Finicum Lawsuit

Post Reply
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 17675
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Finicum Lawsuit

#1

Post by Volkonski » Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:38 am

In the complaint "sheriff" is consistently misspelled as "sherriff".
http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-stan ... AWSUIT.pdf


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1410
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#2

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:46 am

It reads like a Larry Klayman epic.



User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 17675
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#3

Post by Volkonski » Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:50 am

The complaint is a rehash of Bundy talking points, shot in the back, adverse possession, federal overreach, etc. :roll: :roll: :roll:


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 945
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#4

Post by fierceredpanda » Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:52 am

Oh, wow. I couldn't even make it past the first allegation without belly-laughing.
In November 2017, a widely published national news story caught the attention of the American public, when video surfaced of a North Korean citizen attempting a desperate border run for safety. The video showed that when the truck he was driving crashed on the side of the road, the North Korean citizen was aggressively pursued by an armed North Korean government force. He was shot five times, and collapsed. News reports showed that the man survived and made it across the border, to a friendly government on the other side of the line. The story was captivating, because in the American psyche, the idea of being shot in the back by your own government for trying to cross a border – is unthinkable.
Yeah, LaVoy is exactly like a North Korean defector. Well, he is in at least one relevant way. :machinegun:


"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9272
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#5

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:54 am

The Center for Biological Diversity should respond with a Rule 11 motion. I read the whole thing, and I still can’t tell you exactly what they supposedly did or why they are named in the suit.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9715
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#6

Post by Kendra » Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:59 am

Thanks for the new thread. WTF do Harry Reid and Dan Love have to do with Oregon?



User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 945
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#7

Post by fierceredpanda » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:00 pm

Kendra wrote:
Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:59 am
Thanks for the new thread. WTF do Harry Reid and Dan Love have to do with Oregon?
Didn't Harry Reid call the Bundy gang terrorists during the standoff? Clearly he was in on the conspiracy.


"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9715
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#8

Post by Kendra » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:04 pm

Their timing is perfect - all those cries in DC over how corrupt the FBI is and all.



NMgirl
Posts: 3723
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#9

Post by NMgirl » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:13 pm

Philpoot is listed as "inactive" on the OSB website. Does that mean he hasn't paid his dues?

Lisa Ludwig, cRyan's cja, looks like a respectable/respected member of the Oregon Bar Association. She's not a wrongful death kinda attorney though; she's a criminal defense attorney. Did she even read the complaint before she signed and filed it?

Is it usual to have such a laundry list of defendants :?: Loretta Lynch, Harry Reid, Ron Wyden, Kate Brown, et alia, are getting some plaintiff love.


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

Sageandcows
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:01 pm

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#10

Post by Sageandcows » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:14 pm

So they are suing Harney County? And our sheriff and ex judge? Anything us concerned citizens can do? The anniversary of the shooting, expecting a town full of nutjobs anyhow.



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4679
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#11

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:19 pm

In their statement of jurisdiction they don’t say anything about having filed a claim under the Federal tort claims act, which is a prerequisite to jurisdiction in federal court. Does anyone know whether they’ve actually filed a claim?

Also, their first cause of action is going to fail because of the “law enforcement exception” to the waiver of sovereign immunity under the federal tort claims act. The only way you can win against the government for things that go wrong during law-enforcement activity is through a Bivins action (which they will, of course, lose).



NMgirl
Posts: 3723
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#12

Post by NMgirl » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:24 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:19 pm
In their statement of jurisdiction they don’t say anything about having filed a claim under the Federal tort claims act, which is a prerequisite to jurisdiction in federal court. Does anyone know whether they’ve actually filed a claim?
:snippity:
Yes, iirc, Jeanette did file a claim under the Federal tort claims act, and somewhere in one of the Bundy threads that is verified. I will try to find it, but it might take some time. Lotta Bundy stuff on TFB.


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1327
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#13

Post by neeneko » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:38 pm

158. During the shooting period, passenger Ryan Bundy was also shot in the arm with
a lethal round.
I do not think this person knows what 'lethal' means.



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4679
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#14

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:47 pm

NMgirl wrote:
Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:24 pm
Maybenaut wrote:
Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:19 pm
In their statement of jurisdiction they don’t say anything about having filed a claim under the Federal tort claims act, which is a prerequisite to jurisdiction in federal court. Does anyone know whether they’ve actually filed a claim?
:snippity:
Yes, iirc, Jeanette did file a claim under the Federal tort claims act, and somewhere in one of the Bundy threads that is verified. I will try to find it, but it might take some time. Lotta Bundy stuff on TFB.
Para. 47 of the complaint says, “Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable notice and statutory requirements of both the Oregon and federal Tort Claims Acts.”

But that isn’t necessarily enough for jurisdiction. They have two years from the date of the incident to file a claim under the Federal tort claims act. Then they have six months from the final denial of the claim to sue in court. If they don’t file the claim within two years, or if they don’t file suit within six months of the final denial, then there is no jurisdiction. If I was an attorney filing a complaint in federal court based on the Federal tort claims act, I think in my statement of jurisdiction I would say this is the date I filed the claim, and this is the date that the claim was denied. And then I would tie that to the jurisdiction of the court under the federal tort claims act.



