Just wow. So if that disclaimer was what he based his judgement on then how much of what information they put out on their website are we supposed to believe is accurate or not? In other words I guess they can throw any old bogus information on their website as long as they have that disclaimer.Don't normally say this, but I have seen the latest in Judicial Arrogance. Forget interpreting the law, now we just MAKE the law fit.
Wonder why we even have a legislature..?
Summary judgment GRANTED to the City of Hammond?
Why? After years of law school and practice... the only thing I can say is...
Hell, if I know!!
He hung the entire decision on the fact that Hammond has a disclaimer on the front page of their website that says, this information may not be accurate blah blah blah, call us...
Guess you cant rely on what you see in the Municipal Code of Hammond on the Internet. We should all be thankful the State of Indiana doesn't have such an attitude with the IC Statutes... what a mess that would be...
Ill leave any further comments to Guy, but leave it to say, he COULD NOT have done a better job of putting the case forward... This will not end here...
The good ol' Daly stench just blows over from Chicago. Open carry event maybe?
At a city council meeting? Sounds good to me, after all the Hammond ordinances are void right?The good ol' Daly stench just blows over from Chicago. Open carry event maybe?
At a city council meeting? Sounds good to me, after all the Hammond ordinances are void right?
He hung the entire decision on the fact that Hammond has a disclaimer on the front page of their website that says, this information may not be accurate blah blah blah, call us...
This prohibition shall not apply to a security officer contracted by and through the city while said security officer is on duty pursuant to contract, nor to any elected city official. (of course we only want it to apply to "YOU People". It doesnt apply to US !!)
He hung the entire decision on the fact that Hammond has a disclaimer on the front page of their website that says, this information may not be accurate blah blah blah, call us...
According to the judge, probably! He stated that since state law nullified all local statues that the one in place isn't enforceable and therefore the plaintiffs didn't really have "standing."so with that logic.. the city could put up "whites only" & " no jews" signs.. as long as the are not "enforced" no harm done....?
According to the judge, probably! He stated that since state law nullified all local statues that the one in place isn't enforceable and therefore the plaintiffs didn't really have "standing."