McQuillan also alleged that Tejada was breaking "various" laws at the time of the crash. During an interview, he declined to elaborate on Tejada's alleged conduct.

Obviously, she was impeding and obstructing the police vehicle

High speed pursuits are right up there with shootouts in terms of collateral damage potential.

Wow... That attorney has some serious brass balls.

ShavedApe: Wow... That attorney has some serious brass balls.

ShavedApe: Wow... That attorney has some serious brass ballsis a douche like all other lawyers.

FTFY

IAAL,

This a form set of answers any defending attorney uses to preserve defenses that may or may not come up during the course of litigation. I'm sure there is a statute of limitations defense in there and the doctrine of laches as well.

While the attorney may not have any information that supports these defenses, if they aren't made within the first twenty days after service (or whatever the rule is there), they are gone forever.

They are otherwise meaningless, unless some evidence comes up which can prove them.

All the city attorney has said at a press conference is "That's for the trial." As lefande said, this is a non-story.

Typical Massachusetts legal sidestep. Sometimes I'm ashamed about living here but I don't think its any better elsewhere.

lefande: IAAL,

This a form set of answers any defending attorney uses to preserve defenses that may or may not come up during the course of litigation. I'm sure there is a statute of limitations defense in there and the doctrine of laches as well.

While the attorney may not have any information that supports these defenses, if they aren't made within the first twenty days after service (or whatever the rule is there), they are gone forever.

They are otherwise meaningless, unless some evidence comes up which can prove them.

Wow, you really AAL. I read your post 4 times and I still have no idea what the hell you said.
Good luck with that congressional run.

The police aren't allowed to chase you unless they see you do a felony? WTF?
How do traffic stops work then?

"The injuries and damages claimed by the plaintiff were caused, in whole, or in part, by the plaintiff's own negligence and that negligence of the plaintiff was equal to or greater than any negligence by the city of Methuen, such that any recovery for the plaintiff is barred,"

Link (new window)

xombie_a_go_go:

Wow, you really AAL. I read your post 4 times and I still have no idea what the hell you said.
Good luck with that congressional run.

You think that is bad, try reading this one (new window). It came out yesterday.

Note the names on the first page.

Sodium Benzoate: The police aren't allowed to chase you unless they see you do a felony? WTF?
How do traffic stops work then?

It's the honor system. If you refuse to pull over for a cop, everyone just trusts that there's not some reason you really, really, really, really don't want to pull over for a cop, so much so that you're willing to risk killing yourself, the cop and anyone either of you get near with your cars in the pursuit. People usually do this because they don't want to bother spending 10 minutes getting a warning or a ticket. It's a rational response.

Sodium Benzoate: The police aren't allowed to chase you unless they see you do a felony? WTF?
How do traffic stops work then?

You missed a couple important words: "high speed."

lefande: While the attorney may not have any information that supports these defenses, if they aren't made within the first twenty days after service (or whatever the rule is there), they are gone forever.

So the attorney who signs the complaint has an ethical duty not to assert baseless claims, but the attorney who signs the answer has no duty not to assert baseless defenses? Hmmm. They don't even play fair among themselves.

MPOM: Sodium Benzoate: The police aren't allowed to chase you unless they see you do a felony? WTF?
How do traffic stops work then?

It's the honor system. If you refuse to pull over for a cop, everyone just trusts that there's not some reason you really, really, really, really don't want to pull over for a cop, so much so that you're willing to risk killing yourself, the cop and anyone either of you get near with your cars in the pursuit. People usually do this because they don't want to bother spending 10 minutes getting a warning or a ticket. It's a rational response.

That, and the police have already run your tag and know where you live. They will be waiting in your driveway when you get home. Instead of just getting a ticket, you are going to be charged with some kind of felony for fleeing and eluding or the like.

You may also be charged the Run Tax, e.g., Rodney King.

Having dealt with municipal attorneys, I can tell you they have no interest in serving the public, which pays their salary. They are interested in providing legal justification for whatever their client (the city leadership) wants them to do, regardless of how ludicrous said justification might actually be. I suppose that applies to all attorneys, but it seems particularly eggregious coming from attorneys who are paid by the public and should do what is in the public's best interest rather than the city leaders.

Try asking for a public document they don't want you to have.

Nakito: So the attorney who signs the complaint has an ethical duty not to assert baseless claims, but the attorney who signs the answer has no duty not to assert baseless defenses? Hmmm. They don't even play fair among themselves.

They don't become baseless until a reasonable inquiry has been conducted. If discovery is completed and you are still pushing the issue without a factual basis, you can be sanctioned under Rule 11 (new window) or its equivalent.

Com-un-sense: Having dealt with municipal attorneys, I can tell you they have no interest in serving the public, which pays their salary. They are interested in providing legal justification for whatever their client (the city leadership) wants them to do, regardless of how ludicrous said justification might actually be. I suppose that applies to all attorneys, but it seems particularly eggregious coming from attorneys who are paid by the public and should do what is in the public's best interest rather than the city leaders.

THIS and then some.

A $628,000 hospital bill WTF!

City knows it's screwed so it's going to come out swinging because they know it's the only chance they have.

Freschel: A $628,000 hospital bill WTF!

Best health care system in the world! USA! USA! USA

/Canadian

Freschel: A $628,000 hospital bill WTF!

well, surely you can't put a price on life. I think 5 times your annual salary works.

Wow, neither the lawyer or the cops have any shame. As much as I want to hate all lawyers, you will need a good one to get the city to cover those medical bills.

The comments on the website where TFA is posted makes a typical FARK thread look like Socrates, Jefferson, Voltaire, and Einstein sitting around sipping tea with their pinkeys extended just so.

lefande: xombie_a_go_go:

Wow, you really AAL. I read your post 4 times and I still have no idea what the hell you said.
Good luck with that congressional run.

You think that is bad, try reading this one (new window). It came out yesterday.

Note the names on the first page.

So essentially, if you are not sure if what you want to do is illegal or not, you can't force the government to give you a leagally binding answer before you are arrested unless you can show the law calls you out specifically or immenent enforcement action is targeted at you?

Is this the same reason the IRS won't provide legally binding answers to questions on the tax code before you file and are arrested?

Are there an provisions for relief where contridictary laws result in a scenario where both action and inaction are illegal? e.g. you are required to clean up toxic waste on a site but transporting said waste off the property is banned?

What is the rational behind this? Why force an arrest and trial when up front legal clarification before hand would prevent the whole mess in the 1st place?

lefande: xombie_a_go_go:

Wow, you really AAL. I read your post 4 times and I still have no idea what the hell you said.
Good luck with that congressional run.

You think that is bad, try reading this one (new window). It came out yesterday.

Note the names on the first page.

I'm reading this and, I'm going to be honest, I want to beat a number of people with my fists and feet.

Dear subby; against policy does not equal illegal. The article does not even say if policy was violated. The cop may have just turned on his lights and attempted to catch up to the guy when the crash happened. It is possible that this was a while into a pursuit but it never says how long the cop was going after the person or what speeds were. Just because a lawyer who is suing someone calls it a high speed pursuit doesn't really make it one. The person who is suing's alleged illegal acts coud be relevant. If she was drunk and crossed the center line that would be significant. Not saying that is what happened, just that it is entirely possible that the city's lawyer is not so far off base.

Beauf: Dear subby; against policy does not equal illegal. The article does not even say if policy was violated. The cop may have just turned on his lights and attempted to catch up to the guy when the crash happened. It is possible that this was a while into a pursuit but it never says how long the cop was going after the person or what speeds were. Just because a lawyer who is suing someone calls it a high speed pursuit doesn't really make it one. The person who is suing's alleged illegal acts coud be relevant. If she was drunk and crossed the center line that would be significant. Not saying that is what happened, just that it is entirely possible that the city's lawyer is not so far off base.

The city lawyer is just doing his job, but regardless of the law, the plaintiff can still prove that it is common practice for police to refrain from chasing after non-felons, and that they were chasing a non-felon, and as a result she was injured. The plaintiff would have had to have been doing something really negligent to lose this case.

lefande: MPOM: Sodium Benzoate: The police aren't allowed to chase you unless they see you do a felony? WTF?
How do traffic stops work then?

