Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#1

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#2

Post by northland10 »

Actually, they may have made it easier for the judge. While in a regular world it would be easy to not grant IPV because the filing fee split among 10 individuals is not large. However, I would not be surprised if the judge granted IPV. This would trigger an initial review and the judge would then dismiss (or remand if that is actually necessary) the complaint. Easy peasy. The organization plaintiff may require more but since it has no representation and cannot apply for IPV, it can be dumped for that.

So our grounds consist of:

1. You cannot remove a criminal case to federal court (it would appear, I think, that that the plaintiffs are defendants in a state criminal court and are trying to remove it to federal court. They have a notice that they filed a writ of removal with the state court.
2. Failure to state a claim
3. Failure to state a claim
4. Failure to state a claim
5. Failure to state a claim against the media defendants who are not party to the case you are removing or something
6. If this is supposed to be a petition for Habeus Corpus, you done doodit the wrong way.
7. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

Disclaimer, IANAL.
Edit: This comment was in the SovCit topic but I recopied it here and updated my previous one in that topic to point to this post.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#3

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Thank you!!
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
woodworker
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:58 am
Location: San Mateo, Calif
Occupation: Slave to my cats

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#4

Post by woodworker »

Ditto, thank you. And you are absolutely correct in your legal conclusions -- This is not how any of this works.
mojosapien
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:44 pm
Location: 02910
Occupation: Desktop support. Retired juror for the next three years, thanks.
Verified:

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#5

Post by mojosapien »

I hope they don't perform target practice during the art festivals that are going on in 02908.
They sound like leftover Providence Davidians here.
Think like a fortune cookie. ©2022-Mojosapien
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#6

Post by KickahaOta »

This thread really leaves the reader wondering what the heck is going on. Yes, I know; when the Moors are involved, "wondering what the heck is going on" is a normal state of affairs. But let me try to ease the gentle readers into the pool:
  • These plaintiffs are the alleged dimwits who allegedly engaged in the following activities: Travelling through Massachusetts in a large, unregistered van and a smaller, unregistered pickup truck. Stopping on a highway roadside to refuel, thus attracting the attention of a passing police trooper, who was intrigued by their wardrobe choices -- various weapons, camo gear, and body armor. Identifying themselves as "militia" on the way from Rhode Island to Maine for "training". Generally creeping police officers the heck out by refusing to drop their weapons and (in some cases) fleeing into the nearby woods with the aforementioned weapons. Carrying a fine assortment of other weapons and ammunition in the vehicles.
  • For these alleged improprieties, they are currently charged in state court with various naughty acts.
  • They have removed -- or, more accurately, tried to remove -- their criminal cases to federal court, on the basis of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the Moroccan Empire and the Republic of the united States of America, a truly legendary document whose power the Magna Carta can only aspire to.
  • They have filed a complaint in federal court, suing various state folks that are involved. Unsurprisingly, they have done so using the wrong legal form. They also did not properly sign the complaint. Naughty.
  • If you want to know what they're actually arguing about, you have to look at the AFFIDAVIT OF FACT. But be careful when you do, because "notice to the agent is notice to the principal, notice to the principal is notice to the agent. UCC 1-202; notice, knowledge." And in fact the knowledge contained therein must simply be too much for the government to allow to be released, because the AFFIDAVIT OF FACT claims to have seven pages, yet only pages 1, 6, and 7 are in the docket.
  • They all apparently believe that when you try to file a case without paying fees because you're indigent, being asked questions like 'what assets do you have' and 'what debts do you have' is a Fourth Amendment violation. This is very innovative.
User avatar
notorial dissent
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:36 pm

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#7

Post by notorial dissent »

Although really not very smart, taking unregistered and/or illegal weapons across state lines could make it a Federal case.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#8

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

KickahaOta wrote: ...the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the Moroccan Empire and the Republic of the united States of America, a truly legendary document whose power the Magna Carta can only aspire to.
:rotflmao:
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#9

Post by RTH10260 »

They haven't yet threatened to send bills to all police officers for the time spent by the interruption of their activities? They could get really rich when including the judges. They would be bazillionaires by now!
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#10

Post by KickahaOta »

Exciting docket update!

