Post details: Limitless Motions In Limine...

2012-05-21

Permalink 12:03:50, Categories: News, Right to Travel, Roadblock Lawsuit, Checkpoints, Sobriety, 994 words   English (EU)

Limitless Motions In Limine...

Since first drafting this blog entry in late May, significant developments have arisen regarding this lawsuit. I'll be writing about this in more detail soon but for now please note that previously reported trial dates have been vacated.

In broad terms, a Motion In limine is a written request to a judge prior to the start of trial requesting that he/she take some action/make a ruling regarding how the trial will be conducted. Most common however, Motions in limine are written requests to the judge to disallow certain testimony or evidence from being presented to a jury during trial. For purposes of this blog entry and my ongoing civil rights lawsuit, this latter description is the one that applies here.

[More:]

What's interesting to note in the Motions in limine filed in this case is that we (the plaintiff) filed a single 4-page motion with the court dealing specifically with exclusion of hearsay testimony & any issues not directly related to the specific issues to be adjudicated at trial. The defendant's on the other hand submitted nine Motions in limine with fourteen separate exhibits, not including the various tables of content.

The breadth of the exclusions sought by the defendant's in their motions is quite extensive and covers everything from officer training (or lack thereof) to clear evidence of harassment and intimidation visited on the plaintiff by the defendants after the initial checkpoint incident from December of 2002. While it's quite understandable why the defendant's wouldn't want such information to come to light during trial, the attempt to exclude it is clearly designed to undermine the foundation for the defendant's illegal & unethical actions throughout the evolution of this case.

This has also been a real eye opener to me regarding 'legal' mechanisms available to litigants to not only prevent a jury from hearing the whole story but to cherry pick facts right out of the flow of events directly pertinent to the case at hand. While some may argue these legal mechanisms are available to both sides in a legal dispute, the truth of the matter is government prosecutors and government defendants more often than not receive the lions share of the benefits associated with such 'legal' wrangling. Regardless, it's clear to me that juries rarely are afforded an opportunity to judge the facts of a case based upon "the whole truth". Rather, a jury gets to hear only the "truth" that a judge ultimately allows them to hear.

Note - at the time of this writing, no ruling has been made regarding the Motions in limine filed in this case so the commentary above is general in nature.

Regarding the Motions in limine filed in this case, you'll find links to all of them below along with responses filed by both parties. The number appearing in front of the link is the court docket number for that motion. Some of the motions have attachments associated with them and appear below their respective motions.

While there are a lot of documents associated with this particular aspect of the case, each one is relatively short in length and worth the read. Especially if you're interested in seeing why it is juries rarely have an opportunity to hear the whole story regarding government misconduct/malfeasance in our modern day judicial system:

Comments:

Comment from: Doug23 [Visitor]
Yikes.
"significant developments have arisen regarding this lawsuit."

What you describe here I have seen also, in other cases. This appears to be standard, and it's disheartening. The Judge chooses which side the government will back, and then whittles away the scope of your complaint, and then disallows the evidence you need to present to prevail. It seems to be standard procedure. That's why juries should be reluctant to believe the government side (police, prosecutors, etc.). The government lies, and then keeps the jury from knowing what really happened. In criminal trials, as a jury member, if there's any doubt that you've heard the whole story, and the government is the "victim" (i.e., no victim) - acquit.
The "Rules of Evidence" seem to be a real impediment to justice in America.

I have a question.
Is there any recourse? Is appeal a practical recourse? In other cases it has been distressing for me to watch them do this.

The courts will contribute to the undoing of America. It is obvious to more and more people that the courts are illegitimate. This leaves no peaceful means of redressing grievances against government intrusions on our God-given liberties. The courts don't even try to appear even handed. It is frightening to me. Where will this lead?
Permalink 2012-06-03 @ 21:57
Comment from: Checkpoint USA [Member]
"Is there any recourse? Is appeal a practical recourse?"


Appeal is certainly a recourse but whether or not it's practical depends on the circumstances.

If you remember, all my claims in this lawsuit were originally dismissed by Judge Roll at the district level back in 2006-2007. We appealed to the 9th circuit and had most of Roll's decisions reversed and the lawsuit reinstated.

As such, appeals can work when there is a sound legal foundation for it but they can add years to the lifetime of the litigation and can cost thousands of dollars with no guarentee that the appeal will be successful or your costs will be recouped at a later date.

For purposes of this case, unlike the police defendants, we cannot appeal an adverse ruling until after the legal action has run it's course. This means we have to accept an adverse ruling until after the trial is complete and decide afterwards if we want to appeal. Police defendants on the other hand usually have the option of an interlocutory appeal during or before trial - especially if they can include issues of sovereign or qualified immunity within it. Yet another way in which government actors have a distinct advantage in the court system over private parties.

Appeals are also problematic if the ruling being appealed is split where part of the ruling was favorable and part wasn't. Appealing such rulings create the risk of losing everything on appeal since everything is usually back up for review.
Permalink 2012-06-04 @ 21:28

Comments are closed for this post.

Roadblock Revelations

Welcome to Checkpoint USA's blog. Here you'll find general information and discussions regarding growing threats to our right to privacy & travel.

While I refer to court cases along with state and federal law frequently in this blog, nothing written here should be construed as legal advice. I am not an attorney. Rather, I'm someone concerned about the growing disregard for individual rights present at all levels of government.

My conclusions are my own based upon personal experience and research. The law is made purposely complex however and varies significantly from place to place and circumstance to circumstance.

April 2014
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
<<  <   >  >>
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

Search

Categories


Misc

Syndicate this blog XML

What is RSS?

powered by
b2evolution