Posted on 06/21/2013 10:04:09 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
Edited on 06/22/2013 8:06:37 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Remember these names: Detective Steven D
(Excerpt) Read more at thetruthaboutcars.com ...
Poke the snake...
Roll the dice.
Nope, appropriately would be sending him a letter, with something like this.
“I’m sorry, but it seems that your signature “*@$* YOUR @&*$ TOWN !@*($&” is not your legal signature, please come to the courthouse to fill out another payment form”.
If he didn’t show, send it to collections. No need to make a big deal out of really nothing. Just because they are the law doesn’t mean they get to break it or arrest someone for being a jackass.
Might I add that I think it’s hilarious. This officer and judge obviously believe they can throw out the constitution just because they are in charge of enforcing the law and dishing out justice. The note was obviously not harassment in any form, as it was just an opinion, no threat, etc.
I do hope the cop and judge have to pay.
>> “#### YOUR ##### TOWN BITCHES”
Catchy.
The guys should copyright that and compose a tune about the police state.
I am not a lawyer or town clerk either, but since his comment was written across the top of the remittance notice, and not in any of the “official use only”(woGge is that?) areas, the judge and constable were trying to enforce their “authoritah” OVER a fellow citizen that had the temerity to tell them where to get off.
woGge=What on G_d’s green earth.
No lawyer here either, but I’m not sure the town could accept the written guilty plea as submitted. When the town name was crossed out and substituted with “Tyranny” that action from a common law perspective and rules of parol evidence changed the plaintiff.
… they are in charge of enforcing the law …
Remember when we had “Peace Officers” not Law Enforcement Officers?
“My guess is that the only reason Justice Rourke and ADA Drillings aren’t defendants in the Federal civil rights case is due to judicial and prosecutorial immunity”
IMMUNITY
I am sure you have heard ELECTED and APPOINTED officials say, they have immunity from prosecution for any thing they have done wrong. Prosecutors and police officers are notorious for that statement. There is a U.S. Supreme Court case that says they are liable. George D Owen V. City of Independence, Missouri. Decided April 16, 1980. When you look this up scroll down to 25 See, e.g., Globe 365 (remarks of Rep. Arthur) (For Owen v Independence Click (HERE)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?court=US&CiBookMark=S-2e5e420-25379b&CiBookmarkSkipCount=-10&CiRestriction=Immunity
George M. WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David HAYSE, in his Official Capacity as Judge in Fayette
District Court, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 93-5382.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 6, 1993.
E.D.Ky., No. 92-00510; Forester, J.
E.D.Ky.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Before: GUY and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge.
ORDER
George M. Wallace, a pro se Kentucky prisoner, appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
Wallace’s suit was filed against Fayette County District Court Judge David Hayse. Judge Hayse was sued in his official capacity, and Wallace sought injunctive and declaratory relief. The magistrate judge’s report determined that Judge Hayse was absolutely immune from suit because the allegations of Wallace’s complaint indicated that Judge Hayse was acting in his judicial capacity. Over Wallace’s objections, the district judge determined that when a judge is performing an adjudicative function, he is absolutely immune from all suits brought pursuant to Sec. 1983. On appeal, Wallace argues that judicial immunity does not extend to Sec. 1983 suits which request injunctive and declaratory relief.
In Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984), the court concluded “that judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial capacity.” See also Berger v. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass’n, 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2416 (1993); Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 269 (6th Cir.1984). Therefore, we conclude that the district court committed error when it dismissed Wallace’s suit based upon the determination that Judge Hayse enjoyed absolute immunity against Sec. 1983 suits which request injunctive and declaratory relief.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
1 F.3d 1243, Wallace v. Hayse, (C.A.6 (Ky.) 1993
btr
Except that he wrote that at the top of the form he signed. That wasn't his signature.
Every year I fill out a check and send it in to the IRS. Every year I write F*%king thieves! in the memo section.
Guess I should stop or they will consider it harassment. So far they just cash it. lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.