[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Covid-19 Jab: They Knew Children Would Die

How Virginia Democrats Are Working To Make Elections Sloppy Again

Visitors from 50 countries with low levels of vaccine availability will NOT need to be vaccinated to travel to US from Nov 8

Vladimir PutTin speaks ouT … Woke culTure is --- desTroying The WesT…

Is there a constitutional right to food? Mainers to decide

Its the White House siccing the FBI on parents who question CRT nonsense

Vindicated Rand Paul Blasts Lying Fauci Over Civilization-ending Experiments

Marine veteran disarms robber: "The situation had to be dealt with"

Virginians Troll Kamala Harris at Terry McAuliffe Event with Lets Go Brandon Chants Outside

Biden Suggests Medical Freedom Is Horrible and Unvaccinated Americans Are Murderers

HORROR: In order to make covid vaccines, Pfizer cuts open live babies without anesthesia to harvest tissues

Kamala Video Message To Churches Interrupted By Fire, Brimstone

DC Comics Artist Quits; Says Woke Superman Dropping The American Way From Motto Really Pissed Me Off

Once Again, The Masked Morons Earn Their Name

A Few Definitions from the New Woke Collegiate Dictionary

Its Time To Disobey Covid Mandates

Why Biden wont tell you where the record number of illegal immigrants in the US are going

DISTURBING VIDEO SHOWS WALGREENS PHARMACIST REFUSING TO FILL MAN'S IVERMECTIN PRESCRIPTION

Chinas Nightmarish New Bio Weapon Targets Race and Ethnicity

Gregg Jarrett: Disgraced dossier author Steele attempts to resuscitate his ruined reputation with more deceit

Manchin Told The pResidenT ThaT ... SLOW DOWN - he sees governmenT as a parTner wiTh The public --- noT The ulTimaTe provider

AZ GubernaTorial CandidaTe Kari Lake has seen enough To know ThaT ... This elecTion was sTolen --- shes noT going To leT The lying fake news conTrol The narraTive any longer.

ITaly - Somali 'Refugee' ... STabs 5 - including a Child in The ThroaT --- on The 20Th Anniversary of SepTember 11

Panic At White House As All The Stores Are Out Of Depends

Biden playing a deadly game using secret flights to move migrants

Colin Powells ... BreakThrough InfecTion ... Was Hardly Unusual

The Story Of Ivermectin And COVID-19

Colin Powell and the Crisis of the Boomer Elite

The Left Wanted To Destroy The Police, And So Far Theyve Succeeded

"The A.N.S.W.E.R., my FRiendz..."

Fully-vaccinated former Secretary of State Colin Powell, 84, dies due to complications from COVID

The most Dangerous place to fish | Great Miami River - Ohio

The VPN Empire Built By Intelligence Agents

EXPERTS: DISRUPTION NEEDED TO SWITCH FROM EGG-BASED TO MRNA

The next pandemic is just around the corner! Lady Predicts future September 2019

New Hampshire Executive Council Meeting 10/13/2021 - THE REAL FACTS (The Media are liars)

Covid SURGES Among Most Vaxxed Communities Says Harvard Study

SUPREME COURT LEGALIZES SLAVERY - GETTING THE JAB MAKES YOU TRANSHUMAN, OWNED & WITHOUT HUMAN RIGHTS

THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT THE PEOPLE DYING IN HOSPITALS FROM "COVID" ARE FULLY VACCINATED

DARPA Hydrogel in COVID Vaccine can create crystals, nano-antennas to receive signals from 5G Tower

Hydrogel microbots to ferry living cells

PROOF THAT THE VAXXED ARE NO LONGER HUMAN - LUCIFERIAN TRANSHUMAN AGENDA EXPOSED

Dictator

How Gates, Fauci, and Schwab manufactured the Covid-19 Crisis to usher in a New World Order that will Build Back Better

More than 100 scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory could be fired Monday

The UnvaccinaTed ... Are Looking SmarTer --- Every Week

Man who was 13 when he killed a four-year-old boy ... granTed parole --- afTer decades behind bars

Americas ... DescenT --- inTo Medical Fascism

Terry McAuliffe is misreading what matters to Virginia voters

Results Over Rhetoric: Biden's Divisive Administration


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles

Title: The Free Thought Project - Florida police seize a man's gun without due process
Source: Politifact
URL Source: https://www.politifact.com/florida/ ... ize-mans-gun-out-due-process-/
Published: Apr 4, 2018
Author: Allison Graves
Post Date: 2019-10-02 01:51:16 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 2487
Comments: 31

After the Parkland school shooting, Florida lawmakers passed a so-called "red flag" law that aims to keep guns out of the hands of people deemed to be a threat to others or themselves.

