DeSchaine
Regular Member
Short, simple and to the point. Nice.
They know they will lose on appeal, (hopefully) but they don't care! They have huge piles of taxpayers monies to urinate out the window to assert their "control" on the little people. You know what? Often, they are successful! Many people cannot afford to take these BS cases against them to trial. And this is exactly what these unjust LEA's / city's hope for.
The State Supreme Court denied hearing the case. Looks like the city of Evansville is screwed. View attachment 12888
So a request to have a case heard by a higher court it called a "transfer of jurisdiction"?...Being duly advised, the Court DENIES the petition to transfer jurisdiction...
Not change of venue issue.So a request to have a case heard by a higher court it called a "transfer of jurisdiction"?
I wouldn't think that would be the term used, and instead would have thought that a "transfer of jurisdiction" involves having a case heard elsewhere, a la "change of venue".
Interesting.
So a request to have a case heard by a higher court it called a "transfer of jurisdiction"?
I wouldn't think that would be the term used, and instead would have thought that a "transfer of jurisdiction" involves having a case heard elsewhere, a la "change of venue".
Interesting.
Sept 2011 > > > The wheels of justice turn slooowly.
The "wheels of bureaucracy" (actually "politics") are turning just fine; they felt they had 1) a defensible position, or 2) one which would satisfy their biases/their constituents, or 3) one which would wear down their opponent - and have run with it.Nah, the county is just stalling. It's the wheels of bureaucracy that aren't turning.
If Evansville had admitted they were wrong in the first place and offered a settlement, this would probably have ended years ago.
Now five (5) years in the "system".The "wheels of bureaucracy" (actually "politics") are turning just fine; they felt they had 1) a defensible position, or 2) one which would satisfy their biases/their constituents, or 3) one which would wear down their opponent - and have run with it.
The "wheels of justice" have taken four years to tell the politicians they should go pound sand.
In different circumstances, with a different aggrieved party, things may have been different - but "doing the right thing" is not what politicians are known for.
FYI - the "continuation of the case" link goes nowhere specific to the case.Here is the continuation of the case in the circuit court, it was sent back there after the CoA ruled that he was allowed to sue the the city.
Looks like their trying to appeal it again on another immunity claim.
Now five (5) years in the "system".
Lady Justice is NOT swift. Her legs are broken and she needs a set of crutches to be followed by some serious rehabilitation.
looks like more information at this link.
http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2016/08/ind_decisions_e_55.html
FYI - the "continuation of the case" link goes nowhere specific to the case.
"The EPD Officers located Claimant in the children’s petting zoo area and asked for Claimant’s license to carry a firearm, and he produced it although his behavior was standoffish. (App., p. 41, 81, 105). Officer Green proceeded to run Claimant’s license to carry to determine its validity. (App., p. 81-82). Ultimately and as a result of the encounter, Claimant was removed from the Zoo. (App., p. 82). The Zoo employees did not request anything of the EPD Officers relative to Claimant, and they understood Claimant was being removed from the Zoo because he was being unruly and not cooperative."
"Officer Green’s report noted that Claimant had been removed from the Zoo for being disorderly and frightening patrons."
DISPATCHER: 911.
PAUL BOUSEMAN: Hello. This is Paul Bouseman calling from Mesker Park Zoo.
DISPATCHER: Uh-huh.
PAUL BOUSEMAN: I am not calling on an immediate emergency, but I do have a patron that is carrying a sidearm, a handgun, in a holster, and he -- he approached our gate, and one of our visitor services person asked him to not come in with the weapon, and he said that -- that the -- something had been overturned and that he had a right to bear arms. And, anyway, but we have a man on grounds who has a weapon in a holster on his belt, and I was wondering what the current –
DISPATCHER: If you ask him to leave, he is supposed to leave. I mean, it's your – your prerogative to not have someone in that situation in there, I believe.
PAUL BOUSEMAN: Okay.
DISPATCHER: What entrance do they need to come into?
PAUL BOUSEMAN: He came into our main entrance.
DISPATCHER: Okay. Can somebody meet us at an entrance and -- and help us find him?
PAUL BOUSEMAN: Absolutely. I will meet you there.
DISPATCHER: Okay. Which one –
PAUL BOUSEMAN: Thank you very much.
DISPATCHER: Which -- which gate, the Bement side or the Amazonia?
PAUL BOUSEMAN: Mesker Park Drive.
DISPATCHER: Okay. I will get them out there.
PAUL BOUSEMAN: Thank you very much.
DISPATCHER: Uh-huh. Bye-bye.
Consistent with the above conversation, a “run card” was then generated by EPD
Central Dispatch to direct officers to the Park in order to remove Claimant. The run card
also establishes the fact that EPD was tasked from the beginning to remove Claimant from
the Park.
In the “Notes” section of the run card:
Notes: MEET ZOO REP[.] THEY HAD A PATRON WITH A GUN IN HOLSTER VISIBLE[.]
THEY ASKED HE NOT BRING THE WEAPON ON THE PROPERTY AND HE CAME IN ANYWAYS[.]
THEY WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIM TO LEAVE W/OFFICER PRESENT.
We found the subject, later ID as Benjamin Magenheimer his wife and infant child. We approached Magenheimer and I asked for
his gun permit and asked him why he just didn’t cover up the gun with his shirt. He replied that he didn’t have to. His attitude and demeanor within the short initial contact gave me the impression that whatever we asked him or said to him was going to be of little value. I told him that the staff had called us and were concerned with him having a firearm at the Zoo. I tried to point out to him that using a small amount of common sense about covering up the gun would have been a better choice and we probably wouldn’t have even been called. This had no effect on him just that he could carry his gun. I then decided the best course of action was to escort him from the property and told him so, he then said I wouldn’t do that if I were you and also that there would be repercussions. We were not going to resolve the issue in the petting Zoo so I again told him his [sic] was leaving. He had to be told several times before he started walking.
* * * I felt that since we don’t allow people to carry weapons at other public events, that since the Zoo is a city park and the high number of children around, that the best course of action was to have him leave the area since he was adamant about wearing his gun open and expose[d]