Disturbing video

[MJGolf]

Bob Nersesian bills at $600 per hour.

Justin already has counsel. I'm not suggesting he hire Nersesian..........but to have his attorney contact him for expert witnesses. Totally different thing.

[Villiam]

3three is right to a large degree here. I don't know about Maryland in particular but would posit that the whole system is corrupt in a way that outsiders have NO appreciation or understanding of. Look to the Flint MI water crisis news recently for didactic realities on this. That said, you have to be incredibly tactical here and you gotta pick the best battle, ala Norm's earlier comment...

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Nersesian WILL enter a fee/splitting arrangement,
(or more likely), a "Finders Fee."
I have spoken with him RE: his fee.
He does NOT accept contingency arrangements.

[Villiam]

My initial response to this post (MJGolf pg 12) is that the liberal Washington Post is bringing up a red herring here or a strawman. They are suggesting that APs somehow would prefer to be identified as a minority group so that they can seek special exemptions or legal/pragmatic recourse by being who they are INSTEAD of the easy idea of the golden rule and classical liberal (read, libertarian) principles suggesting that we are all free by default. The fact is, we cannot possibly think to ask for "special" considerations. That will kill AP forever. Rather, we have to insist upon the very anarchy that produces good games in some locations, bad in others, as well as terribly mannered heavy-handed pits, vs. those that already know you are counting and don't care, as well as good security vs incompetent, good local police vs bad, violence vs peace, corruption vs not. There are universal laws, if you will, that protect us already. It would be a severe detriment to apply special considerations to our situation when we are already protected by general ones.
A sarcastic response would be this: let's make MORE LAWS! We don't have enough laws already. We need every state to make their own AP laws to protect us like they have in Jersey! I think you see the idea.
It is most important that we protect the rights we always have regardless of whether we are "bad people" or not. For example, no one needs to teach me a lesson via physical assault for my "crime".

[Norm]

Villiam, good post. But, please be careful about labels like liberal or libertarian, or classifying news source. Remember that this site must remain non-political (particularly in the silly season). Albeit, we must carefully discuss laws and regulations that directly affect us.

[Bodarc]

particularly in the silly season

Lord if it gets any sillier than this season on both sides? (Non partisan comment of course)

[Villiam]

Eghh! Yer right Norm. Sorry guys, I undercut my point-- depoliticize!! And what is it they say about philosophy?

[21frogman]

I'm not sure how much this adds to this discussion, but, at the least, it's interesting. A federal district judge stated that a plaintiff's allegation that security agents (working for the Detroit Tigers) who arrested and detained the plaintiff were acting as state actors (police officers). This is described in the article as a "constitutional rights violation".

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...suit/83243894/

[JustinM]

I'm not sure how much this adds to this discussion, but, at the least, it's interesting. A federal district judge stated that a plaintiff's allegation that security agents (working for the Detroit Tigers) who arrested and detained the plaintiff were acting as state actors (police officers). This is described in the article as a "constitutional rights violation".

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...suit/83243894/

That's correct.

When a person violates someone else's constitutional rights under color of law they're liable for redress in US District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[MJGolf]

That's correct.

When a person violates someone else's constitutional rights under color of law they're liable for redress in US District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I'm not sure how much this adds to this discussion, but, at the least, it's interesting. A federal district judge stated that a plaintiff's allegation that security agents (working for the Detroit Tigers) who arrested and detained the plaintiff were acting as state actors (police officers). This is described in the article as a "constitutional rights violation".

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...suit/83243894/

The only problem with the Detroit Tigers suit is they settled the case. So we won't be able to figure out how far the court was going to go in ruling. They threw out most of the plaintiff's claims except the one against the security guards who were "acting under the color of State authority". And this case was about the plaintiff's son "allegedly" trying to pass a $10 "counterfeit" bill that got escalated far beyond reason. But at least the legal reasoning is somewhat synonomous.

[JustinM]

My case has been set for a 4 day Jury Trial starting August 7, 2017. United States District Court Baltimore Division. Bob Nersesian is lead counsel.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"My case has been set for a 4 day Jury Trial starting August 7, 2017.
United States District Court Baltimore Division.
Bob Nersesian is leading counsel."

August is beyond my "event horizon",
but PLEASE keep us posted, especially
when the case is settled 'out of court.'

[Three]

when the case is settled 'out of court.'

Settled out of court often has a no disclosure claus. Talking can have you return the settlement?