The new law went into effect March 9, quickly stoking concern among people about lost freedom.

A March 18 headline posted on the Free Thought Project said, "It begins: Florida police now confiscating guns from people with no due process."

The post went on to say a man in Lighthouse Point — in Broward County, like Parkland — had his guns taken away before he was determined to be mentally unfit and before he was accused of a crime, making him the first person in the state to "have his due process removed."

Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat online hoaxes.

The post makes it seem like a man’s guns were taken without reason or cause, but that leaves out important nuance about the situation. Authorities said the man voluntarily surrendered his weapons and never contested the temporary risk protection order barring him from his guns for up to a year.

Florida’s "risk protection law"

Florida legislators moved quickly to pass SB 7026, allowing law enforcement to seek a risk protection order from a judge that would temporarily remove a person’s firearm(s) for up to a year. It also bars those individuals from buying guns during that time.

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri took issue with the way the law has been portrayed in headlines. He said if a person doesn’t comply with a risk protection order, then police have to file a warrant and establish probable cause to obtain the weapon.

"There is no seizure authority," Gualtieri said. "You can ask them to comply with the risk protection order, but you can’t seize a person’s guns."

The law slightly amended the Baker Act, under which law enforcement officials can take someone against their will to a facility for a mental health evaluation if the person is a danger to themselves or others. Authorities can confiscate a person’s guns if they pose a potential danger to themselves or have made a credible threat of violence against another person.

Before this change, the Baker Act didn’t state whether guns should be taken or returned, except to ban guns from hospitals providing mental health services. In practice, officers would often — but not always — temporarily confiscate guns if the firearms were on the person or in plain sight during the Baker Act "episode," said Martha Lenderman, an expert on the Baker Act.

More states added similar "red flag" laws this year including Washington.

Matt Agorist, who wrote the Free Thought Project article, argued that Florida’s new law allows law enforcement officers to retain guns without due process.

"When a person is stripped of their constitutional rights, albeit temporarily, without being given the chance to make their own case based on what can be entirely arbitrary accusations, this is the removal of due process," Agorist said in an email to PolitiFact Florida.

However, this neglects the fact that the person in question allowed police to retain his guns at the time he was taken into custody under the Baker Act. After this, Lighthouse Point police took the necessary steps to obtain a temporary risk protection order, which a judge reviewed and signed.

Details about the Florida police seizing a man’s handgun PolitiFact Florida interviewed Lighthouse Point Police Chief Ross Licata and Broward County’s chief judge to get an understanding of the incident that led to a 56-year-old man losing his weapons.

Licata said officers have had interactions with the man for years, but it wasn’t until early March that his actions warranted action. (PolitiFact Florida is not naming the man because of his condition.)

On March 7, Lighthouse Point Police checked on the man at his condo after an anonymous person filed a complaint that he was acting strangely.

According to court records, the person said the man had been seen around the community "clutching his face and hair while arguing with himself." The complainant also said the man had admitted to turning off the main electrical breakers to the condo building "to prevent them from sending electrical impulses through his body and controlling him."

Licata said that this was causing a safety issue for other residents who depend on oxygen.

During the police welfare check, the man said he was being targeted by one of his neighbors, who he said shape-shifts and looks like Osama bin Laden. The man was carrying a firearm in the outer pocket of his cargo pants, according to court records.

The man voluntarily surrendered his weapons during the welfare check, said Broward’s chief administrative judge, Circuit Judge Jack Tuter. After that, police determined the man was a risk to himself and others and took him into custody under the Baker Act.

Licata said the subject was not released from the medical center until March 21.

Before he was released, police petitioned the court to get a temporary ex parte order and a permanent risk protection order March 14 to retain the man’s guns. (An ex parte orders allows the court to proceed temporarily without both parties present for a hearing. In this case, the man was still being held at a medical facility.)

Law enforcement met with the man at his condo March 21 to remove additional ammunition. One week after his release, there was a final hearing to determine if the guns and ammunition should be removed for one year.

