Ben Lowrey vs. Police Chief - Re-stating my case

[massorganizationusa]

Hows the weather?

[note22]

Great vid! Thanks Ben

[mrichards55]

You could ask the judge if you can make respresentations before him about why your claim should not be struck out. Maybe you put across your arguments better face to face? Justice should not be available only to those skilled with pen and paper.

[permanentquandary]

Ben, you have no witnesses, what I was thinking about was that it might be a good idea to get all officers present as witnesses and to submit your video/audio of what happened as evidence!

[streetmuggedbypolice]

I'd like to be able to write something funny or witty. Only I don't find them or their puppet masters at all funny.

[widowerson]

plus on a side note police have a certain amount of immunity. unless they violate your human rights or civil rights

just my 2 cents good luck

[streetmuggedbypolice]

@widowerson but they violate people's human and civil rights all the time. And then claim that they were acting within the law. Which they were. So it's the law that allows them to vilate yoiur human and civil rights. The ultimate violation of your human and civil rights is if they lawfully kill you.

[widowerson]

ben im not sure if the police had a duty to an individual maybe to the crown.

so if there is no duty to you by the police then there would be no breach. they have no duty to you. you might want to hold them joint and several as individuals

they have a duty to the crown not the public. they control the public and arrest the violators.

you might be suing the wrong people.

there was no promise made to you by the police. therefor they have no duty to you.

[widowerson]

duty, breach, injury, causation. I thought that was only for a lawsuit. Are you suing the police?

[streetmuggedbypolice]

@widowerson I expect if he was a pop star he would. It takes money-lots of money to sue them. So suing them is alot easier said than done for the ordinary non-well heeled individual. Such stupid comments are been posted here. Sounds like they're coming from infant school!

[61shirley]

defendent had a duty to uphold your rights

[TRACKWORKS]

Your not claiming for enough money, you have been terrorized by the police you must sue them for everything they did wrong to you. I sore what happned when they arrested you fella it was ridicules and the broke several human rights laws along the way.

[streetmuggedbypolice]

@TRACKWORKS only sensible comment I have read on here.

[mad11red]

legal-dictionary.thefreedictio­nary.cooom/Negligence

[mad11red]

legal-dictionary.thefreedictio­nary.cooom/reasonable

The term reasonable is a generic and relative one and applies to that which is appropriate for a particular situation.

In the law of Negligence, the reasonable person standard is the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances. An individual who subscribes to such standards can avoid liability for negligence. ...

[mad11red]

@mad11red

For example, if they say there is something wrong with your original letter or letters, then you could argue that they should have replied earlier that you're bonkers, and nip the problem in the bud.

Of course you know that you can't just walk into court and say that. I don't know about the details, but I know you go through them as careful as you can manage, that's why you're way ahead of me Ben.

[Danster82]

The burden of proof could have been put on them if you wasnt making the claim but as you are making the claim you now have burden of proof.

It is a maxim that the defendant is always in a healthier position, (as all litigation is detrimental to the public)

In a sense they are the original claimant claiming they can take your bike without consent, but its hard to go about getting your bike back without making a counterclaim.

Maybe request proof of their claim else pls return bike.

[mad11red]

What I've read in dutch law, it's often mentioned that the application or discretion must be "reasonable" in the exercise of their powers.

But in each instance they will decide what is and is not reasonable, no? Given this, one possibility is to confirm what they themselves expressly do and do not consider "reasonable". It doesn't mean they're going to be consistent about it, so you're going to have to put them in a spot where they are openly contradicting themselves anyway.

[benlowreyhimself]

@mad11red

thanks

[mad11red]

@benlowreyhimself

Oh hai, you're welcome :)

[mad11red]

@mad11red

Or maybe not necessarily put them in a spot, but at least find them in a spot. If you find a law that expressly states that the chief has to at least read and acknowledge that he received them, well great! If not and you still want to hold the chief to a reasonable expectation, then you may have to get less and less literal.

Like if they consider the "social contract" to be reasonable, then I'd say your letters are a whole lot more reasonable. But this can get really messy.

[mad11red]

@mad11red

So even if you're making the claim, instead of pointing out the nonsense in their own claim, I think it still pays to find if the chief or whoever is in a contradiction. It's better to find some law that they're held to, which states that the chief has this duty, or which states what is and is not "reasonable", what is negligence, etc. etc. In dutch laws I've often encountered this "reasonable" caveat.

Just my thoughts, hope it helps a little. Keep working on it and good luck, Ben!

[yaz2907]

In the blacks law dictionary confiscation is some one taking what is not rightfully there's so may be you could ermmm i dunno its all new to me mate

[mad11red]

@yaz2907

Yeah I talk but I really don't know anything, haha!

I like those words, calms my nerves :)