Skip to comments.Driver Sues Cops After Being Arrested for Insulting Language On Ticket Payment Form
Posted on 06/21/2013 10:04:09 PM PDT by Impala64ssaEdited on 06/22/2013 8:06:37 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Remember these names: Detective Steven DíAgata and Officer Melvin Gorr of the Liberty, New York police department, as well as Town of Liberty Justice Brian P. Rourke and Assistant DA Joe Drillings. I want you to remember their names because regardless of the outcome of Barboza v. DíAgata & Gorr in United States District Court, those men all deserve to be roundly mocked. Frankly, they deserve to be fired and in the case of Rourke and Drillings, disbarred and then prosecuted for violating their oaths to act constitutionally. Iíd call for some tarring and feathering as well, but at a time when those in government mostly use the levers of that government to help those they like and harm those they donít, at a time of concern over partiality at the IRS and snooping at the NSA, one doesnít want to be perceived as threatening those on the other side of the thin grey line. You might find yourself prosecuted for criticizing our public servants, just like Willian Barboza.
(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
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 arent defendants in the Federal civil rights case is due to judicial and prosecutorial 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)
George M. WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
David HAYSE, in his Official Capacity as Judge in Fayette
District Court, Defendant-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 6, 1993.
E.D.Ky., No. 92-00510; Forester, J.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Before: GUY and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge.
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
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