The man was there. He did not contest the one-year risk protection order requested by police. Tuter signed the order preventing him from owning or purchasing guns.

Our ruling

A headline on the Free Thought Project said, "Florida police now confiscating guns from people with no due process."

The headline and the story make it appear that Florida police arbitrarily took away a man’s guns, and that’s not the case. The man in question voluntarily gave his weapons to police before he was taken into custody under the Baker Act, a judge said.

While the man was being treated, Lighthouse Point police followed the protocol for obtaining a temporary risk protection order, and the man did not contest the order at any point during the court proceedings.

With everything considered, we rate this claim False.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Gatlin (#0)

He said if a person doesn’t comply with a risk protection order, then police have to file a warrant and establish probable cause to obtain the weapon.

"There is no seizure authority," Gualtieri said. "You can ask them to comply with the risk protection order, but you can’t seize a person’s guns."

Why did you post an article with lies in it?

There is no seizure authority it says then it says you have to obtain probable cause to obtain the weapon.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-10-02   7:41:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)

Why did you post an article with lies in it?

That’s a damned great question, Stone. And such a direct question deserves a simple pointed answer. I shall try to be brief in giving you one.

I posted an article with lies in it because I read where you gave your enigmatic permission to Deckard for him to do just that. And I upon realizing it was your “accepted norm” saw the light as I simply want to also be considered a great asset and make terrific contributions to your LibertysFlame forum.

Thank you, Sir, for asking.

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02   8:18:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Gatlin (#2)

We need more stock tips and real estate tips to make money. So we can prosper like you do.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-10-02   9:04:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone (#2)

Can I post articles with lies in them, too?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-02   9:07:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone, Deckard (#4)

Can I post articles with lies in them, too?

We need to nominate a LF Liar in Chief to decide on this sort of lying thing.

I submit Deckard to be considered for the position since he has shown himself profoundly to be a worthy authority based on his many years posting experience in this field.

Perhaps an alternating posting submission schedule can be worked out sp we can have a equal shot at performing the duty.

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02   9:35:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#3)

We need more stock tips and real estate tips to make money. So we can prosper like you do.

Ah, but I know from past experience there is little interest in that.

And besides. …

Doing that is not nearly as much fun or gives the feeling of great accomplishments as posting lies obviously does to at least one unnamed individual.

I’m gonna stick with posting lies – if that is okay with you.

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02   9:41:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Gatlin (#5)

We need to nominate a LF Liar in Chief to decide on this sort of lying thing.

You need to quit lying about stuff. You posted an article with a lie in it.

The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.

Reminds me of this verse.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-10-02   10:42:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite (#4)

Can I post articles with lies in them, too?

What are you jabbing about? Too?

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-10-02   10:43:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Gatlin (#6)

I’m gonna stick with posting lies – if that is okay with you.

Salute, Gatlin

Ok you are going to "stick" with posting lies. Which means that is the norm for you. Ok we are informed that you post lies. Thank You.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-10-02   10:45:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A K A Stone (#9)

I’m gonna stick with posting lies – if that is okay with you. Salute, Gatlin

Ok you are going to "stick" with posting lies. Which means that is the norm for you. Ok we are informed that you post lies.

Yep, I am going to “stick” with posting lies by Matt Agolrist until I get tired of doing that and then I may decide to follow your example and “flip flop”back – should I tire in the devilish undertaking.

Thank You.
You are exceedingly welcome, Kind Sir.

Anything to further the cause …

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02   10:57:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Gatlin (#10)

I’m gonna stick with posting lies – if that is okay with you. Salute, Gatlin

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-10-02   11:01:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: A K A Stone (#9)

Ok you are going to "stick" with posting lies. Which means that is the norm for you.

He (Gatlin) is trolling - throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks - poor baby is an attention whore.

His self-appointed mission is to get you to ban alternative news stories. Right now he's on a FTP banning jag - he won't stop until only mainstream sources that he agrees with are allowed here.

Of course, he will post his anti-libertarian and anti Ron Paul screeds from leftist sites. (remember when he posted articles from a couple of outright socialist sites?)

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-02   11:04:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: A K A Stone (#11)

I’m gonna stick with posting lies – if that is okay with you. Salute, Gatlin
You mean that I never get to “flip flop” like you did?

Your forum – Your rules …

In our new “parlor game” - Who gets to decide what are lies and what are not lies?

