you consider winning vs losing may not be congruent with the conditions I, in my infinite narcissism, envision. Some of us still have principles. You may be one of them.

You're doing this using your little brother (who mistakenly respects you) as a playtoy.

I hope that when he's either shot and/or in jail you have the requisite resources to support him. Word has already reached up here about many edge conditions which you/he are pushing - you folks are making Theseus look like a well-studied saint in comparison.

hoffmang
07-27-2009, 7:12 PM
I'm not going to argue with any of you any longer.

Are you telling me that you can't find a case where a California litigant won money damages from a Law Enforcement Encounter where the LEO wasn't egregious?

Google and Findlaw aren't that hard to use and you aren't arguing. You're instead spouting off uninformed assertions unbacked by facts. Find me some case law that agrees with you. I've linked about 5 cases that are evidence for my point.

It should be easy to debunk my debunking - if I'm actually wrong. To win in court you're going to have to cite cases that agree with you after all... I return to :gene:

-Gene

Theseus
07-27-2009, 7:17 PM
No, the world would have to tilt its axis to the side for you to win. You are delusional, as are most pro se litigants.

Do you know Don Hamrick? <bseg>



You're doing this using your little brother (who mistakenly respects you) as a playtoy.

I hope that when he's either shot and/or in jail you have the requisite resources to support him. Word has already reached up here about many edge conditions which you/he are pushing - you folks are making Theseus look like a well-studied saint in comparison.

I am not sure I like that little jab. . .

navyinrwanda
07-28-2009, 1:10 AM
I, in my infinite narcissism... still have principles.
With a little editing, it all makes sense.

artherd
07-28-2009, 1:54 AM
If I file a case and "lose" then you'll say "I told you so".

You do realize that you're going to be paying the fees from that case for the rest of your adult life right?

elsensei
07-28-2009, 1:16 PM
You do realize that you're going to be paying the fees from that case for the rest of your adult life right?

At this point, the thing that is most fascinating to me is that while I know you know NOTHING about me, my beliefs, level of intelligence, abilities, motivation, my family or my resources, that you and bwiese think you're somehow able to not only make pronouncements about all of the above and how they relate to each other but also make forceful predictions about the disposition of future events.

The saddest thing is that I find myself, as do all would-be free men, in this pickle because of idiotic do-gooders making laws and passing judgments for which they have no facts and as luck would have it, the same ignorance and holier-than-thou attitudes are powering human-control efforts here on calguns.

I don't know whether to shhit or go blind.

Others may not mind that you shoot your mouth off, and that's all very well and good but I really think you ought not to speak until you know what you're talking about.

However, it's your mouth and your reputation and I wouldn't deign to tell you what to do.

Go ahead, get the last word. This grows tiresome.

pnkssbtz
07-28-2009, 1:21 PM
To Bweise and HoffmanG:

So what is the point then? If nothing we, as private citizens, can do to force LEO's to comply with the law and to protect ourselves against the deprivation of our civil rights?


It appears to me, that you are telling me that there is nothing I can do unless the incident is especially egregious.

Scarecrow Repair
07-28-2009, 1:36 PM
I really think you ought not to speak until you know what you're talking about.

We're waiting.

This grows tiresome.

And there it is!

wildhawker
07-28-2009, 1:39 PM
Have anything constructive to add, or is this the leadin to more of your defecation of the mouth?

At this point, the thing that is most fascinating to me is that while I know you know NOTHING about me, my beliefs, level of intelligence, abilities, motivation, my family or my resources, that you and bwiese think you're somehow able to not only make pronouncements about all of the above and how they relate to each other but also make forceful predictions about the disposition of future events.

The saddest thing is that I find myself, as do all would-be free men, in this pickle because of idiotic do-gooders making laws and passing judgments for which they have no facts and as luck would have it, the same ignorance and holier-than-thou attitudes are powering human-control efforts here on calguns.

I don't know whether to shhit or go blind.

Others may not mind that you shoot your mouth off, and that's all very well and good but I really think you ought not to speak until you know what you're talking about.

However, it's your mouth and your reputation and I wouldn't deign to tell you what to do.

Go ahead, get the last word. This grows tiresome.

MrEd
07-28-2009, 1:40 PM
What are you saying , I can not sue the police because they twisted my panties in a bunch during a stop and expect to get two bazzillion trillion dollars in return ???? Oh the abomination , the athrocious injustice I am the vicitm of . :p

I think what they are saying here is that you can sue to affect a change in the law BUT you should not count on getting rich doing so .