Our intrepid Moors, perhaps having been informed of the grievous defect in their AFFIDAVIT OF FACT, have made a new 92-page filing containing everything that they attempted to file before, and asked the clerk to identify and refile whichever page(s) in their filings may have been missing. I'm sure that the clerk is thrilled to be given this honor.

As a convenience to the gentle reader, I will point out that pages 72 through 78 contain the full, powerful AFFIDAVIT OF FACT as originally conceived.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#11

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

I luvs being "a gentle reader". :biggrin:
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#12

Post by KickahaOta »

I am fairly sure that I am unworthy to even summarize the AFFIDAVIT OF FACT. I had originally set out to tiptoe through the AFFIDAVIT OF FACT, firmly skipping the factual issues and touching only lightly on the legal points that seemed... dubious... even to my untrained eye. But alas, I lack the endurance of the bright legal minds that shine among the gentle readers. So I made it about halfway through page 2 before shaking my head and going back to surfing Twitter.

"They were exercising their right to travel with their firearms in adherence with the federal peaceable journey law (18 USC § 196A)."

And we appear to be off to a flying start, because 18 USC § 196A does not appear to actually be a thing. Perhaps they intended to cite somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 UYC § 926A? If so, then there's the inconvenient problem that 926A requires the firearms to be unloaded and not accessible from the passenger compartment. Which is rather inconsistent with the police's view of events. Which they thoughtfully included in their own filing.

"They were exercising their second amendment right to keep and bear arms, as well as the inalienable right to have a necessary well-regulated militia, which shall not be infringed."

That there is some vigorous exercise.

"The Moors proceeded to answer his questions even though they [...] are not required to answer questions since militias are to remain unharassed while training."

[Citation needed].

"At a certain point during the interaction, when Jamhal Talib Abdullah Bey asked what the probable cause was, the response from the trooper he was speaking to was 'I don't know'."

Rise of the Moors, meet Collective Knowledge Doctrine. Collective Knowledge Doctrine, meet Rise of the Moors. I think the two of you will really hit it off.

"In the trooper's probable cause narrative, they themselves admit that probable cause was not found until after reviewing their body camera footage etc."

Really? Please point out that admission in the probable cause narrative you conveniently filed yourselves! I'll wait; I've already got popcorn in the microwave! But that's a factual error; and I even got started on those I'd just end up drinking heavily.

But from the legal perspective, hey, did you know that what constitutes 'probable cause' can be different in different situations? And that probable cause for searching a vehicle on the roadside is just a teensy bit different than probable cause for bringing criminal charges? Amazing but true!

"According to the fourth amendment of the constitution, probable cause needed to have been found from the beginning of the entire incident."

Oh, hey, some new guests just arrived! Meet Terry Stop and his good friend Reasonable Suspicion!
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#13

Post by KickahaOta »

Our intrepid Moorish dimwits have filed a "Writ to Strike Evidence and Dismiss the Case". It's mostly handwritten, and I would need at least two but no more than three drinks in me before I try to parse handwritten Moorish nonsense. But it leads off with a typewritten copy of the first page of "HR0969", a legislative resolution largely supporting the Moors' view of reality, with lots and lots of words helpfully circled.

