Backlash Against the Anthony Graber Arrest

Thursday, June 3rd, 2010

The arrest of Maryland motorcyclist Anthony Graber is generating some considerable backlash against the state’s law enforcement officials. Graber was arrested and is being charged with felonies for posting video to YouTube of a cop who pulled his gun on Graber during a traffic stop. I’ve written about Graber here and here, and I discussed the case on WBAL’s Ron Smith show yesterday.

Cato’s David Rittgers has posted his own analysis of how officials are misinterpreting the state’s wiretapping law here. Rittgers also discussed the issue on D.C. NPR affiliate WAMU’s Kojo Nnamdi show.

And in a somewhat odd pairing, anarchist writer Wendy McElroy’s write-up of the issue was picked up by Gizmodo. That triggered a link and discussion thread at Slashdot.

It’s good to see this issue picking up steam. As I said on Smith’s show yesterday, there seems to be a big disconnect here between the generalpublic’s attitude on recording cops (the feedback I’ve received has been almost unanimous in support of ensuring that the practice is legal) and the attitudes of law enforcement officials (on-duty cops have a right to privacy) and politicians (generally a position of deference to law enforcement).

The issue is important not just in order to keep law enforcement transparent and accountable, but in that it raises fundamental questions about the nature of individual rights in a free society. The way Marylandofficials are interpreting the state’s wiretapping law, government agents—in this case on-duty cops— have privacy rights in public spaces that ordinary citizens don’t. But state employees acting as state employees don’t have rights. Citizens have rights. Governments and their employees have powers, and only to the extent that those powers have been delegated to them by the people they’re governing.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

53 Responses to “Backlash Against the Anthony Graber Arrest”

  1. #1 |  Mo | 

    If they don’t have anything to hide, they shouldn’t b afraid of being recorded.

    Also, why aren’t recordings in public places protected under the First Amendment freedom of press?

  2. #2 |  JS | 

    “and politicians (generally a position of deference to law enforcement).”

    This seems like the biggest problem. The cowardice of legislators to stand up to the police. Or rather to do anything other than kiss the collective asses of the police in servile deference every opportunity they get. This exists because of the law and order conservatives generally.

  3. #3 |  JS | 

    “But state employees acting as state employees don’t have rights. Citizens have rights. Governments and their employees have powers, and only to the extent that those powers have been delegated to them by the people they’re governing.”

    Or to the extent of whatever powers that our pathetic gutless enemies of the people legislators so willingly give them. Our politicians have given away our rights to the police.

  4. #4 |  Bob | 

    “State’s Attorney Joseph Cassilly recalled occasions when citizens have come to his office with recordings of threats or extortion demands and he was required to tell them that under Maryland law (1) their recording was not admissible as evidence because it did not have the consent of the threatening or extorting party”

    The only explanation I can offer is that Cassilly must be totally baked 24/7.

    I’m willing to bet that if someone calls a COP and does that, the conversation will miraculously be allowed in court.

  5. #5 |  Dakota | 

    Is it only video that you have to consent to?

    If not when do you think Maryland is going to take down all the speed/redlight cameras?

  6. #6 |  Robert | 

    While NC has its own share of screwed up laws, at least we have the right to record any conversation we are a party to without informing the other parties.

  7. #7 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    Actually the fact that he got jailed after the
    youtube video was posted will
    be the 800 pound gorilla for the prosecution, I surmise, ie
    pretending this prosecution is not vindictive in nature.

    Anyone have the docket http link on this case?
    Or an update?
    It’s bound to make 1st Amendment history.

  8. #8 |  Nando | 

    Let me get this straight: Cops can put dash-mounted cameras in their cruisers and wear mics to ensure that every traffic stop is recorded (a very good thing, by the way) but if you try to (audio) record a cop during a traffic stop then you’re a felon?

    This is the stupidest logical disconnect I’ve read about Maryland (today)!

  9. #9 |  InMd | 

    At # 7

    http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=12K10000647&loc=56&detailLoc=K

  10. #10 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    Charge No: 3CJIS Code:1 5579Statute Code:CJ.10.403
    “Possession Of Interception Device”

    Holy Crap, that sounds serious! Was there a football involved?

  11. #11 |  Dante | 

    What a month it has been, filled with police hypocrisy and dishonesty.