It's the honor system. If you refuse to pull over for a cop, everyone just trusts that there's not some reason you really, really, really, really don't want to pull over for a cop, so much so that you're willing to risk killing yourself, the cop and anyone either of you get near with your cars in the pursuit. People usually do this because they don't want to bother spending 10 minutes getting a warning or a ticket. It's a rational response.

That, and the police have already run your tag and know where you live. They will be waiting in your driveway when you get home. Instead of just getting a ticket, you are going to be charged with some kind of felony for fleeing and eluding or the like.

You may also be charged the Run Tax, e.g., Rodney King.

Considering they don't know who the driver was, I don't think they got his tag.

lefande: They are otherwise meaningless, unless some evidence comes up which can prove them.

Now, couldn't some of what he said, that the plaintiff was "breaking various laws" herself at the time, make the lawyer potentially liable for slander if not true?

realityVSperception: What is the rational behind this? Why force an arrest and trial when up front legal clarification before hand would prevent the whole mess in the 1st place?

From Wikipedia (new window):
The United States Supreme Court has determined that the case or controversy requirement found in Article Three of the United States Constitution prohibits United States federal courts from issuing advisory opinions. Accordingly, before the court will hear a case, it must find that the parties have a tangible interest at stake in the matter, the issue presented must be "mature for judicial resolution" or ripe and a justiciable issue must remain before the court throughout the course of the lawsuit.

taoistlumberjak: I'm reading this and, I'm going to be honest, I want to beat a number of people with my fists and feet.

Hopefully not me.

ReverendJasen: lefande: They are otherwise meaningless, unless some evidence comes up which can prove them.

Now, couldn't some of what he said, that the plaintiff was "breaking various laws" herself at the time, make the lawyer potentially liable for slander if not true?

Nope.

Subby fail, the article states "Procedure" Police procedure is not law and I doubt there is a state law governing when a pursuit may take place, mayhap one that states that during any "high-risk driving" that all emergency equipment (lights and siren) be activated but politicians usually don't want to put those kind of restrictions on LEOs...they don't want an officer confronted with a camera stating "I would have stopped the rapist, but I didn't witness the crime and MA state law states that I can not pursue in that case"

The artilce further states alligations that the "victim" was behaving in a manor that contributed to their injuries.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm upset that theres not more out rage at the jacka$$ that committed the traffic violation and then fled. You know, the vehicle that actually struck the "victim." The article doesn't state as to rather the vehicle/owner was ever captured or prosecuted.

I don't see anything about the chase being illegal. The Officer may have violated policies, but that's not illegal.

lefande: realityVSperception: What is the rational behind this? Why force an arrest and trial when up front legal clarification before hand would prevent the whole mess in the 1st place?

From Wikipedia (new window):
The United States Supreme Court has determined that the case or controversy requirement found in Article Three of the United States Constitution prohibits United States federal courts from issuing advisory opinions. Accordingly, before the court will hear a case, it must find that the parties have a tangible interest at stake in the matter, the issue presented must be "mature for judicial resolution" or ripe and a justiciable issue must remain before the court throughout the course of the lawsuit.

taoistlumberjak: I'm reading this and, I'm going to be honest, I want to beat a number of people with my fists and feet.

Hopefully not me.

Thanks. So it would take a constitutional amendment to get the government to tell us what a law really means before we break it?

For some more outrage, let's bring up administative law and the horrors that occur in those (for lack of a better word) courts. Bob Hoover vs. the FAA is a well known one. Here's a couple more
Link (new window)

Here he is folks, Link (new window)

Contact info on the website.

Awesome T-Shirt: I don't see anything about the chase being illegal. The Officer may have violated policies, but that's not illegal.

No. But the policy is in place because high-speed chases lead to a greatly increased risk of bystanders being injured. In this case, the officer went off-policy and lo and behold, a bystander got injured. She should be awarded the maximum liability by the city and sue the arsehole who hit her for everything he has.

Lefande:

why no slander charge??

/Did ya win?

realityVSperception: lefande: xombie_a_go_go:

Wow, you really AAL. I read your post 4 times and I still have no idea what the hell you said.
Good luck with that congressional run.

You think that is bad, try reading this one (new window). It came out yesterday.