This is typical of state-of-the-art Moorish legal research. By which I mean that, even to my untrained eye, it has a few teensy problems. To wit:
  • This legislative resolution was in the House of Representatives of Illinois. The gentle reader may refer to the caption of the case, and note that the word "Illinois" is nowhere mentioned there.
  • Even if this Illinois house resolution were relevant in the slightest to a suit against Massachusetts officials concerning events in Massachusetts, the gentle reader will note from the full text of the resolution that its only legal effect is to "designate the week of January 8-15, 2012 as Moorish American Week in the State of Illinois." All those helpful circled words are in "whereas" clauses, which typically have no legal effect other than possibly to help interpret ambiguities in the actual legal part of the bill. And in this case the difference between 'we designate one week in 2012 as Moorish American Week in Illinois' and 'People claiming to be Moorish are exempt from Massachusetts state law' cannot be described as an 'ambiguity'.
  • Even if this Illinois house resolution were somehow to be legally helpful in a suit against Massachusetts officials concerning events in Massachusetts, there is the remaining problem that the resolution was promptly sent to committee, where it died without a vote.
Given that this is the stunning page one of the "Writ to Strike Evidence and Dismiss the Case", I find myself vaguely skeptical of the remainder of its contents.
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#14

Post by northland10 »

In defense of the Moors, at least their use of an Illinois House of Rep proposed resolution, it is still based in reality more than Kap'n Karl's "multiple SCOTUS rulings" that allegedly state he does not need a driver's license but in fact, don't actually exist. At least the Moors' thing exists though entirely misread and complete useless. It is more in line with some of Karl's SCOTUS cases which are not actually SCOTUS but various state supreme court cases that don't actually include the text he "cites" save for which is taken far far far out of context.

So, to put it simply, this Moor group is better at copypasta from the internet than Karl. Karl takes something from an old FrontPage created website and treats it as gospel.
101010 :towel:
Dave from down under
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#15

Post by Dave from down under »

Thank you dear writer!
Much more :popcorn: value than trying to read the original :crazy:
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#16

Post by KickahaOta »

northland10 wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 3:40 pm So, to put it simply, this Moor group is better at copypasta from the internet than Karl. Karl takes something from an old FrontPage created website and treats it as gospel.
I don't know if I can go there with you. It seems to me that Karl and the Moors are using two separate and equally powerful forms of idiocy.

Karl understands that multiple Supreme Court decisions supporting his view would be an incredibly valuable thing to have. He is making a claim that, if true, would mean that he is correct and should win his legal argument. His problem is that he does not actually have multiple Supreme Court decisions supporting his view, and that this is laughably obvious.

The Moors are putting forth, in support of their legal argument, a specific piece of legislation that says -- on its face, and in at least two different ways -- that it is not remotely helpful to them. And even if its text were helpful to them, it has no legal force whatsoever. Either the Moors completely misunderstand what is written on the paper, or they are hoping that an experienced attorney will (a) completely misunderstand what is written on the paper and (b) not duplicate the five minutes of legal research that I did on Bing. I choose to give them the benefit of assuming hopeless misunderstanding rather than complete stupidity. But the effect is the same either way.

So, to use a poker analogy, Karl is claiming to have a straight flush. The problem is that the entire casino can see that he's bluffing, and he's now trying to take the pot while refusing to turn over his cards. Meanwhile, at another table, the Moors are throwing down a Go To Jail card from Monopoly and screaming "YAHTZEE".
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#17

Post by northland10 »

KickahaOta wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 8:46 pm Karl understands that multiple Supreme Court decisions supporting his view would be an incredibly valuable thing to have. He is making a claim that, if true, would mean that he is correct and should win his legal argument. His problem is that he does not actually have multiple Supreme Court decisions supporting his view, and that this is laughably obvious.

:snippity:

So, to use a poker analogy, Karl is claiming to have a straight flush. The problem is that the entire casino can see that he's bluffing, and he's now trying to take the pot while refusing to turn over his cards. Meanwhile, at another table, the Moors are throwing down a Go To Jail card from Monopoly and screaming "YAHTZEE".
I was attempting to be a little snarky, but actually, I am not sure agree. Karl actually does believe he has something. It is not as if he is bluffing but he thinks his "research" is evidence. He has filed it in multiple court cases and, as best as I can tell from Rachel's reports, the court said, um. no. Since Karl only hears what he wants to hear he still thinks he still has something.

He still thinks one of the judges did not have an "oath" on file when in fact, he did and Karl just does not know how to search properly (though the judge was still not obligated to prove it to Karl).