    First, police raid a house and shoot two dogs, barely missing a 7 year old kid. They excused themselves by saying they recovered a pot pipe, and therefore they needed to act in order to “save the children”. They will probably get medals for their bravery in confronting unarmed little dogs.

    Next, the police actually shoot and kill a 7 year old girl in order to “save the children”. Once again, they explain that they had to do this in order to keep her “safe”. Sadly, the city can’t afford to give them medals, but that poor little girl won’t threaten anyone again (did she ever?).

    Next, Maryland police decree that they can record the public but the public cannot record the police. This follows the University of MD basketball celebration, where students were savagely beaten by police and then charged with felony crimes. Their only salvation was video recordings showing the police breaking the law and then lying about it. Yeah, those same recordings that “dissapeared” while in the control of ….. the police.

    Hypocrisy and dishonesty. That’s what the police stand for now. Avoid them like the pond scum they are if you value your freedom, your belongings and your life.

  12. #12 |  claude | 

    Federal Judge: Videotaping Police Traffic Stops OK

    “A federal court has ruled police cannot arrest a man for peacefully videotaping a traffic stop.”

    http://thenewspaper.com/news/05/541.asp

  13. #13 |  MDGuy | 

    @ Claude

    Man I’m glad I already took a dump today because otherwise this line might have caused me to shit my pants in disbelief:

    “The arresting officers — Patrick Fetterman, John Rigney, and Gregg Riek — must also each pay Robinson $2,000 in punitive damages.”

    Police officers being personally held accountable? Incredible.

  14. #14 |  Zargon | 

    #1
    Also, why aren’t recordings in public places protected under the First Amendment freedom of press?

    Because the cops say so, and, as you might notice, they have guns and they’re all too willing to use them.

  15. #15 |  Charlie O | 

    The Gizmodo story was headlined “Are Cameras the new Guns?” Personally, I have no problem with going back to shooting the LEOs with guns.

  16. #16 |  Kevin3% | 

    “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”
    JOHN ADAMS

    In other words, just because some group of cops, lawyers and politicians say such and such does not mean your rights disappear.

    “Get up, Stand up, Stand up for your rights!
    Get up, Stand up, Don’t give up the fight!’
    BOB MARLEY

  17. #17 |  Mattocracy | 

    I really hope a case liek this doesn’t go to the supreme court. We all know they’re just going to make the wrong decision.

  18. #18 |  Joe | 

    Governments exist because the people delegate that power to goverment. The power comes from the people. An open and just society requires openness and police officers in public should be open to filming and review by the people they are suppose to be serving.

  19. #19 |  Sukoi | 

    OT, puppycide:

    http://www.whas11.com/news/local/Man-Says-Police-Wrongly-Shot-Medical-Aid-Dog-95143604.html

  20. #20 |  Guido | 

    @ Charlie O
    “The Gizmodo story was headlined “Are Cameras the new Guns?” Personally, I have no problem with going back to shooting the LEOs with guns.”

    With that kind of attitude it’s no wonder we have so many instances of police abuse. You are making it easy for them to justify their need to maintain law and order in light of nuts like yourself.

  21. #21 |  Stephen | 

    Whatever happened to the type of police officer that was proud to have never drawn his weapon in his whole career? Was that just a TV myth?

  22. #22 |  JS | 

    Dante #11, brilliant stuff! Well said.

  23. #23 |  Dave Krueger | 

    You don’t have any right to take video of a cop because he is “a citizen of this country”. Just ask the guy in this video.

  24. #24 |  JThompson | 

    @JS#2: While I’m a libertarian leaning liberal, liberals have their share of authoritarians that love cops too. The only reason there’s less of them is probably because every time liberals protest anything they’re greeted with a wave of tear gas and ass kickings.

    @Guido#20: Either my irony meter is horribly broken or you’ve gotten your cause and effect reversed. They don’t have to justify it. They do it because they can. Presumably because beating an innocent person is cheaper than Viagra and the only side effect is paid vacations and being called a hero.

  25. #25 |  Paul | 

    This issue seems like a small thing, but I think it matters quite a bit. It is not just a question of legality, but who is in charge–us or them. It’s a large part of the reason they instinctively lash out at people recording them, and look for ways to get back at them.

    The natural direction for this to follow will be pressure from police political groups on legislatures to quietly pass laws making videos of cops against the law. Once this starts to seem “normal”, the supreme court will probably rule for the cops (they almost always do), and liberty will have lost a significant battle.