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02   11:29:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Deckard (#12)

He (Gatlin) is trolling - throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks - poor baby is an attention whore.
Stone is a “Big Boy” and I don’t think he needs your guidance or advice in handling posts from me.

Or, does he …

His self-appointed mission is to get you to ban alternative news stories. Right now he's on a FTP banning jag - he won't stop until only mainstream sources that he agrees with are allowed here.
Why don’t you just wait and see what I will do instead of trying to anticipate what I will do and out guess me?

Of course, he will post his anti-libertarian and anti Ron Paul screeds from leftist sites.
Refer not to what I have done in the past – Look forward to what I will do in the future.

(remember when he posted articles from a couple of outright socialist sites?
How did you respond to those? I can’t remember …

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02   11:42:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: A K A Stone (#7)

We need to nominate a LF Liar in Chief to decide on this sort of lying thing.

You need to quit lying about stuff. You posted an article with a lie in it.

The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.

Reminds me of this verse.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Great suggestion …

I will simply post articles like Deckard does …

I will do no editorializing …

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02   11:48:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#7)

[A K A Stone] The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.

Why? Do you expect the court to order the taxpayers to pay?

It should be noted that there is no possibility whatever that the Federal court will order the taxpayer to pay a dime pursuant to this lawsuit.

What is your legal theory that the taxpayer will pay?

If the acts of the employees are found to have been wanton, reckless or malicious, and the employees are ordered by the court to pay, why would the taxpayers be on the hook?

There were three Counts. The TFTP article failed to mention that all of Count 1 has been dismissed on summary judgment, and one of the three parts of Count 3 has been dismissed on summary judgment. Nobody will pay for those.

Actually, the TFTP article contained a whopper that officers had been ordered to stand trial. The case was filed in 2016 and no trial has been ordered yet. The litigation is still at a stage where nobody has been ordered to stand trial.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-02   12:59:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: nolu chan (#16)

[A K A Stone] The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.

Why? Do you expect the court to order the taxpayers to pay?

Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay out these lawsuits dumbass?

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-02   13:23:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, Gatlin (#17) (Edited)

Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay out these lawsuits dumbass?

Here you go fucknuts. What is your legal theory for the federal court to order the sovereign state to pay. There were STATE troopers, not municipal employees. They were sued in their individual capacity. The State is not a defendant because that would be unconstitutional.

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677 (1974)

At 1 (Syllabus)

Held: The Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution bars that portion of the District Court's decree that ordered retroactive payment of benefits. Pp. 415 U. S. 658-678.

(a) A suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability payable from public funds in the state treasury is foreclosed by the Amendment if the State does not consent to suit. Pp. 415 U. S. 662-663.

At 675-677:

But it has not heretofore

415 U. S. 676

been suggested that § 1983 was intended to create a waiver of a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity merely because an action could be brought under that

415 U. S. 677

section against state officers, rather than against the State itself. Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, supra, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-02   14:21:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, nolu chan (#17) (Edited)

[A K A Stone] The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay. Why? Do you expect the court to order the taxpayers to pay? Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay out these lawsuits dumbass?
This is a lawsuit against three individual who were, or atill are, employed by the State of Connecticut.

I don’t see where the State of Connecticut is named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit.

I will show you the formal definitive procedure outlined by the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch to be followed by the individuals who are named in civil lawsuits while the state is not

You can easily see that when employees are found to have been wanton, reckless or malicious in their acts and they become the subjects to CIVIL lawsuits – they are own their own and the employees are not ordered by the court to pay.

Read very carefully where it says:
These instructions are to help you represent yourself in responding to a civil lawsuit.

Now, I respectfully ask that either you – or either Stone – show where, how and under what statute and in which lawsuit that the Federal Court will require the State Connecticut tax payers to pay when they are not even being sued.

https://www.jud.ct.gov/forms/grouped/civil/respond_suit.htm

Disclaimer: The information on this web page is provided as a service and a convenience by the Connecticut Judicial Branch. It is not intended as legal advice to any person. If you have questions about the use of these forms, your legal rights, or particular issues in your case, it is strongly recommended that you talk to an attorney.

Due to the changing nature of the law, the forms and information found on this web site will change from time to time. It is up to you to follow the current procedures and to file the correct, up-to- date forms. Each court location has a Clerk's Office and many locations also have a Court Service Center that can give you help and information about court procedures. Please note, however, that Clerk's Office and Court Service Center personnel cannot provide you with legal advice.

