• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

42 § 1983

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

umkemesic

Member
Hello,


I was given a No-Contact Order on 1 September 2011, based off an email I sent the complainant stating "I can email you whenever I want". The complaining witness also alleged acts that occurred in 2008, the subject of a lawsuit which I filed against the Complaining Witness.


The Associate Judge granted the complainant's petition on the basis that "one email is enough, she was represented by counsel". Apparently the Associate Judge viewed the complainant being sued by me as entitling her to a protective order. An appeal was immediately filed.


On 13 September 2011 I was taken into custody for "violation of a civil no-contact order". The Police making the arrest made statements indicating that, "they did not want to drive here and arrest you", and that complaining witness and her lawyer (in the federal case) kept complaining and are trying to build a case.


The "violation" is alleged by the Defendant making a website blog and "inviting people to talk about the CW, her family, and friends". The Blog also contained pictures of the complaining witness taken from her own facebook account. The State is alleging that these pictures were taken without the permission of the complaining witness (like that matters), but ignores the fact that these pictures were made public by DC herself and are not obscene. Additionally, the blog was created two months before the order was entered.


On 14 September I appeared before the bail Judge. An order of no probable cause to detain was entered.


On 28 September 2011 the complaining witness was not in court when the case was called at approximately 9:20 a.m., the case was SOL'd. The State is seeking to reinstate these charges, "because the complaining witness was late to court", and has a scheduled motion on 19 September 2011. I filed a motion to dismiss.


The state cannot prove it's case because the alleged conduct falls under the free speech exception in the statute and the acts, even if it were a violation of the OP, occured before the order was issued. (The order says no contact, and not to commit "stalking" as defined as 2 or more acts, directed at a specific person, that threatens physical injury or causes a person to suffer emotional distress).


Here we are dealing with an internet blog, that at the time was blank, it now has stories relating to other matters.


By question is this: Assuming I win the motion to dismiss, which should enable me to file a title 42 § 1983 complaint in Federal Court against the officers for false arrest, can I also bring the complaintant to court for Abuse of Process/Malicious prosecution based soley on State claims?


In other words, Can you have a federal question on one Defendant, and on another private defendant (a non-state actor residing in the same state) bring only state-law claims, if the claims are related and arise from the same conduct?
 
Last edited by a moderator:


umkemesic

Member
I see....So you believe they had probable cause to arrest me based on the above? That would be the question.

This case is similiar to Purtell v. Mason, 527 F.3d 615, another Free Speech case, but in that case the 7th Circuit did not believe that case warranted a federal lawsuit. They also ruled the officer had probable cause because there was shouting and shoving.

Here, this was an actual arrest, and no words provocing a breach of peace.

But I understand that probable cause is a high bar to get over, Police generally have probable cause based on a "credible" complaint.

The abuse of process would be that the ulterior motive for the arrest being to take down the website. The Police said that "maybe the bail judge would make you take down the website". Also the Complaintant's lawyer was at the bail hearing - the judge would not let her speak, I assume her lawyer wanted the website down.
 

TheGeekess

Keeper of the Kraken
You know, this is the SECOND time today I've seen this exact same story. The first time one of the resident trolls posted then deleted it. :cool:
 
Last edited:

LillianX

Senior Member
I agree that there was probable cause to arrest you. You need to google Qualified Immunity.

Furthermore, you have no evidence whatsoever of abuse of process. In fact, having read the blog post on the site you linked, I'd say you have very little chance of having your case dismissed.

You need to delete the link.
 

umkemesic

Member
Well, considering how these OPs are being handed out like candy, and people are being arrested for "violating" the order by posting a blog, I don't see why that is a suprise.

Technically, I sould be arrested again for posting on this blog.

I am a new member, I posted the same topic earlier, but it was deleted (probably because it was in the wrong forum - probably not what you are talking about) however, I am neither a resident or a troll, this is my fourth post counting the above three.

It's a legitimate question:

(1) Was there probable cause

(2) Was their a potential First Admendment Violation and;

(3) Can you sue law enforcement in Federal Court, and bring state-only torts on a private co-Defendant.

This is similiar to a Diversity question in class-action where you only need one Defendant or one Plaintiff outside the same state to claim Diversity.
 
Last edited:

cyjeff

Senior Member
Let's turn this around a bit.

You have a no contact order. What makes you think it would still be okay to create a blog NAMING that person and asking people to slam that person, his/her friends and his/her family? Or, in your case, not instantly taking the blog down? The last post was AFTER you received your restraining order... are you stupid?

If you are trying to get the order stopped, this was NOT the way to do it. It makes you look like a crazy person. You went to the facebook page, got her pics and used them to humiliate and harass her - you accuse people of sleeping around and use the word "skank"... all in the POST restraining order post. Nice.

It could also be seen as an attempt to get around the restraining order.... which, of course, leads to the probable cause for the arrest. Police officers are not charged with determining guilt or innocence - that is what the court is for.

One more thing. If you think that you can email anyone you want as often as you want and they can't stop you because of your freedom of speech, you really have no idea how that works at all. If you think you can humiliate and harass someone on the internet because of your freedom of speech, you really have no idea how that works at all.

Your lawyer does... that is why he/she is trying to make the missed court date so important... because you have nothing else.

Nutbag.
 

cyjeff

Senior Member
It's a legitimate question:

(1) Was there probable cause
Yes

(2) Was their a potential First Admendment Violation and;
Was "there" a potential First Amendment violation? No.