    If the cops get their way, the fact that they are already our masters will be quite a bit more clear. They can videotape you, but you can’t videotape them. They will have even more powers and rights that you don’t have.

    We can’t let them win this battle.

  26. #26 |  The Johnny Appleseed Of Crack | 

    but in that it raises fundamental questions about the nature of individual rights in a free society.

    Huh? You speakin’ Zwahili man? Principles? What the fuck are those?

  27. #27 |  ktc2 | 

    @#16

    Wow, Adams and Marley. Just . . . wow . . .

    We need to party!

  28. #28 |  Gus w | 

    Bad boys bad boys what you gonna do?

  29. #29 |  Dr X | 

    It isn’t a rotten apple in the barrel. The barrel is rotten.

  30. #30 |  joev | 

    Apparently this is a one-way street.

    Was waiting to pick up my GF at Louis Armstrong and found today’s Phillie Inquirer left at the luggage claim. In the op-ed section was the story about a Phillie LEO who took an accident scene picture of a citizen who was sadly decapitated.

    Said picture being taken on a cell phone camera and shared to his fellow “fraternity” eventually got passed around to other side of the thin blue line and has raised a bit of stir up North.

    Yeah, cops can take pictures of tragedy for their own perverse amusements and share them, but lordy! Don’t take a picture of them!

    Feh.

  31. #31 |  joev | 

    Sorry, soapboxes amp up my creeping senility, forgot to add:

    don’t take a picture of them breaking the very laws their sworn to uphold.

  32. #32 |  joev | 

    /facepalm

    they’re

  33. #33 |  joev | 

    last post and i’ll stfu

    here’s a link to the piece

    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100603_Editorial__Foul_photographs.html#axzz0pr00avZa

  34. #34 |  The_Chef | 

    It also created quite an interesting discussion on FARK.com, when they greenlit the Gizmodo article.

  35. #35 |  Kevin3% | 

    ktc2,

    Right on my friend!
    The love of freedom surpasses many barriers.

    KPN3%

  36. #36 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    …and the attitudes of …politicians (generally a position of deference to law enforcement).

    Hookers (after giving them some money), have a “position of deference” to my private parts.

    Fuck. The. Politicians. Too.

  37. #37 |  JS | 

    Paul “We can’t let them win this battle.”

    WE can’t do anything about it.

  38. #38 |  Samk | 

    I’m hoping that “raising a stink about it” qualifies as doing something about it and might actually be effective this time around. If this issue actually captures the public’s attention (everyone has a camera or a cell phone) it might just become too uncomfortable for politicians to ignore. This time.

  39. #39 |  Over the River | 

    On one hand I think we are giving the police too much of a hard time. Think how efficient they are when they use their spare time to create the results* of investigations for incidents that will happen in the future. Talk about being pro-active.

    * results, n. 1. The finding of no wrong-doing by members of the law enforcement community of any particular action, operation, or course; an outcome. [See note on "The Benefits of a Strong SWAT Team.]

    Synonyms: ‘cover up’, ‘acted according to established procedures’, ‘followed procedures’, etc.

    Antonyms: ‘Constitutional rights’, ‘Democracy’, ‘Bill of Rights’, etc.

  40. #40 |  Zargon | 

    #20
    With that kind of attitude it’s no wonder we have so many instances of police abuse.

    With so many instances of police abuse it’s no wonder some people have that kind of attitude.

  41. #41 |  Cynical in CA | 

    “anarchist writer Wendy McElroy”

    Big plus karma.

  42. #42 |  Cynical in CA | 

    #17 | Mattocracy — “I really hope a case like this doesn’t go to the supreme court. We all know they’re just going to make the wrong decision.”

    The Supreme Court cannot make a wrong decision. It is the process of humans deciding that sanctifies the decision. Remember, all law is subjective because all words are subject to the interpretation of the sovereign.

    Supposedly, this is preferable to anarchy, though I have not yet been presented with the logical argument that convinces me of such.

  43. #43 |  Cynical in CA | 

    #30 | joev — “Said picture being taken on a cell phone camera and shared to his fellow “fraternity” eventually got passed around to other side of the thin blue line and has raised a bit of stir up North. Yeah, cops can take pictures of tragedy for their own perverse amusements and share them, but lordy! Don’t take a picture of them!”

    Same thing happened here in So. Cal., with a quite different result. Lawsuit by surviving family is allowed to proceed against the CHP and the individuals involved:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/06/california-parents-suing-police-for-release-of-decapitated-daughter-found-on-internet-and-myspace/

    Those cops are on shaky ground.