Instructions

These instructions are to help you represent yourself in responding to a civil lawsuit. Legal words and court documents can be confusing. The more you know about what forms you will need to fill out in order to respond to a civil lawsuit the more comfortable you will be when you come to court. These instructions will give you some useful information and instructions on completing the required forms.

Every case is different and these instructions are to be used as a guide only; if you think you need more help you may want to get an attorney. You can also go to a Court Service Center or contact the Connecticut Network for Legal AidExternal Link or find additional information at the Law Libraries. Court Staff can help you understand the legal process, and while they may give you procedural information, they cannot give you legal advice.

To respond to a Civil Lawsuit you will need to fill out the following 2 forms:

IMPORTANT: There are other pleadings that you can file for which there are no pre-printed forms. Sections 10-6 and 10-8 of the Connecticut Practice Book give information on the timing and order for the filing of these pleadings.

The Law Library also has a Video on the First Steps in Responding to a Lawsuit.


By filing an Appearance form you are telling the court that you are acting as your own attorney and giving the court your mailing address. Once you file an Appearance, all court notices and papers filed about your case that are filed after your Appearance will be sent to the address on your Appearance.

The Appearance form (JD- CL-12) should be filed on or within two days after the date shown in the box marked “Return Date” on the top right corner of the Summons. The Return Date is the date that starts the countdown for things taking place in the case. You must fill out the Appearance form in order to receive any court notices. You must provide your current correct mailing address. The court and the other parties will use the address you provide to send notices and other correspondence to you.

In all cases except foreclosure actions, the deadline to file the Answer to file the Answer Complaint (JD-CV-106) is within 30 days of the “Return Date” shown in the box on the top right corner of the Summons. In foreclosure actions, the deadline is within 15 days of the Return Date. (There are some exceptions to these deadlines that are in sections 10-6 and 10-8 of the Connecticut Practice Book. You may want to look at these before you file your answer.)

You can use the Answer to Complaint (JD-CV-106) to respond to the numbered allegations in the Complaint.

If you do not file the Appearance form, a default for failure to appear could be entered against you. If you file the Appearance form, but do not file an Answer to the complaint, a default for failure to plead could be entered against you.


For Help - You may go to the Court Service Center for help completing these or any other forms. Any additional procedural questions that you might have may also be directed to the staff of the Court Service Center.
From this, it should be easy for you to see that the defendants in the civil lawsuit will get some generic advice from time to time – but they are on their own.

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02   14:42:17 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: nolu chan (#18) (Edited)

They were sued in their individual capacity.

Oh, so the payment comes directly from the troopers pockets? Never gonna happen.

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-02   15:43:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Deckard (#20)

Oh, so the payment comes directly from the troopers pockets? Never gonna happen.

Is that all you can say about the U.S. Supreme Court decision that says:

A suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability payable from public funds in the state treasury is foreclosed by the Amendment if the State does not consent to suit. ... Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, supra, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra.

A suit may not be brought by an individual against a State in Federal court. Add a State to the list of defendants and the suit gets tossed.

You're the expert calling others dumbass. Try harder. Distinguished from cases brought against cities and towns, this is against employees of a sovereign state that cannot be named as a defendant. That is why no state official appears as defendant in their official capacity. And yet, you seem to maintain that the State definitely will pay if the Court finds for the plaintiff.

If the Court rules for plaintiff, it will issue an order against the named defendants. If you insist that the Court will rule against a non-party to the litigation, take a seat on the short bus. It cannot issue an order against the State. You infer the State is required to pay. I am asking for your legal reasoning, if you have any. If you are just blathering, just say so.

If you are just to handicapped to understand the issue, or proficiently use the google, say that.

Just address the issue, or take your seat on the short bus.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-02   16:31:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, nolu chan (#20) (Edited)

They were sued in their individual capacity. Oh, so the payment comes directly from the troopers pockets? Never gonna happen.
You and Stone keep saying things and you think and just because you “say” them, that is the way it will happen. You do this while you never show any legal reason to back up your statements.

The state is not even being sued here. The person is using ACLU lawyers. They are no dummies. If they had thought they could get money from the state in this case they would have sued the state as well. But the ACLU did not.

Here is a link to a situation posted on The Free Thought Project. Look carefully and you will see that the party is suing both the county government and the county deputies. If she wins, then the headline can read in that case: “Taxpayers to Be Held Liable.”