IF your plan is getting rich , might I suggest playing the lottery ?

navyinrwanda
07-28-2009, 1:50 PM
So what is the point then? If nothing we, as private citizens, can do to force LEO's to comply with the law and to protect ourselves against the deprivation of our civil rights?
Sure there is. It's called an injunction.

But it still costs money and takes time. And there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, because at its core injunctive relief is a recognition that monetary damages cannot solve all problems.


It appears to me, that you are telling me that there is nothing I can do unless the incident is especially egregious.
If it's a lone wolf misbehaving, that's true. But if it's a bad policy — written or unwritten — then injunctive relief is again the answer.

pnkssbtz
07-28-2009, 1:50 PM
What are you saying , I can not sue the police because they twisted my panties in a bunch during a stop and expect to get two bazzillion trillion dollars in return ???? Oh the abomination , the athrocious injustice I am the vicitm of . :p

I think what they are saying here is that you can sue to affect a change in the law BUT you should not count on getting rich doing so .

IF your plan is getting rich , might I suggest playing the lottery ?Let me ask you this, how exactly do you convince LEO's and departments to stop violating civil rights?

Do you honestly think the "Internal Investigations" :rolleyes: ever really do anything?

In a Huntington Beach cop literally masturbated into the face of a woman on the side of the road and nothing happened to him for it.


Monetary Penalties and Threat of Force are the only ways to force compliance. And really the latter isn't possible for the public, so that leaves the former.

SteveH
07-28-2009, 1:54 PM
Qualified immunity needs to be done away with or modified heavily. It's ridiculous the things they can do without being held accountable for the most idiotic of actions.

Doesnt it just mean that when they are doing something on their employers behalf the employer is responsible unless they act outside the scope of their training?

SteveH
07-28-2009, 1:57 PM
Let me ask you this, how exactly do you convince LEO's and departments to stop violating civil rights?

Do you honestly think the "Internal Investigations" :rolleyes: ever really do anything?

In a Huntington Beach cop literally masturbated into the face of a woman on the side of the road and nothing happened to him for it.




In many agencies an "internal investigation" can take 6-18months and the employee cannot transfer or promote until resolved. Doesnt matter if the employee is later exonerated, career on hold for over a year for just one complaint.

If you have the name of the HB cop or the case number please IM it to me. I suspect you are actually confused and are thinking of the Irvine PD cop who followed the stipper from Captain Cremes. IIRC he was aquitted by a jury.

MrEd
07-28-2009, 3:55 PM
I actually KNOW those internal investigation achievesomething , if found in the wrong your carreer takes a hit , you can loose promotions and desired assignement . During the investigation you are "stuck" and if the accusations against you are bad enough you get assigned desk duty untill the matter is resolved . No matter if you are exonerated or not , it still remains in your file.
In the matter you quotted , the behaviour if found true would have been a carreer ending one .
But were we not discussing lawsuits to recover monetary compensation ?

artherd
07-28-2009, 4:22 PM
... I know you know NOTHING about me, my beliefs, level of intelligence, abilities, motivation, my family or my resources, t...

I know you're a pro-se litigant who was too cheap to hire someone to build him a residence.

I also know who you are, I know how you're using your little brother to advance the goals of your Ego, and don't seem to care if he gets arrested, or shot.

That tells me quite a lot about your intelligence, character, and finances.

hoffmang
07-28-2009, 4:27 PM
Let me ask you this, how exactly do you convince LEO's and departments to stop violating civil rights?


It's easy to get LEO's to stop violating civil rights but its a very different strategy. First, it has to be an important violation. Second, you have to go for injunctive relief against the LEO and his department/city/county. Once you win injunctive relief or prevail except for the officer having qualified immunity, then there are real and serious damages available if the LEO or department doesn't follow the injunction.

Federal injunctions were how local sheriffs in the deep south were brought around to playing it straight and not allowing violence against blacks during the civil rights movement for example. It wasn't that the mayor or police chief paid money damages. It was that injunctive relief was granted and if it wasn't followed, federal marshalls would arrest sheriffs for contempt.

My main point is that winning money damages should never motivate future behavior of gun owners. It's just not a part of the toolbox of strategic options.

-Gene

pullnshoot25
07-28-2009, 5:13 PM
I know you're a pro-se litigant who was too cheap to hire someone to build him a residence.

