Ammon Bundy Wants to Sue the County Jailing Him

Because jail violates his civil rights...

Poor little snowflake.

 

Poor guy! :smile:

"In court documents released Tuesday, the leaders of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation give a list of conditions at the jail they said are violating their constitutional rights."

These guys and their lists.

"But the sheriff’s office also denied many requests from the inmates, including access to internet and chairs in their cells, access to other defendants so they can “strategize together” before the trial, unmonitored phone calls, a cordless printer and scanner, more storage space in jail cells, and “real pens.”

Sorry, it's called jail for a reason. Real pens? No can do. Those would make mighty fine shanks.

 

Funny thing is that no one was really restricting his, or his father's, right to be all sovereign citizen. Don't like the government? Protest it. Don't like the laws? Protest them and lobby to have them changed. But just ignoring them never works out well even if you're really sure that you're 100% right and the 100+ years of case law is wrong. Pay your grazing fees like everyone else. Don't occupy federal property.

Some pretty basic social contract stuff here.

 

Yeah, I think I will just stop paying my property taxes in protest. Let's see how that works out. :smile:

 

I just noticed this in your sig line:

Certificate in Human Resources Management - Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations

I will have to ask you more about that later.

 

I'm always happy to discuss.

 

Prisons let inmates use real pens all the time. It's not a safety or security issue, and they make lousy shanks. (I've seen a shank made from a Hefty bag; it was like a knife.) As for unmonitored phone calls, it won't happen. While inmates can meet with attorneys without supervision (once the attorneys have been searched), prisons don't offer privacy on phone calls. Nor do they, typically, allow access to the internet.

Inmates deserve and should have their Constitutional rights protected. However, their assessment of what that means usually differs dramatically from what the state thinks it means.

Inmates sue prisons all the time and almost never prevail. It's only newsworthy in this case because of the guy doing the complaining--not the validity of the complaint.

 

I believe that the mother of that Couch kid in Texas also took issue with her accommodations in county jail.

I don't think jail or prison should be a place of eternal torment but this isn't Sweden and some unpleasantness should be anticipated.

 

I'd be tempted to tell him, "Sure, you can sue. But if you lose then you pay all the court costs."

 

The Bundy family has repeatedly stated that 100+ years of case law is completely invalid and can legally be ignored. So I find some irony in them turning to the courts seeking redress.

 

That's the ultimate tort reform, done in some countries. You'll never see it here until Americans get over their obsession with voting lawyers into public office.

 

Contrary to what a lot of people think, the right to a lawyer doesn't mean that it's completely free. Unless a suspect is totally, completely indigent, they pay something. A similar provision could be made for prisoners who file suits while in prison, although frivolous lawsuits by prisoners are infamous, so there has to be some ramifications.

I was thinking more along the line of the dumbasses who sue because the hot coffee they ordered is actually hot, and then want a bazillion dollars because they scalded themselves.

 

I understand your point and I don't completely disagree but there are two points I'd make. The first is the idea of "should," which implies some sort of obligation. It's not clear where this obligation comes from, some higher authority or general principle? What is that authority or what is that principle? Can it be clearly articulate in detail? The second point relates to how this might generalize to other situations. So, for example, where I live is a pretty rural area and if you don't have a car then there's no way to get anywhere. No car = no job. So poorer people who can't afford a car can't find jobs because they have no reliable way to get to the workplace. So the people with at least a little money (and cars) are the ones who get the jobs. Not fair? So "should" we buy cars for everyone just as we might pay for lawyers for everyone? Sometimes if you take that general principle and apply it across the board you get some interesting little problems that pop up.

 

Conspiracy theories

I lost track of all this stuff. But from what I remember, one of these guys got shot by the Feds/cops as he was going for his weapon/pistol. All kinds of conspiracy started to arise. I guess you could say this guy was being set up to be some kind of martyr. Finally, one of his own spoke of up said, nope "he went for his gun, and he was shot". End of story. Not only that, but there was a pesky video that clearly showed the guy (was it the tarp man?) being warned to put his hands up. He did not comply, and he decided to reach for his pistol. Deadly mistake. He made his decision.

Sorry folks. I now there are a few cases where shootings are not justified. But this is not always the case. In my case, when an officer pulls me over for whatever reason (traffic tickets), I put my hands up on the steering wheel. If I am going to reach for my wallet under the car seat, I inform the officer of what I am doing, and ask if it is ok. If I reach for my glove compartment to get my registration, I once again tell the officer what I am doing. I find that this clears the air, and tells the popo I do not intend to reach for any hidden weapons. After all, they don't know me from Adam, and they don't know what I am capable of.

I find that if respect is given in most situations in life, it is returned in kind. Of course, I come from an era when we referred to officers as "Sir" or "Officer". Of course, I have a soft spot for cops. My late uncle was a cop, and they have a tough job to do.

 

OK, so here's my off-the-cuff response. Your two points (above) could be summarized as "Existing law say this is the way it should be." Well, that same set of existing laws dictate that people pay for their own lawyers post-conviction. So you can't say "It's the law" when it suits you and "It's wrong" when it doesn't.

 

If you've never actually read up on the McDonalds coffee case it is worth checking into.

1. The coffee was way too hot. McDOnalds upped the temperature because patrons had been complaining that their coffee was getting too cold too soon. So they cranked up the heat to the point where it was capable of causing third degree burns and require skin grafts. That's hot. That's really hot. Go get a hot cup of coffee from Starbucks and dump it on your hand. Hurts like hell. But you'll still only get a first degree burn (the equivalent of a sun burn). Now make the coffee hot enough to where it causes permanent tissue damage.

2. The woman who sued McDonalds didn't want a bazillion dollars. She wanted McDonalds to pay her medical bills. The total she was asking for? $20,000 to cover the eight days she spent in the hospital and the numerous expensive and painful procedures she endured. McDonalds refused.

3. During discovery it was revealed that McDonalds had received over 700 verified claims of consumers suffering third degree burns from their coffee.

4. The jury awarded her $2.7M in punitive damages (I've heard it claimed that they did so, in part, because the lawyers representing McDonalds behaved even more smugly than your typical lawyer during the trial and the jury wanted to stick it to them). That was reduced to just over $400k. And the ultimate settlement remains unknown because it was settled secretly.

There are plenty of frivolous lawsuits out there. If we want to stick with McDonalds we can look at the guy who sued them because McD's food contributed to him being overweight.

But the coffee case involved a corporation requiring its stores to hand a beverage to customers at such a high temperature that it caused third degree burns, the corporation knowing that this was happening and choosing to do nothing and not even being willing to pay the medical bills that arose out of their negligence. It was hardly frivolous.