(3) Can you sue law enforcement in Federal Court, and bring state-only torts on a private co-Defendant.
Sure, but you do have to have cause.

This is similiar to a Diversity question in class-action where you only need one Defendant or one Plaintiff outside the same state to claim Diversity.
Okay, just stop. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

This is akin to saying, "I know planes fly and boats float, but if I name my boat after a plane, can it fly?"

Why would you think this has anything to do with a class action lawsuit?

I am guessing your attorney stares at his/her pad and shakes his/her head a lot, right?
 

umkemesic

Member
I agree that there was probable cause to arrest you. You need to google Qualified Immunity.

Furthermore, you have no evidence whatsoever of abuse of process. In fact, having read the blog post on the site you linked, I'd say you have very little chance of having your case dismissed.

You need to delete the link.
No I don't, I understand if there was probable cause then forget about it. I understaned Qualified Immunity. Perhaps you should Google Snyder v. Phelps. (i.e. public forum, emotional distress from speech cannot be limited) The posts are about radical feminism and "the system".

The case was already SOL'd. Second, the bail Judge entered an order of no-probable cause to detain, although not dispositive to the final outcome of the case, I like my chances.

But I'm sure you are right, maybe the State can prove I am guilty of violating an order with actions that occured before the order was given. Makes sense.

No, I like my chances for a dismissal and/or acquittal.

If people can parade in **** Uniforms, protest at dead soldiers funerals, hang threatning Haloween decorations, I am sure I can create a website about anyone, even if it is a private person, as long as the website is not obscene or threatning.

But thanks for your input. I appreciate any feedback and will wiegh it as to whether I pursue a claim. Sorry for any typos as well, typing pretty fast.
 

umkemesic

Member
Let's turn this around a bit.

You have a no contact order. What makes you think it would still be okay to create a blog NAMING that person and asking people to slam that person, his/her friends and his/her family? Or, in your case, not instantly taking the blog down? The last post was AFTER you received your restraining order... are you stupid?
Alright buddy, the question is not if it is ok, the question is if it is illegal. The post I placed was after the arrest (the arrest occured on 13 September) the post on 17 Sept and onwards. None of the post are about the C.W. per se. There are other people posting on the blog, or did you not read their comments? They found the information helpful.


If you are trying to get the order stopped, this was NOT the way to do it. It makes you look like a crazy person. You went to the facebook page, got her pics and used them to humiliate and harass her - you accuse people of sleeping around and use the word "skank"... all in the POST restraining order post. Nice.
Those other people are not her, and the word "skank" is not applied to her.

It could also be seen as an attempt to get around the restraining order.... which, of course, leads to the probable cause for the arrest. Police officers are not charged with determining guilt or innocence - that is what the court is for.
Se above comments, the website was blank at the time of the arrest with the exception of the pictures.

One more thing. If you think that you can email anyone you want as often as you want and they can't stop you because of your freedom of speech, you really have no idea how that works at all. If you think you can humiliate and harass someone on the internet because of your freedom of speech, you really have no idea how that works at all.

Your lawyer does... that is why he/she is trying to make the missed court date so important... because you have nothing else.

Nutbag.
"Nutbag".

Listen here, produce one law in Illinois that prohibits me from sending you xxx amount of emails. The closest is the CAN-SPAM act. She was not held as a "captive audience" as in Rowan v. Post Office.

There are no laws prohibiting me from emailing you and calling you a third rate lawyer, is there?

Like there are no laws prohibiting you from posting comments calling me a "nutbag"

If I were to apply you're fascist reasoning to this colloquy, I should be able to get an OP for you calling me a nutbag.
 

LillianX

Senior Member
OP, you need to understand that no one here knows you, or knows anything about you, other than what you say about yourself. No one has any reason to be for or against you. We're complete strangers. You're coming off as really creepy. I think you need to seek some sort of psychological help for yourself. You see to have problems with processing reality.
 

LillianX

Senior Member
Listen here, produce one law in Illinois that prohibits me from sending you xxx amount of emails. The closest is the CAN-SPAM act. She was not held as a "captive audience" as in Rowan v. Post Office.

.
Illinois Harassing and Obscene Communications Act. And no, obscene does not mean what you think it means.
 

umkemesic

Member
Thanks for your input, but I take issue with this statement:


Okay, just stop. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

This is akin to saying, "I know planes fly and boats float, but if I name my boat after a plane, can it fly?"

Why would you think this has anything to do with a class action lawsuit?

I am guessing your attorney stares at his/her pad and shakes his/her head a lot, right?
Has nothing to do with a Class-Action, I was merely pointing out that in a class action you can claim juridiction for alleging that either one defendant or one plaintiff lives outside the state as the others. This is true.

So my question is, for a federal question can you bring claims against the gov. and pure state claims against a non-state actor - co-defendant, if the cause of action is the same? The answer seems to be yes.

So now the question is whether there is probable cause - if I have a claim.

You say no, which is OK, I will take your advice, that is why I came here.

I will not take personal assults and name-calling like "Crazy" and "Nutbag". Or attacks on typos.

If you had any sense, you would see that you communicating with me is worse than anything I said to/about the CW.

In other words, if the Police had Probable cause to arrest me based on my speech, then they have probable cause to arrest you for calling me names on this forum. Checkmate :)
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
In other words, if the Police had Probable cause to arrest me based on my speech, then they have probable cause to arrest you for calling me names on this forum. Checkmate :)
You do not have the "right" to violate a court order. Your "right" of free speech cannot infringe upon the rights of another.

You really do sound like a crazy nutbag to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top