Reply With Quotelink please
It looks like Jim O is attempting to harrass the BPD by threatening a Federal Lawsuit against us, for.....doing our jobs. Makes you wonder if it isn't an ATTY attempting to grab headlines for some free publicity, or he has lost his mind. I say let him file it, and a Judge can decide if a law was broken.
link please
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
It's pretty sad when the cops are complaining about harrassment.....It looks like Jim O is attempting to harrass the BPD....
Data is not the plural of Anecdote.
Frivolous lawsuit? Let's see. I counted this up last night. In recent years, I've filed about ten 1983 actions. I've won or settled six and lost three. One is pending and the defendants failed to move for summary judgment. One of the ones I lost went to trial, meaning I survived a motion for summary judgment. Not only were none of them frivolous, but no one ever alleged they were or moved for sanctions. In fact, no one in my 21 years has ever moved for sanctions against me for filing a frivolous case. Also, I ran a CLE program on 1983 actions for the bar and gave one of the lectures on the history of 1983 lawsuits.
So, my anonymous critic doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about.
That's funny. Jim is just talking about exercising his legal right to sue on something he considers illegal. Based on the same reasoning the BPD is using to validate their ticket-writing, namely that they're just doing their job and enforcing the law, a lawyer familiar in this particular constitutional law issue is just doing his job by exercising his legal right to argue that a law is being broken.Originally Posted by Deerhunter
I say file it. I am not a Lawyer but don't see how it could merit any legal court case. I've been wrong before, but I just don't see it happening. Think it's a stretch.
They hate us till they need us.
"That's funny. Jim is just talking about exercising his legal right to sue on something he considers illegal. Based on the same reasoning the BPD is using to validate their ticket-writing, namely that they're just doing their job and enforcing the law, a lawyer familiar in this particular constitutional law issue is just doing his job by exercising his legal right to argue that a law is being broken."
Good stuff. Reminds me of my college days when we studied the Sophists.
I'm more of an Aristotelian myself.
sophistry
SYLLABICATION: soph•is•try
PRONUNCIATION: sf-str
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. soph•is•tries
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
First, I only have the legal right to sue if it's not frivolous. Your argument assumes that which is in dispute: that the ticket blitz is lawful. That's called begging the question.
Also, I'm not a state official so I can't be guilty of violating the constitution by filing a lawsuit. Nice try.
then file it. I don't know who you would say we were attempting to influence. Enforcing the law is going to get a lot of people lined up against you , us in this instance. What we are trying to prevent is illegal parking/activity. I don't see how you would equate us with locking up jaywalkers in the south to prevent them from voting. I can see us stepping up enforcement as far as jaywalking and loud music. $75 for first offense. But by all means if you think you've got a case file it. That is your prerogative.
They hate us till they need us.
Go Get them Jim!!!!!
Good job, Jim. It's nice to see someone actually do something about this issue....
Not sure if you were responding to me, or to the original poster by quoting me, Jim. I was supporting you.
My mistake, sorry. Lots of things happening today.
JO - one question: What court hears this kind of action? (State, federal,...)
Data is not the plural of Anecdote.
Oddly enough, both state and federal court have jurisdiction over 42 USC 1983 actions. Lots of lawyers will transfer the case to federal court for no good reason though.
Legally it is not a stretch. Just because one's job is, in part, to issue tickets if he issues a ticket in bad faith it may lead to a claim of malicious prosecution. To establish a claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant initiated and continued a criminal proceeding against him; (2) the proceeding terminated in plaintiff's favor; (3) there was no probable cause for that proceeding; and (4) the defendant commenced the criminal proceeding with malice. See O'Brien v. Alexander, 101 F.3d 1479, 1484 (2d Cir. 1996).
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions