Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Media is Taking ME to Court Tomorrow!!!

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
You should have sneezed on the camera,fell forward and stumbled over your trick ankle while flailing away with your hands,spilling your drink strategically on said optic device.




posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by samstone11
 


You should call a competing news channel in your area and tell them the story. I agree with you, I don't want news agencies hanging around and filming my children when school is dismissed.

I would not want that either, however it is totally legal to film anybody in the public, or so I have heard.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


You keep going about that,I don't think that has anything to do with the conversation.
In America there are LAWS,And the PRIVACY of the individual is protected by these laws (For better and worse.) please remember this.

Thank you for entirely ignoring the part where the crew had no right to specifically film the OP or his child.
They broke the law.There is no IF,AND,or BUT to this.

Often school principals have authority over the surrounding side walk and street.Think how a sidewalk outside a house can be considered in your jurisdiction.A person whom starts setting fires on the sidewalk outside,can be told to stop,as their actions are endangering to you and your property.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Here is a template for how it works *use as a general guideline*.

Motion to Dismiss template

A critical error here is waiting until the last moment to take care of these things.

You would need to go to your local courthouse library and review their local rules of procedure on how to go about filing documents etc. It's usually way over complicated to make sure normal people cannot figure it out within a few weeks. Instead they make sure it's complicated and disorganized enough that it requires years of law school to even have a decent understanding of how it works.

It's not all solid like they make us think, it's fluid and mutable. Legal documents do not have to be exactly a certain way either, they just need to follow specific conventions and that differs everywhere you go. Each court has slightly different rules and procedures after all.

Maybe if you cannot file a motion to dismiss right away because you are simply not prepared to create this document and file it within the next 10hours, perhaps you can attempt to get an extension on the court date in order to buy more time for you to create this motion to dismiss the case?

If you can get an extension I will link you to more information to help you prepare yourself for attempting to escape the clutches of the money-hungry govt. I'd rather you spend the money in the economy and help get things improving rather than throw it in the bottomless pit.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Szarekh

Thank you for entirely ignoring the part where the crew had no right to specifically film the OP or his child.
They broke the law.There is no IF,AND,or BUT to this.


100% incorrect, you have zero proof.
There is no law that agrees with this crap.

Prove it.
Show me ONE LAW that states a film crew cannot film someone in public in the manner that was conducted here.
edit on 11-6-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
You should have sneezed on the camera,fell forward and stumbled over your trick ankle while flailing away with your hands,spilling your drink strategically on said optic device.


This would have reduced the legal drama from assault to merely suing for damages.
700 $ either way you go about it.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
There is no injury therefore there is no crime.


Assault is defined as Having Offensive Contact.

So you merely have to just touch someone WithOut their permission and that would be defined as assault. No Injury is Required.


Correct, physical contact = Battery.
edit on 11-6-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


Here is some more info:

The Act The act must result in one of two forms of contact. Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face or offensively touching someone against his or her will. Touching the person of someone is defined as including not only contacts with the body, but also with anything closely connected with the body, such as clothing or an item carried in the person's hand. For example, a battery may be committed by intentionally knocking a hat off someone's head or knocking a glass out of some-one's hand.

dictionary link

So actually under these definitions you could probably be charged with battery on top of assault.
Hopefully they won't notice it. But also all states have differing definitions in many cases so your state may not even follow this terminology. I think in some places Assault includes Battery and is not even separate, but I'd have to check to make sure specifically who and where.
edit on 11-6-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-6-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I think this can be reduced to its simplest form. Assault.

Technically, by definition, touching the camera WithOut Permission can easily be construed as assault.

In addition, the OP was issuing a directive to turn off the camera. That definitely does not support the defense. Also the fact that they probably have it on film hurts the defense as well.

I am pretty sure that this is one that is not going to be dismissed.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I would think you had a counter suit for assault. I consider having a camera shoved inches from my face assault. There does not have to be contact.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


here's an alternative, send me the money, i'll fly over there, go the reporter's house, break his face, inject...
well long story short ill make sure he doesnt show up to court that way "case dismissed" and ill also make sure he'll never bother you again.. its a win win situation if you hire me



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Why the new thread and not reply to the old one? As I already said there you commited the offense plain and simple. They had all the rights as per your own account. There was no safety issue, that's just something you made up to justify your behaviour.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum


I am pretty sure that this is one that is not going to be dismissed.


I bet I could get it dismissed, but then again, I wouldn't have been in the situation to begin with either.

I cannot defend anyone but myself, so all I can do is link info and hope others will read it and take it into consideration.

Crash course into law is not advised, it's something that takes months of research to really get informed about, and even then there is always tons of stuff you never knew about.

I am willing to help anyone find out anything they want to know though, so if anyone needs an assist hit me up. I certainly don't know it all but I have been into the law topic long enough to know how it works and how to work it.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
O.K. . .. . Let's Eliminate Confusion.

Think about celebrities. They are Battling this Problem with Paparazzi Constantly.

Pay attention to this part. .. . The Paparazzi Usually Win.

Same Type of Case

Same Type of Circumstances.

I watched a video of celebrity parents at a school arguing with the Paparazzi because they felt their children were being violated. In the end. The Paparazzi won that battle.

EDIT:

I found one of those videos. It is not the same one I had seen but, it does have Julia Roberts going off on a cameraman for filming at the school. She seems like she can get Real Mad.

School Paparazzi
edit on 12-6-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magister
I would think you had a counter suit for assault. I consider having a camera shoved inches from my face assault. There does not have to be contact.


You could technically file a counter-suit yes.
It may not go anywhere but you never know unless you try I suppose.

Also a counter suit can give you leverage to negotiate for an equal agreement to drop all charges.

When we get into law playing strategically is the name of the game.
edit on 11-6-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-6-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Have you ever heard the saying. . "Only a Fool Represents Himself"?

It might be more reasonable to pay a lawyer to plea it down to Public Disturbance or something of that nature..



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Have you ever heard the saying. . "Only a Fool Represents Himself"?

It might be more reasonable to pay a lawyer to plea it down to Public Disturbance or something of that nature..


Ever heard the saying " A wise man dismisses his cases before they even begin therefore never has to find representation ?" No? Because it's not common knowledge.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 

You could very well be right about not getting dismissed. Still, I stand by the sincerity and genuineness of my intentions if not the manner or appropriateness of my actions. In doing so, I expect at this point to appeal to common sense and see if the judge believes my behavior blatant. I know he/she has extreme latitude in such determinations, and frankly I will not be able to respect a judge who can honestly tell me they would not have reacted in some similar fashion themselves---if they care about their kids.

If the law mandates a penalty of some form, then I will have to address that as it arises, but I want to believe there is fairness out there. Someone earlier mentioned there will be film of the event, and I have great confidence that will show considerable more aggression on the news crew's behalf than mine. That may not absolve me, but at least my kids can sleep at night knowing, right or wrong, I will always do my sincere best in any and all instances for their safety.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by samstone11
 


If it is a County Court Judge, .. Do your research and investigate to see which University/College he attended.

Then go get a jersey with that team logo on it and wear it to court. . ..


I am Not trying to be funny though it seems that way.

Do you know who Rowdy Rodey Piper is?

He had a drunk and disorderly charge or something like that. He went to court Wearing a jersey of the judges college team and the case was reduced to nearly nothing. Just court costs, I think.

You can probably look it up. It happened in Cincinnati, OH sometime back in the 80's.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
First off, the principal's wishes are not law. The media didn't have to listen to him.

Second, I don't really get what your concern was for. The license plates could be read and the kids could be tracked down? Would these perverts really have the capability of doing that? I imagine they would just follow the cars home...I really don't think the media put those kids in any real danger. Nothing they would've filmed, could not have been seen by just walking by the school, right?

Third, I think you might be downplaying how hard you shoved the camera.
That's the key part in your story and you just briefly mention it.

I don't think you can win if that's your defense.




edit on 12-6-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join