User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1327
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#15

Post by neeneko » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:49 pm

54. Mr. Finicum saw first-hand, while he was at Bunkerville, that the conflict between
Case 2:18-cv-00160-SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 13 of 48
Page 14 of 48 | Civil Complaint
peaceful political protestors and rogue overreaching federal agents, was resolved when the local
Sherriff’s department intervened, and when the local Sherriff’s actions caused the rogue
government agents to back down and to disband.
55. In fact, when the local Clark County Sherriff’s office arrived on sight in Bunkerville, on
April 14, 2014, several BLM and other federal agents saw the Sherriff department as hostile and
aligned with the protesters.
56. Law enforcement records show that the Sheriffs’ office also brought in its own SWAT
Team, with its own snipers and other strategically placed personnel who set up counter positions
- with the protesters, taking up strategic positions against the federal agents, pointing their guns
(that is the Sherriff’s SWAT snipers were pointing their guns) at the rogue federal agents – and
not at the protestors. This sent a clear message regarding the untenable position and conduct of
the federal agents – who had previously been threatening over a loud speaker to shoot protesters.
57. Mr. Finicum further saw that with the intervention of several Clark County Nevada
Sherriff deputies, the threat to protestors, bystanders and the observing public was dissipated,
and resolved. He also saw that Defendant Love retreated and released the Bundy cattle and
removed all of the federal officers and staff from the Bunkerville operation. Mr. Finicum also
witnessed that all harm and potential violence had been avoided.
So how wide spread is this read on events? I imagine that the local sherif might not be happy with this narrative.



User avatar
jmj
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 11:01 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#16

Post by jmj » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:53 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:54 am
The Center for Biological Diversity should respond with a Rule 11 motion. I read the whole thing, and I still can’t tell you exactly what they supposedly did or why they are named in the suit.
For those of us with less familiarity with the court system, can you summarize what a Rule 11 motion is?



User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7095
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#17

Post by RoadScholar » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:55 pm

If local police aimed loaded weapons at federal agents, I'm Mortimer Snerd.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24430
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#18

Post by bob » Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:37 pm

jmj wrote:
Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:53 pm
For those of us with less familiarity with the court system, can you summarize what a Rule 11 motion is?
"Rule 11" is the basis for sanctions for a bad-faith filing.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 says, essentially, that the signor of the pleading affirms there is a legal and factual basis for the filing, and that the filing isn't done for an improper purpose (like harassment). If the court disagrees (and all of the rule's hoops are jumped through), the signor can be sanctioned.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
jmj
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 11:01 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#19

Post by jmj » Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:01 pm

bob wrote:
Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:37 pm
jmj wrote:
Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:53 pm
For those of us with less familiarity with the court system, can you summarize what a Rule 11 motion is?
"Rule 11" is the basis for sanctions for a bad-faith filing.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 says, essentially, that the signor of the pleading affirms there is a legal and factual basis for the filing, and that the filing isn't done for an improper purpose (like harassment). If the court disagrees (and all of the rule's hoops are jumped through), the signor can be sanctioned.
Thanks for the explanation Bob. It certainly looks to me like they're just including the Center for Biological Diversity as a form of harassment. It would be sweet if they managed to get themselves sanctioned for that nonsense.



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4679
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#20

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:33 pm

bob wrote:
Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:37 pm
jmj wrote:
Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:53 pm
For those of us with less familiarity with the court system, can you summarize what a Rule 11 motion is?
"Rule 11" is the basis for sanctions for a bad-faith filing.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 says, essentially, that the signor of the pleading affirms there is a legal and factual basis for the filing, and that the filing isn't done for an improper purpose (like harassment). If the court disagrees (and all of the rule's hoops are jumped through), the signor can be sanctioned.
As can the person on whose behalf the signor signed, no?



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#21

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:36 pm

I'm not sure the complaint meets Iqbal and Twombly plausibility standards as to most of the defendants. And assuming the videos are properly authenticated, I believe the balance of the complaint that's not dismissed for failure adequately to plead will be subject to summary judgment.

This case ain't going anywhere. And many if not most of the defendants can seek Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiffs' lawyers.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24430
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#22

Post by bob » Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:42 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:33 pm
As can the person on whose behalf the signor signed, no?
The short answer is (as always), "it depends." The court is to look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the offending conduct. In other words, if the client directed the bad-faith action, they shouldn't be able to hide behind counsel's signature. (But what should happen and does happen are often different things in the real world.)


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9715
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#23

Post by Kendra » Fri Jan 26, 2018 7:45 pm


Two years after Lavoy Finicum was murdered, Jeanette Finicum speaks out on her wrongful death lawsuit filed in federal court in Oregon. #LibertyRising
Have your hankies handy :sarcasm:



User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 17675
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#24

Post by Volkonski » Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:44 pm



Kierán Suckling
@KieranSuckling

BREAKING Anti-public land extremists just sued @CenterForBioDiv for $5 million, alleging conspiracy with James Comey, Sen. Ron Wyden, Sen. Harry Reid, State Troopers & the FBI to “assassinate” LaVoy Finicum in a “deliberately executed, pre-planned government ambush.” Our response
5:24 PM - Jan 26, 2018


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

NMgirl
Posts: 3723
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Finicum Lawsuit

#25

Post by NMgirl » Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:53 pm

I was working most of the day (wth?) and have just gotten around to looking at Twitter. I had asked Maxine what was up with Lisa Ludwig representing The Widder and filing such a crapticious document. As suspected by us all:
Replying to @NewMexlefty
Lisa Ludwig, an OR defense lawyer, basically just filed the suit for Philpot, as he awaits reactivation of his license to practice in OR
Max also replied to my inquiry about whether there was a federal tort claim filed. She replied that Brian Claypool (the original Widder attorney) said he had filed one. Hmmm. :think: I don't know where one would look for a filing of that kind.


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”