I also know who you are, I know how you're using your little brother to advance the goals of your Ego, and don't seem to care if he gets arrested, or shot.

That tells me quite a lot about your intelligence, character, and finances.

WHOA there buddy, back up the truck.

1) He already had a house, he just added onto it. Ever heard of the phrase "If you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself?" Well, that's what he did. I could say the same thing for people who machine their own gun parts or reload their own bullets when they could just as easily pay someone else to do the job for them.

2) Sam has never used me for advancing "his cause" or any cause for that matter. I was the first one to start OCing (as soon as I was 21) and Sam caught onto it (I think it was right around when I carried into two banks in one day), so your chronology and assessment of my family's intrafamilal relationships is off course.

I think that for a guy that has worked for himself since he was 21 and hasn't had to worry about too many things, he has done pretty well for himself.

Also, quite a few people have gone pro se and done quite well, Kolender of Kolender v. Lawson being one of them.

M. Sage
07-28-2009, 9:28 PM
Doesnt it just mean that when they are doing something on their employers behalf the employer is responsible unless they act outside the scope of their training?

It's still up to them to know the rightness (or wrongness) of what is asked them of their employer.

If my boss asks me to do something illegal/unsafe under a car, do you think that I'm not responsible simply because my employer told me to do it? Hell no, it's on me!

Obeying unlawful SOP is still breaking the law. "Because he told me to" cannot be an excuse, even though the Supreme Court apparently thinks it's peachy.

artherd
07-28-2009, 10:31 PM
1) He already had a house, he just added onto it.
hmm, scroll up...
And I built my own house from the ground up, 3 stories, no experience, after reading a series of books that I bought at Home Depot.

So he's a liar too.

Also, quite a few people have gone pro se and done quite well, Kolender of Kolender v. Lawson being one of them.

No one is saying pro-se litigation is ineffective. I've done some myself.

What we are saying instead - is that pro-se litigation of an un-winnable case can lead to grave consequences.

pullnshoot25
07-28-2009, 11:02 PM
hmm, scroll up...


So he's a liar too.



No one is saying pro-se litigation is ineffective. I've done some myself.

What we are saying instead - is that pro-se litigation of an un-winnable case can lead to grave consequences.

Not a liar, just being brief. He built a garage big enough for a motor home, a 2nd story and a cuppola. (sp?) and the floors reside over the newest addition, which is the garage. So essentially, three stories that pretty much tripled the living space. I am no architect nor a construction worker (though I did help lay the foundation), but that sure does sound like three stories to me. I would show you pictures but the blog is locked ATM.

Unless you have seen the details of the case at hand (I am assuming you and everyone else are speaking of my brother's case) then you cannot determine if it is un-winnable or not. AFAIK, only Gene, Davis and Trutanich-Michel have seen the documentation of the case. If you have seen the documentation already then more power to you, your words will be taken into consideration. If not, then I must ask why you are giving baseless opinions?

Scarecrow Repair
07-28-2009, 11:16 PM
He already had a house, he just added onto it.hmm, scroll up...

And I built my own house from the ground up, 3 stories, no experience, after reading a series of books that I bought at Home Depot.

So he's a liar too.

Be nice. He just exaggerates.

artherd
07-28-2009, 11:42 PM
An addition =! to a living quarters with a certificate of occupancy, main electrical and gas service, etc.

In-fact they are worlds apart.

They are as different as say drafting a complaint in Federal Court as in Small Claims...

Irrational Voice
07-28-2009, 11:49 PM
I suspect you are actually confused and are thinking of the Irvine PD cop who followed the stipper from Captain Cremes. IIRC he was aquitted by a jury.

Good old Captain Creme's is that still there?

elsensei
07-28-2009, 11:51 PM
An addition =! to a living quarters with a certificate of occupancy, main electrical and gas service, etc.

In-fact they are worlds apart.

They are as different as say drafting a complaint in Federal Court as in Small Claims...

Crikey, you're just grasping at straws now.

And apparently you're getting your opinions from bwiese. Who knows what he's smoking, but among other effects it seems to induce temporal hallucinations and insulting behavior. No problem there, except it makes you guys look like idiots.

Anyway, once again I'll request that you not comment on things you don't know anything about. Like me, my family, my case, the law, whether that's your ***** or a hole in the ground...you get the picture yet?

elsensei
07-28-2009, 11:53 PM
If not, then I must ask why you are giving baseless opinions?