Note the names on the first page.

So essentially, if you are not sure if what you want to do is illegal or not, you can't force the government to give you a leagally binding answer before you are arrested unless you can show the law calls you out specifically or immenent enforcement action is targeted at you?

Is this the same reason the IRS won't provide legally binding answers to questions on the tax code before you file and are arrested?

Are there an provisions for relief where contridictary laws result in a scenario where both action and inaction are illegal? e.g. you are required to clean up toxic waste on a site but transporting said waste off the property is banned?

What is the rational behind this? Why force an arrest and trial when up front legal clarification before hand would prevent the whole mess in the 1st place?

The rationale is that they want to be able to arrest any person, in any place, at any time, for any or no reason at all. If you think otherwise, I have to wonder how you reached that conclusion. It seems like the only logical reason to make the laws so vague.

"The injuries and damages claimed by the plaintiff were caused, in whole, or in part, by the plaintiff's own negligence and that negligence of the plaintiff was equal to or greater than any negligence by the city of Methuen, such that any recovery for the plaintiff is barred," McQuillan wrote in his response to the lawsuit.



That McQuillan guy is a piece of shiat

spunkski: Lefande:

/Did ya win?

So far, yes.

lefande: From Wikipedia (new window):
The United States Supreme Court has determined that the case or controversy requirement found in Article Three of the United States Constitution prohibits United States federal courts from issuing advisory opinions. Accordingly, before the court will hear a case, it must find that the parties have a tangible interest at stake in the matter, the issue presented must be "mature for judicial resolution" or ripe and a justiciable issue must remain before the court throughout the course of the lawsuit.

So the cops and DA can fark with you for years with bullshiat charges but never arrest you and you can't do anything about it? Is that what that's saying?

Dictatorial_Flair: realityVSperception: lefande: xombie_a_go_go:

Wow, you really AAL. I read your post 4 times and I still have no idea what the hell you said.
Good luck with that congressional run.

You think that is bad, try reading this one (new window). It came out yesterday.

Note the names on the first page.

So essentially, if you are not sure if what you want to do is illegal or not, you can't force the government to give you a leagally binding answer before you are arrested unless you can show the law calls you out specifically or immenent enforcement action is targeted at you?

Is this the same reason the IRS won't provide legally binding answers to questions on the tax code before you file and are arrested?

Are there an provisions for relief where contridictary laws result in a scenario where both action and inaction are illegal? e.g. you are required to clean up toxic waste on a site but transporting said waste off the property is banned?

What is the rational behind this? Why force an arrest and trial when up front legal clarification before hand would prevent the whole mess in the 1st place?

The rationale is that they want to be able to arrest any person, in any place, at any time, for any or no reason at all. If you think otherwise, I have to wonder how you reached that conclusion. It seems like the only logical reason to make the laws so vague.

Cynicism aside, even with the best of intentions, it's actually rather difficult to write a law that covers every situation that humans seem to get themselves in.

I had to write user docs for software I created. My goal was to make the manual easy to read, understandable, and complete. The end users found no number of ways to misunderstand, misapply, and find holes in it. How often have you given people what you thought were clear and concise directions only to have them get lost anyways? Now try to write a law that covers 300 million.

I think the criminal code and justice system is at least trying and eventually does correct the worst abuses. But when it comes to administrative law, which is the system that enforces federal regulations, I agree completely with you. The decisions that come out of those courts are a true travesty and have destroyed the lives of many Americans.

Dictatorial_Flair:
So the cops and DA can fark with you for years with bullshiat charges but never arrest you and you can't do anything about it? Is that what that's saying?


The case I argued before the D.C. Circuit and just decided yesterday says you can do something about it.

realityVSperception: Cynicism aside, even with the best of intentions, it's actually rather difficult to write a law that covers every situation that humans seem to get themselves in.

Maybe we shouldn't be idiotically trying to make laws to do that, then. Despite what lawmakers seem to think, not everything actually needs to be covered under the law, really.

If there is a law about it, that basically means one of two things. The government can ruin you financially for doing something they don't like, or they can imprison you for doing something they don't like. How many situations truly require that sort of a response?

Not nearly as many as we have laws for, I can tell you that much.