• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Atkinson v. Town of Rockport - Federal 1983 Civil Rights Suit

This case will fail the same reason that walmart gender discrimination case just failed in the supreme court. It lacks focus. It's not specific, it's a nebulous, wandering pile of junk. Actually, this case is a lot worse than that one is, by orders of magnitude.

I'm not even a lawyer by any stretch and I can see this being a failbus. I'd suggest you read GSG's post #29. And if you don't get it, keep reading it over and over again until you do.

-Mike
 
Holy crap, the amended complaint is 653 pages and names 44 John Doe defendants on top of every state/town official he could think of.

What's the court system's process for tossing crap like this with a minimum of effort?
 
You are going to lose, the Complaint is way too long - and you are VERY unfocused. I suggest you withdraw it and speak to a civil rights attorney. They don't need to be a gun attorney, they need to be a competent civil litigator that understands Federal Civil Procedure.
 
jar said:
Holy crap, the amended complaint is 653 pages and names 44 John Doe defendants on top of every state/town official he could think of.
Click to expand...

The indictment for The United States v. Anthony Accetturo et al. was about 10% as long as that. Kind of ironic too since he's hinting about RICO damages in the future.

Madball13 said:
I sincerely hope you succeed.
Click to expand...

Even success is failure here, this blindfolded birthday boy is walking around the house hitting stuff with a stick because someone told him about a pinata. If the stars all align and through some miracle he wins, all we're going to be left with is whatever language the courts want to lay down about the two cases everyone else is trying to build on. Basically you want your case to put words in the court's mouth based on things it's already said. He's handing them a crayon and rolling out a giant piece of paper, but trusting that they're only going to color within his imaginary lines.

In my 7th grade science class the teacher did a demonstration where she laid out all the ingredients to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on her desk and we had to write down instructions for her that she could follow to make it. Some people wrote generic steps: "Now put the knife in the peanut butter and spread it on the bread," so she stabbed the knife through the lid and rubbed the jar around on top of the entire loaf, and said "Well that's what you said, isn't it?" Then those steps were better explained: "Remove the lid from the jar, use the knife to take a small amount of peanut butter out. Lay flat one piece of bread and gently smear the peanut butter on it with the knife."

She was pretending to not understand our explanations because she was trying to show us that you need to be very, very specific, and not assume that everyone is on the same page. Court is similar in that you need to tell them things in their language, and you need to be able to walk them through it like a 4 year old. I forsee some damaged jars and crushed, sticky loaves of bread here. There's a very good reason the 6A recognizes your right to consult with someone who's less lost than you on the law.
 
GSG said:
The indictment for The United States v. Anthony Accetturo et al. was about 10% as long as that. Kind of ironic too since he's hinting about RICO damages in the future.



Even success is failure here, this blindfolded birthday boy is walking around the house hitting stuff with a stick because someone told him about a pinata. If the stars all align and through some miracle he wins, all we're going to be left with is whatever language the courts want to lay down about the two cases everyone else is trying to build on. Basically you want your case to put words in the court's mouth based on things it's already said. He's handing them a crayon and rolling out a giant piece of paper, but trusting that they're only going to color within his imaginary lines.

In my 7th grade science class the teacher did a demonstration where she laid out all the ingredients to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on her desk and we had to write down instructions for her that she could follow to make it. Some people wrote generic steps: "Now put the knife in the peanut butter and spread it on the bread," so she stabbed the knife through the lid and rubbed the jar around on top of the entire loaf, and said "Well that's what you said, isn't it?" Then those steps were better explained: "Remove the lid from the jar, use the knife to take a small amount of peanut butter out. Lay flat one piece of bread and gently smear the peanut butter on it with the knife."

She was pretending to not understand our explanations because she was trying to show us that you need to be very, very specific, and not assume that everyone is on the same page. Court is similar in that you need to tell them things in their language, and you need to be able to walk them through it like a 4 year old. I forsee some damaged jars and crushed, sticky loaves of bread here. There's a very good reason the 6A recognizes your right to consult with someone who's less lost than you on the law.
Click to expand...

That's a good teacher.
 
Thank you, I appreciate the encouragement.

The complaint may have flaws and errors in it, but the case itself is sound, and I am standing on solid ground with my claims.

If someone care to assist me in cleaning up the complaint (in a helpful way), or wishes to file an Amicus Brief, which clarified to the court issues within the complaint and how they related to the Bill of Rights then the writer of such a brief would be doing the court and the citizens of the Commonwealth a huge favor.

Thank you

James M. Atkinson
[email protected]
 
Feel free to file an Amicus Brief with the court, whereby you explain the matter to them more clearly, so that they have a better understanding of the issue, and you can help to direct them into making good precedent, and making good law. In this way you will be doing the Court a huge favor, you will ensure that your knowledge on the subject makes it into the record, and you be assisting in changing the laws, without actually getting involved in the case.

ANYBODY can file an amicus brief, so why don't you take a dozen or so issues in the case that you feel woudl make for a good amicus brief, write up a scholarly essay on the matter, and submit it to the court.

For example, you could take M.G.L c 140, section 123 and expound and argue the section to the court as it being unconstitutional, and then move onto another section for which you would like explained better. You simply take you understanding of the Constitutional issues, and explain them to the COurt in a way that helps the Court better understand the issue, and to define it in a way so that when the Court makes it decision it becomes pro-civil rights.

Or, you can opt not to do anything, and just whine and moan about loosing your civil rights by virtue of not fighting for them.