It's what he does.

elsensei
07-29-2009, 12:02 AM
Also, quite a few people have gone pro se and done quite well, Kolender of Kolender v. Lawson being one of them.

Actually it was Lawson. Kolender was the police chief.

Don't know how Lawson ever won that one. Besides being a pro se, he also wore dreadlocks! Plus he wasn't a lawyer. To make matters worse, he was a loudmouth activist and took the case all the way to the US Supreme Court.

I guess the planet was really torqued off to one side that day, huh?

artherd
07-29-2009, 1:27 AM
If you have seen the documentation already then more power to you, your words will be taken into consideration. If not, then I must ask why you are giving baseless opinions?

Your brother has a decent case for declaratory or injunctive relief, but that is all. (IF he doesn't flub it up and end up owing fees.) He is not going to "bankrupt the state".

artherd
07-29-2009, 1:30 AM
Crikey, you're just grasping at straws now.

You claimed to have built "...an entire house from the ground up..." and we find out it's an addition.

What else have you exaggerated or embellished?

Also, quite a few people have gone pro se and done quite well, Kolender of Kolender v. Lawson being one of them.

http://www.usff.com/hldl/courtcases/kolendervlawson.html

Actually Lawson was the man who was the pro-se, and he sued for only declaratory and injunctive relief.

Which is exactly the point of this thread.


Anyway, once again I'll request that you not comment on things you don't know anything about. Like me, my family, my case, the law, whether that's your ***** or a hole in the ground...you get the picture yet?

Yeah Sam I only brought you OLLs and manage the endowment of a legal defense fund. I "don't know anything about" the law :rolleyes:

I wish you guys all the luck in the world, I want you to win. I just feel like I'm watching a bunch of male models play with matches during a gas fight.

bigcalidave
07-29-2009, 1:44 AM
Ben went zoolander... it's all over now.

pullnshoot25
07-29-2009, 5:46 AM
Actually it was Lawson. Kolender was the police chief.

Don't know how Lawson ever won that one. Besides being a pro se, he also wore dreadlocks! Plus he wasn't a lawyer. To make matters worse, he was a loudmouth activist and took the case all the way to the US Supreme Court.

I guess the planet was really torqued off to one side that day, huh?

Er, whoops.

Scarecrow Repair
07-29-2009, 6:08 AM
You're making this too easy.

And apparently you're getting your opinions from bwiese. Who knows what he's smoking, but among other effects it seems to induce temporal hallucinations and insulting behavior.

Anyway, once again I'll request that you not comment on things you don't know anything about.

Something about sauce, goose, and gander comes to mind.

bwiese
07-29-2009, 8:55 AM
You're making this too easy.


[quote=elsensei]
And apparently you're getting your opinions from bwiese. Who knows what he's smoking, but among other effects it seems to induce temporal hallucinations and insulting behavior.

I enjoy Macanudos.

Many people here are able to think, as am I. They form their own opinions, based on reason & fact.

Just because you're on an irrational course with likely disaster which can risk screwing things for us (CCW is just one) doesn't make you right.

pnkssbtz
07-29-2009, 2:09 PM
It's easy to get LEO's to stop violating civil rights but its a very different strategy. First, it has to be an important violation. Second, you have to go for injunctive relief against the LEO and his department/city/county. Once you win injunctive relief or prevail except for the officer having qualified immunity, then there are real and serious damages available if the LEO or department doesn't follow the injunction.

Federal injunctions were how local sheriffs in the deep south were brought around to playing it straight and not allowing violence against blacks during the civil rights movement for example. It wasn't that the mayor or police chief paid money damages. It was that injunctive relief was granted and if it wasn't followed, federal marshalls would arrest sheriffs for contempt.

My main point is that winning money damages should never motivate future behavior of gun owners. It's just not a part of the toolbox of strategic options.

-Gene
So, why haven't we filed injunctive relief for the AW cases where the LEO's were treating legal firearms as AW's?

Stan_Humphries
07-29-2009, 8:14 PM
At this point, the thing that is most fascinating to me is that while I know you know NOTHING about me, my beliefs, level of intelligence, abilities, motivation, ...

You have youtube video's to show us all these things.

And as the Reader article states

"For Sam, 39, who works from home studying “history and behavioral economics independently and try[ing] to figure out what’s going to happen next before everyone else,” it’s mostly about constitutional freedom..."

That already impugns your credibility.