Karl is not bluffy. Karl is an idiot.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#18

Post by KickahaOta »

I see. I was unaware of the extent of the Karl Reality Distortion Field. Thank you for the explanation.
BigSkip
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:25 pm

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#19

Post by BigSkip »

northland10 wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:17 pm
KickahaOta wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 8:46 pm Karl understands that multiple Supreme Court decisions supporting his view would be an incredibly valuable thing to have. He is making a claim that, if true, would mean that he is correct and should win his legal argument. His problem is that he does not actually have multiple Supreme Court decisions supporting his view, and that this is laughably obvious.

:snippity:

So, to use a poker analogy, Karl is claiming to have a straight flush. The problem is that the entire casino can see that he's bluffing, and he's now trying to take the pot while refusing to turn over his cards. Meanwhile, at another table, the Moors are throwing down a Go To Jail card from Monopoly and screaming "YAHTZEE".
I was attempting to be a little snarky, but actually, I am not sure agree. Karl actually does believe he has something. It is not as if he is bluffing but he thinks his "research" is evidence. He has filed it in multiple court cases and, as best as I can tell from Rachel's reports, the court said, um. no. Since Karl only hears what he wants to hear he still thinks he still has something.

He still thinks one of the judges did not have an "oath" on file when in fact, he did and Karl just does not know how to search properly (though the judge was still not obligated to prove it to Karl).

Karl is not bluffy. Karl is an idiot.
I once played in a poker game in a Mississippi casino where a very drunk, very novice player got involved in a hand with multiple bets and raises until the river. When his all in was called on the river he proudly tabled his flush for all to see. However he was bitterly disappointed to learn that a flush is 5 cards of the same *suit*, not just 5 cards of the same *color*. I suspect Karl's drunken attempts at lawyering are similar.
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#20

Post by KickahaOta »

The inevitable hammer has dropped.
Case Docket wrote: ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint; denying as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 6 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 7 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 8 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 9 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 10 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 11 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and, denying as moot 14 MOTION to Strike Evidence and Dismiss the Case. So Ordered by Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. on 8/17/2021. (Jackson, Ryan)
The order is available at RECAP. From a quick scan, I don't see anything that the gentle reader would find particularly notable or quotable, other than:
  • Yes, filing for IFP did come back to bite them in the ass, since it led to immediate dismissal at the screening stage.
  • Straightforward Younger v. Harris abstention -- the Moors are filing in federal court to try to stop an ongoing criminal proceeding in state court, and it just doesn't work that way.
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6552
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#21

Post by Slim Cognito »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 2:01 pm I luvs being "a gentle reader". :biggrin:
I nominate "gentle reader" for the Fogbow Book of Colloquialism.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#22

Post by humblescribe »

Ah, but Judith Martin, aka Miss Manners, coopted that locution in her newspaper column decades ago. Her answer to every question started with the salutation, "Gentle Reader."

TFB is a gonna have to give attribution when attribution is rightly due.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#23

Post by raison de arizona »

humblescribe wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:33 pm Ah, but Judith Martin, aka Miss Manners, coopted that locution in her newspaper column decades ago. Her answer to every question started with the salutation, "Gentle Reader."

TFB is a gonna have to give attribution when attribution is rightly due.
The phrase can be traced back to the mid 1800s at least, FWIW.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
chancery
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#24

Post by chancery »

Easily a century earlier.
I hope the gentle reader will excuse me for dwelling on these and the like particulars, which, however insignificant they may appear to groveling vulgar minds, yet will certainly help a philosopher to enlarge his thoughts and imagination, and apply them to the benefit of public as well as private life, which was my sole design in presenting this and other accounts of my travels to the world; wherein I have been chiefly studious of truth, without affecting any ornaments of learning or of style.
Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels, Part II, Chapter 1.
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: Rise of the Moors v. Medford, MA StatePolice U.S. District Court RI

#25

Post by KickahaOta »

I never claimed originality. Or anything else, really. Apologies. Not enjoying this. Have fun.
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”