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-kidnaps-woman-baptize-her- underwear/ Shandle Marie Riley is now suing Hamilton County government and two Hamilton County Sheriff’s deputies after she claims
You show no justification for your statement. It is just something you think “should” happen. How many times do you have to be told that the state is not even being sued in this case?

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02   17:51:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: nolu chan, Deckard, A K A Stone (#21)

If you are just to handicapped to understand the issue, or proficiently use the google, say that.

Just address the issue, or take your seat on the short bus.

These two just make up things on what they “think” should happen.

And because they “think” it – It will happen that way.

Strange people …

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02   17:55:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Gatlin, Deckard, A K A Stone (#22)

The state is not even being sued here. The person is using ACLU lawyers. They are no dummies. If they had thought they could get money from the state in this case they would have sued the state as well. But the ACLU did not.

It is an individual suing in Federal court. The Constitution bars an individual from suing a State for damages in Federal court. The ACLU was smart enough not to add a State government as a defendant or the complaint would be tossed.

Shandle Marie Riley is now suing Hamilton County government and two Hamilton County Sheriff’s deputies after she claims

Note that Hamilton County is not a sovereign state. Hamilton County may be a named defendant where the sovereign state of Connecticut may not. The only way to squeeze money out of sovereign Connecticut is for the Connecticut government to consent and pay voluntarily.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-02   18:51:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: nolu chan, Deckard, A K A Stone (#24)

Note that ,,,

Thanks ...

I see this ...

Is it too much to expect that others may?

It probably is …

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-03   2:43:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: nolu chan (#18)

Here you go fucknuts. What is your legal theory for the federal court to order the sovereign state to pay.

If i'm wrong i'm wrong. Who cares.

The cops still abused their power and did wrong. That was the point of the article.

I still think the govt will pay in the end. But I don't care one way or the other.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-10-03   7:55:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Gatlin (#2)

Gatlin is declaring that he intends to be insulting to you and the forum as a routine matter.

That’s a damned great question, Stone. And such a direct question deserves a simple pointed answer. I shall try to be brief in giving you one.

I posted an article with lies in it because I read where you gave your enigmatic permission to Deckard for him to do just that. And I upon realizing it was your “accepted norm” saw the light as I simply want to also be considered a great asset and make terrific contributions to your LibertysFlame forum.

Thank you, Sir, for asking.

That's some pretty blatant contempt toward you and the forum. It seems that that is the entire intent in posting this article, to create a pretext to insult you personally.

This is just another attempt by Gatlin to manipulate you.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-03   8:01:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Tooconservative (#27)

I read it.

Gatlin is depressed. He is dealing with issues. He is sad.

Hopefully he recovers.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-10-03   8:09:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: A K A Stone (#28)

I agree that he is pretty sad all right.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-03   8:25:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Tooconservative (#27) (Edited)

That's some pretty blatant contempt toward you and the forum. It seems that that is the entire intent in posting this article, to create a pretext to insult you personally.

Yeah, he's doing the same thing over here, beginning from his first post to me:

Murray woman charged after letting cat lie on front lawn

A bit of a nutter, wouldn't you say?

OK, so I may have baited him a little by speculating about his predictable response in my "Poster Comments" when I posted the article.

And this was a about a cat being allowed to sit on a lady's lawn, on her own PRIVATE PROPERTY!

Seems as though the poor old chap may be going just a tad bonkers.

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-03   9:10:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: A K A Stone, Deckard (#26)

If i'm wrong i'm wrong. Who cares.

The topic being addressed is what TFTP/Matt Agorist got wrong, or what comment was very misleading. If you are wrong in your comments in defense of TFTP, then we are just back at TFTP got something wrong. Again.

My quoted comment was directly addressed to and responded to Deckard calling me dumbass. As is typical, Deckard has now skulked off in silence, incapable of admitting his bloviating had no substance.

The cops still abused their power and did wrong. That was the point of the article.

[A K A Stone #7] The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.

Your comment at #7 was a cross-thread reference to the thread with the title, "Taxpayers to Be Held Liable After Cops Steal Man’s Phone, Film Themselves Conspiring to Frame Him."

"Taxpayers to be held liable" is the stated topic of the sensationalized title, and the topic of this cross-thread exchange.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-03   13:54:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com