Now you are prosecuting a case pro se...

yellowfin
07-29-2009, 8:16 PM
I enjoy Macanudos. Have you tried their 1968 series? Absolutely awesome! They've got a much richer blend with flavors of black currant, cherry, and dry cocoa. I highly recommend the toro size with a glass of Eos zin port or Solis' sangiovese port. :thumbsup:

pullnshoot25
07-29-2009, 8:20 PM
You have youtube video's to show us all these things.

And as the Reader article states

"For Sam, 39, who works from home studying “history and behavioral economics independently and try[ing] to figure out what’s going to happen next before everyone else,” it’s mostly about constitutional freedom..."

That already impugns your credibility.

Now you are prosecuting a case pro se...

Why is that necessarily a bad thing, pray tell?

wildhawker
07-29-2009, 8:38 PM
Why is that necessarily a bad thing, pray tell?

Perception and context. It can be read 2 ways- if you were anti or neutral (but cautious), how would you read it?

Hopi
07-29-2009, 8:39 PM
Why is that necessarily a bad thing, pray tell?

Independent study doesn't involve a rigorous peer interrogation that fires the strongest understanding of the subject matter.

The Calguns community is an excellent example of the competing dynamic, where interpretations face opposition that force coherent defense.

Theseus
07-29-2009, 8:47 PM
Independent study doesn't involve a rigorous peer interrogation that fires the strongest understanding of the subject matter.

The Calguns community is an excellent example of the competing dynamic, where interpretations face opposition that force coherent defense.

Wow. As much as people here complain about the "liberal indoctrination camps" our colleges are I am surprised that such an argument is made.

If he subjects himself to the indoctrination he is then gaining credibility, if not, then he is not credible and should be disregarded.

Hopi
07-29-2009, 9:17 PM
Wow. As much as people here complain about the "liberal indoctrination camps" our colleges are I am surprised that such an argument is made.

If he subjects himself to the indoctrination he is then gaining credibility, if not, then he is not credible and should be disregarded.

You won't find that argument in any one of my previous posts. My above assessment is consistent with my opinion.

I do not think it would surprise many here that our most professionally successful members are products of what you termed 'liberal indoctrination camps'. An independent education and success are not mutually exclusive, but that isn't the point. The comment above was speaking on credibility, and whether or not you acknowledge it, the fact remains that college and professional credentials trump the education implied in the article excerpt.

Theseus
07-29-2009, 9:21 PM
You won't find that argument in any one of my previous posts. My above assessment is consistent with my opinion.

I do not think it would surprise many here that our most professionally successful members are products of what you termed 'liberal indoctrination camps'. An independent education and success are not mutually exclusive, but that isn't the point. The comment above was speaking on credibility, and whether or not you acknowledge it, the fact remains that college and professional credentials trump the education implied in the article excerpt.

I see. Point made and taken.

It is then that you presume that the self-study is not part of an accredited program. I didn't take that from the article. I presumed that to mean that he was just not attending a traditional college and instead a correspondence type college.

Hopi
07-29-2009, 9:35 PM
I see. Point made and taken.

It is then that you presume that the self-study is not part of an accredited program. I didn't take that from the article. I presumed that to mean that he was just not attending a traditional college and instead a correspondence type college.

Wildhawker spoke on perception and context a few posts above.

You, and probably most of us here, are a sympathetic audience, voting results in CA imply that many folks outside of this community do not share your favorable prejudices. That point is the common thread running through all of the current UOC threads... and it seems to be the point of contention that is lost on the pro-UOC crowd.

ETA: By 'pro-UOC', I perhaps misrepresented my intentions. I'm a supporter of UOC, OC, CCW, and any expression of bearing arms. My hesitation and concern comes from the reckless urgency to spread the word in the current legal environment. I've said it before, when we have incorporation and a recognized fundamental right to bear, I will proudly stand with the UOC crowd in the absence of legal OC and/or shall-issue CCW. My confidence that the later two are on the near horizon prevents me from accepting/championing behavior that complicates or holds even the slightest risk to those achievements.

hoffmang
07-30-2009, 1:10 AM
So, why haven't we filed injunctive relief for the AW cases where the LEO's were treating legal firearms as AW's?

Timing and there may be better and more effective ways to spend resources. However, it is a serious option. Also, the number of people in having issues has decreased markedly.

-Gene

artherd
07-30-2009, 1:30 AM
I enjoy Macanudos.

In Phoenix, I was indeed smoking what you were smoking! ;)