Jail Gets a Bad Rap

P

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
Finshaggy said:
I'm not saying they don't know what they are doing, they are just on the losing end of a case. The court room isn't about who is better or who has been in a courtroom the most, it is about what happened to get everyone there.

I am suing over the 2010 arrest next, then I am suing the DEA for the Controlled Substances Act being in violation of the 21st Amendment. But right now, yes, just for the stolen Religious Materials.
Click to expand...
Sure. But that Texas Code, Title 5, Section 110 won't do you any good. That's why the Defendant removed the case to Federal Court. Section 110.005 (c): "An action under this section must be brought in district court." Your case is not in a Texas District Court anymore. That code has zero applicability in Federal Court.

Also, take a look at Section 110.007. "ONE-YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD. (a) A person must bring an action to assert a claim for damages under this chapter not later than one year after the date the person knew or should have known of the substantial burden on the person's free exercise of religion." Meaning you can't sue the DEA for an incident that occurred in 2010.
 
curious2garden

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
pabloesqobar said:
.......snip.........That code has zero applicability in Federal Court.

Also, take a look at Section 110.007. "ONE-YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD. (a) A person must bring an action to assert a claim for damages under this chapter not later than one year after the date the person knew or should have known of the substantial burden on the person's free exercise of religion." Meaning you can't sue the DEA for an incident that occurred in 2010.
Click to expand...
Shh!! Don't spoil my fantasy of fin walking into a Federal Court and setting the Judge straight with such irrelevant trivialities like the Statute of Limitations. This might interfere with his delusions, and we would all be cheated out of one helluva story/video!
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
I got pinched once going 37 in a 25 zone with a 55mph sign in obvious view 500' ahead. The cop didn't show up for the hearing. When I said, but when I saw the 55 sign I sped up a little. Judge said...55 doesn't start till you actually get to the sign. When I asked, shouldn't the arresting officer be here? Judge said, he had a death in the family. I can reschedule your case or I'll drop the points and you pay $180 for a couple mph over the limit.

These guys change the rules as they go along to bring in money. I don't see how Fin gets them follow their own ever changing rules!
 
P

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
curious2garden said:
Shh!! Don't spoil my fantasy of fin walking into a Federal Court and setting the Judge straight with such irrelevant trivialities like the Statute of Limitations. This might interfere with his delusions, and we would all be cheated out of one helluva story/video!
Click to expand...
Yeah, he could've kept the case in the District court, but his complaint alleged violations of federal law. Hence removal for federal question. He messed that up.

And I suspect his arguments regarding waiving immunity will not help him. I haven't looked into that tho.
 
curious2garden

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
pabloesqobar said:
Yeah, he could've kept the case in the District court, but his complaint alleged violations of federal law. Hence removal for federal question. He messed that up.

And I suspect his arguments regarding waiving immunity will not help him. I haven't looked into that tho.
Click to expand...
I agree. In District he might have stood a chance. Especially if they use court commissioners in TX (this is where my intersection of apathy and ignorance converge -- I'd actually have to read his pleading and that's not going to happen in this lifetime).
 
P

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
Finshaggy said:
When I walk in the Federal court room I just have to show the judge this.

Sec. 110.008. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WAIVED. (a) Subject to Section 110.006, sovereign immunity to suit and from liability is waived and abolished to the extent of liability created by Section 110.005, and a claimant may sue a government agency for damages allowed by that section.

(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), this chapter does not waive or abolish sovereign immunity to suit and from liability under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
Click to expand...
Subsection (b) is the important part. They did not waive immunity under the 11th amendment. And since it's now in Federal court, that's what they'll be asserting.
 
P

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
If you were serious about this case, consider amending your complaint. Remove all federal allegations. Only allege violations of State law and see if it can be remanded back to State court.

Or not. By the way, did you follow the mandatory written notice procedures outlined in section 110.006?
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Went back to the Evidence release place today and they said the lab is packing it up and it will be ready tomorrow.

I am SOOOO ready for this lawsuit. So far I have 2 wins and 0 convictions, and now I have the lawsuit, that will make 3 wins. Then in my home town case they already admitted fault through the jail kiosk when I was in there beating my case, so that one will probably be a win also. And just btw, I had 7 days back time from the original arrest 6 years ago, and it was a class B misdemeanor, so I could have been out after 8 days but I stayed for over a month just so I could beat it.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
And I said this before, but I just think it needs to be said again. Our Church has already won in the 5th Circuit court of appeals against the DEA, so to beat me the City would have to beat me in Federal Court, then beat me on Appeal in a court that has already ruled in our favor (Meaning they would have to overturn precedent, making their fight an uphill one) and they would have to do all that more effectively than the DEA was able to.
 
curious2garden

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
Finshaggy said:
And I said this before, but I just think it needs to be said again. Our Church has already won in the 5th Circuit court of appeals against the DEA, so to beat me the City would have to beat me in Federal Court, then beat me on Appeal in a court that has already ruled in our favor (Meaning they would have to overturn precedent, making their fight an uphill one) and they would have to do all that more effectively than the DEA was able to.
Click to expand...
If you get a date to argue this in Federal Court, please give me the time and date. Hey Gar (@Gary Goodson ), can I couch surf?

@pabloesqobar up for a field trip?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top