  44. #44 |  Dennis N | 

    #13 MDGuy

    “ ‘The arresting officers — Patrick Fetterman, John Rigney, and Gregg Riek — must also each pay Robinson $2,000 in punitive damages.’

    Police officers being personally held accountable? Incredible.”

    It needs to go farther. Federall Civil Rights criminal prosecutions against the officers and the DA, just like Stacey Koon after the Rodney King beating.

    No, I ain’t holdin’ my breath

  45. #45 |  Cynical in CA | 

    “Governments and their employees have powers, and only to the extent that those powers have been delegated to them by the people they’re governing.”

    Oh boy. The “consent of the governed” fallacy. Unless this is sheer irony, I cannot fathom how one so immersed in government (mis)conduct* can make this baldy false assertion.

    * Government functions exactly as it must — as a sovereign. There are no practical limits on its power, save destroying the population that feeds it or being destroyed by same population, in which case a new sovereign arises.

  46. #46 |  Andrew Williams | 

    #30 “Was waiting to pick up my GF at Louis Armstrong and found today’s Phillie Inquirer left at the luggage claim. In the op-ed section was the story about a Phillie LEO who took an accident scene picture of a citizen who was sadly decapitated.”

    The pigs in LA did the same with Lenny Bruce: they even propped up his body on the toilet–with syringe still in arm–so their buddies from the press could get a better shot.

    Contaminating a crime scene? Routine!

  47. #47 |  JS | 

    SamK “I’m hoping that “raising a stink about it” qualifies as doing something about it and might actually be effective this time around.”

    I sincerely hope so too Sam!

  48. #48 |  Jim Youmans | 

    Here is a list of emails for the Maryland government officals. Please email them to let them know what is important.

    Saqib.Ali@house.state.md.usm, Curt.Anderson@house.state.md.usm, John.Astle@house.state.md.usm, Susan.Aumann@house.state.md.usm, Charles.Barkley@house.state.md.usm,
    Ben.Barnes@house.state.md.usm, Joseph.Bartlett@house.state.md.usm, Kumar.Barve@house.state.md.usm, Gail.Bates@house.state.md.usm, Pamela.Beidle@house.state.md.usm,
    Wendell.Beitzel@house.state.md.usm, Joanne.Benson@house.state.md.usm, Elizabeth.Bobo@house.state.md.usm, John.Bohanan@house.state.md.usm, Joseph.Boteler@house.state.md.usm,
    Talmadge.Branch@house.state.md.usm, Aisha.Braveboy@house.state.md.usm, David.Brinkley@house.state.md.usm, James.Brochin@house.state.md.usm, Eric.Bromwell@house.state.md.usm,
    William.Bronrott@house.state.md.usm, Emmett.Burns@house.state.md.usm, Michael.Busch@house.state.md.usm, Rudolph.Cane@house.state.md.usm, Jon.Cardin@house.state.md.usm,
    Alfred.Carr@house.state.md.usm, Jill.Carter@house.state.md.usm, Virginia.Clagett@house.state.md.usm, Galen.Clagett@house.state.md.usm, Richard.Colburn@house.state.md.usm,
    Frank.Conaway@house.state.md.usm, Norman.Conway@house.state.md.usm, Joan.Conway@house.state.md.usm, Robert.Costa@house.state.md.usm, Ulysses.Currie@house.state.md.usm,
    Dereck.Davis@house.state.md.usm, Steven.DeBoy@house.state.md.usm, James.DeGrange@house.state.md.usm, George.Della@house.state.md.usm, John.Donoghue@house.state.md.usm,
    Ann.Doory@house.state.md.usm, Kathleen.Dumais@house.state.md.usm, Don.Dwyer@house.state.md.usm, Roy.Dyson@house.state.md.usm, Adelaide.Eckardt@house.state.md.usm,
    George.Edwards@house.state.md.usm, Donald.Elliott@house.state.md.usm, Page.Elmore@house.state.md.usm, Nathaniel.Exum@house.state.md.usm, Brian.Feldman@house.state.md.usm,
    Jennie.Forehand@house.state.md.usm, William.Frank@house.state.md.usm, William.Frick@house.state.md.usm, Brian.Frosh@house.state.md.usm, Barbara.Frush@house.state.md.usm,
    Tawanna.Gaines@house.state.md.usm, Rob.Garagiola@house.state.md.usm, Ron.George@house.state.md.usm, Jim.Gilchrist@house.state.md.usm, Lisa.Gladden@house.state.md.usm,
    Barry.Glassman@house.state.md.usm, Cheryl.Glenn@house.state.md.usm, Melony.Griffith@house.state.md.usm, Ana.Gutierrez@house.state.md.usm, Guy.Guzzone@house.state.md.usm,
    Jeannie.Haddaway@house.state.md.usm, Larry.Haines@house.state.md.usm, Peter.Hammen@house.state.md.usm, David.Harrington@house.state.md.usm, Andrew.Harris@house.state.md.usm,
    Hattie.Harrison@house.state.md.usm, Keith.Haynes@house.state.md.usm, Anne.Healey@house.state.md.usm, Sue.Hecht@house.state.md.usm, Henry.Heller@house.state.md.usm,
    Sheila.Hixson@house.state.md.usm, Marvin.Holmes@house.state.md.usm, Carolyn.Howard@house.state.md.usm, James.Hubbard@house.state.md.usm, Tom.Hucker@house.state.md.usm,
    Rick.Impallaria@house.state.md.usm, Jolene.Ivey@house.state.md.usm, Nancy.Jacobs@house.state.md.usm, Sally.Jameson@house.state.md.usm, Charles.Jenkins@house.state.md.usm,
    JB.Jennings@house.state.md.usm, Adrienne.Jones@house.state.md.usm, Verna.Jones@house.state.md.usm, Wade.Kach@house.state.md.usm, Anne.Kaiser@house.state.md.usm,
    Edward.Kasemeyer@house.state.md.usm, Delores.Kelley@house.state.md.usm, Nancy.King@house.state.md.usm, James.King@house.state.md.usm, Nicholaus.Kipke@house.state.md.usm,
    Ruth.Kirk@house.state.md.usm, Allan.Kittleman@house.state.md.usm, Katherine.Klausmeier@house.state.md.usm, Rona.Kramer@house.state.md.usm, Benjamin.Kramer@house.state.md.usm,
    Susan.Krebs@house.state.md.usm, Carolyn.Krysiak@house.state.md.usm, Sue.Kullen@house.state.md.usm, Stephen.Lafferty@house.state.md.usm, Susan.Lee@house.state.md.usm,
    Mike.Lenett@house.state.md.usm, Gerron.Levi@house.state.md.usm, Murray.Levy@house.state.md.usm, Mary.Love@house.state.md.usm, Richard.Madaleno@house.state.md.usm,
    James.Malone@house.state.md.usm, Roger.Manno@house.state.md.usm, James.Mathias@house.state.md.usm, Susan.McComas@house.state.md.usm, Tony.McConkey@house.state.md.usm,
    Pat.McDonough@house.state.md.usm, Nathaniel.McFadden@house.state.md.usm, Brian.McHale@house.state.md.usm, Maggie.McIntosh@house.state.md.usm, Thomas.Middleton@house.state.md.usm,
    Warren.Miller@house.state.md.usm, Thomas.Miller@house.state.md.usm, Joseph.Minnick@house.state.md.usm, Heather.Mizeur@house.state.md.usm, Karen.Montgomery@house.state.md.usm,
    Alexander.Mooney@house.state.md.usm, Dan.Morhaim@house.state.md.usm, Donald.Munson@house.state.md.usm, Peter.Murphy@house.state.md.usm, nthony.Muse@house.state.md.usm,
    LeRoy.Myers@house.state.md.usm, Doyle.Niemann@house.state.md.usm, Wayne.Norman@house.state.md.usm, Nathaniel.Oaks@house.state.md.usm, Anthony.O’Donnell@house.state.md.usm,
    John.Olszewski@house.state.md.usm, Joseline.Pena-Melnyk@house.state.md.usm, Shane.Pendergrass@house.state.md.usm, Douglas.Peters@house.state.md.usm, Paul.Pinsky@house.state.md.usm,
    J.Pipkin@house.state.md.usm, James.Proctor@house.state.md.usm, Catherine.Pugh@house.state.md.usm, Victor.Ramirez@house.state.md.usm, Jamie.Raskin@house.state.md.usm,
    Edward.Reilly@house.state.md.usm, Kirill.Reznik@house.state.md.usm, Craig.Rice@house.state.md.usm, aniel.Riley@house.state.md.usm, James.Robey@house.state.md.usm,
    Barbara.Robinson@house.state.md.usm, Jim.Rosapepe@house.state.md.usm, Samuel.Rosenberg@house.state.md.usm, Justin.Ross@house.state.md.usm, David.Rudolph@house.state.md.usm,
    Steven.Schuh@house.state.md.usm, Todd.Schuler@house.state.md.usm, Andrew.Serafini@house.state.md.usm, Christopher.Shank@house.state.md.usm, Tanya.Shewell@house.state.md.usm,
    Luiz.Simmons@house.state.md.usm, Bryan.Simonaire@house.state.md.usm, Michael.Smigiel@house.state.md.usm, Theodore.Sophocleus@house.state.md.usm, Richard.Sossi@house.state.md.usm,
    Dana.Stein@house.state.md.usm, Donna.Stifler@house.state.md.usm, Nancy.Stocksdale@house.state.md.usm, owell.Stoltzfus@house.state.md.usm, Norman.Stone@house.state.md.usm,
    Melvin.Stukes@house.state.md.usm, Paul.Stull@house.state.md.usm, Shawn.Tarrant@house.state.md.usm, Herman.Taylor@house.state.md.usm, Frank.Turner@house.state.md.usm,
    Veronica.Turner@house.state.md.usm, Kriselda.Valderrama@house.state.md.usm, Joseph.Vallario@house.state.md.usm, Michael.Vaughn@house.state.md.usm, Jeff.Waldstreicher@house.state.md.usm,
    Jay.Walker@house.state.md.usm, MaryRoe.Walkup@house.state.md.usm, Michael.Weir@house.state.md.usm, John.Wood@house.state.md.usm, Bobby.Zirkin@house.state.md.usm

  49. #49 |  SJE | 

    The most valid LEO argument against recording is not “privacy” but keeping secret the identity of undercover agents. This is often asserted and, IMHO, actually has some merit. The solution is not, however, a ban on recording.

    You could have a very narrow statute that makes it illegal to
    (a) a person associated with a criminal organization (b) electronically records a law enforcement official who (c) is in his “private role” (i.e. off duty) (d) with intent to identify the official, harrass his family, etc.

    This protects the police who are doing legitimate work, but leaves everyone else free.

  50. #50 |  Matt | 

    “Governments exist because the people delegate that power to goverment.”

    I haven’t delegated any such thing to anyone.

    Also, see Higgs’ “Consent of the Governed?”:
    http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=6334

    If I had my way, every cop would have a web streaming video camera choke collar and a GPS stitched to his scalp.

  51. #51 |  Matt | 

    “The most valid LEO argument against recording is not “privacy” but keeping secret the identity of undercover agents.”

    The vast majority of undercover agents are engaged in vice persecution. They’re inflicting others’ preferences upon people participating in consensual acts that are labeled illegal.

    That’s nowhere near sufficient justification for dodging the vid-collar and GPS.

  52. #52 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    A couple questions slightly OT:

    1. If talking on your cell phone while driving is so god damn dangerous, why does every cop in NH do it? And, why aren’t the accident rates in NH higher than everywhere else?

    2. If pumping your own gas is so dangerous that only station employees can do it (yes, that’s the law in some places), where are all the “dipshit explodes gas station” stories in NH (where it IS legal to pump your own gas)?

    3. If having auto insurance is such an obvious requirement to avoid absolute damnation on the highways, where is the damnation on the highways of NH (where you do not have to carry auto insurance)?

  53. #53 |  Jim Majkowski | 

    The Pennsylvania case gets better:

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    ALLEN E. ROBINSON : CIVIL ACTION
    :
    v. :
    :
    PATRICK V. FETTERMAN, et al. : NO. 04-3592
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this day of August, 2005, for the
    reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby
    ORDERED that:
    (1) the motion of plaintiff Allen E. Robinson for
    counsel fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) is GRANTED in part
    and DENIED in part;
    (2) plaintiff is awarded counsel fees in the amount
    of $45,352.13; and
    (3) plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of
    $2,081.35.
    BY THE COURT:
    ______________________________
    J.
    Case 2:04-cv-03592-HB Document 68 Filed 08/26/05 Page 11 of 11

    Plaintiff filed a Satisfaction of Judgment in 2005. No comment as to whether there was a reduction in amount in exchange therefor. How about that?

Leave a Reply