You do not need to be an attorney to file an Amicus Brief, only to be coherent enough to make a good point.
 
DUDE....

as a military person with a background in EMS as well. you are an idiot.

you need to do this the right way. right now, you aren't and you come off as a lunatic. you claim to be military, right? think about that whole "reasonable person" standard they taught us.

you need to STFU, withdraw your borderline insane suit and calm the hell down. you aren't helping. if you want to know specifics of what i do, PM me and we'll meet. i am on the north shore as well.

jesus.... [thinking]
 
We're all on the same side here. We all think MA gun laws are insane. We all wish they would just go away.

But in the system of laws we have there's a right way and a wrong way, and then there's just a dumb way.

I'll be the first to admit that sometimes I look at situations and think they are just dumb. Why the hell doesn't somebody just deal with this. It is insane that this continues.

Then I get with someone who truly understands the situation and explains all the forces at work. How they all interact to this final result. These are the folks that need to fight these battles. They know how to peel back the onion. They know the pertinent laws, parties and forces at work. They know how to make surgical strikes.

Rarely does a slash and burn attack, as you've presented, work as intended. And they often have the ability to hurt the very cause they want to help.

So, with all due respect, I suggest we're all on the same side here, but your methodology is doomed to fail, or worse.

Best,

Rich
 
jamesmatkinson said:
Or, you can opt not to do anything, and just whine and moan about loosing your civil rights by virtue of not fighting for them.
Click to expand...
I'm doing something by supporting Comm2A. They bring in attorneys who actually know what they're doing to fight for our rights. You know that Alan Gura guy, who won McDonald and Heller? I watched him argue a case for us in Boston this week.

You do not need to be an attorney to file an Amicus Brief, only to be coherent enough to make a good point.
Click to expand...
So you're disqualified then?

You seem to have no idea how doomed to failure you are and the very real chance you'll screw the rest of us.
 
You're not helping the cause by filing a brief that will inevitably get thrown out for being too vague. If you get a judge who is going rule on your brief in a vague way, we're all screwed!

You could F*ck this up for everyone, you are not helping the situation!!!
 
jamesmatkinson said:
The complaint may have flaws and errors in it, but the case itself is sound, and I am standing on solid ground with my claims.
Click to expand...

Alan Gura is to these kind of cases what Jerry Miculek is to revolver shooting; it's not the mechanics of what he's doing that are different, it's his singularly focused approach. If he's not getting behind you, you need to ask yourself some unpleasant questions.

jamesmatkinson said:
ANYBODY can file an amicus brief
Click to expand...

You sure about that? If you're filing multiple cases in the 1st District Court, you should know more about this already, especially since you're soliciting this kind of help.

jamesmatkinson said:
so why don't you take a dozen or so issues in the case that you feel woudl make for a good amicus brief, write up a scholarly essay on the matter, and submit it to the court.
Click to expand...

An amicus isn't a scholarly essay. The goal is to highlight to the court the long-lasting, overall impact of the legal decisions the court is preparing to make, to paint them a full picture of what's at stake out beyond the case before them. They're best recieved when they aren't biased towards one side, but rather present a well rounded view on the legal concepts under consideration. There's also no guarantee that they'll even read them.

It's also supposed to augment or support a case, not drag it around in a fireman's carry.

jamesmatkinson said:
For example, you could take M.G.L c 140, section 123 and expound and argue the section to the court as it being unconstitutional, and then move onto another section for which you would like explained better. You simply take you understanding of the Constitutional issues, and explain them to the COurt in a way that helps the Court better understand the issue, and to define it in a way so that when the Court makes it decision it becomes pro-civil rights.
Click to expand...

123 is formatted different than any other section of gun law in MGL chapter 140. It's also the longest section in MGL on guns period, the majority of it being a nine page "paragraph." Your brief includes six abbreviated paragraphs on 140-123, and #2-6 are basically just paragraph #1 copied and pasted verbatim. 140-121 is much more straightforward than 140-123, formatted in a way that makes it easier to understand, and isn't very unique when compared to similar gunlaws across the nation, and you have more written on 121 than 123 in your brief.

MGL 140-123, the most dynamic, lengthy, confusing, hard to read single section of firearms MGL, not to mention the one that sets Mass. apart from almost every other state in the US legally ("the EOPS list"), and how do you plan to bring it to it's knees? With two cases that don't have anything to do with 80% of it, and only apply in a spotty manner to the other 20%.

But we should scramble to write amicus briefs to be submitted according to guidelines you don't know exist, for a case you haven't even slightly researched, one you don't feel the most prominent & successful attorney's on this subject in the nation are qualified to handle.

jamesmatkinson said:
Or, you can opt not to do anything, and just whine and moan about loosing your civil rights by virtue of not fighting for them.
Click to expand...

Less work and less movement makes for faster shooting because it's more efficient. You, on the other hand, are doing the fandango.
 
Last edited:
Madball13 said:
How about instead of shitting all over this guy you all encourage Comm2A to help him out?
Click to expand...
+1, Although I think GSG is giving some very sound advice. Right attitude, but the application needs major tweaking. I'm not implying this as a method of saying "oh schumer!! We can't start charging forward, what if someone notices us!?!" (which I have seen happen with another local 2A organization), but I am saying we did not lose our rights in one fail swoop and it would be haphazard to think they can all get returned in one fail swoop.
 
Madball13 said:
How about instead of shitting all over this guy you all encourage Comm2A to help him out?
Click to expand...

Comm2A are the pros at this, I don't want to encourage them into anything they're not jumping on. Firefighters have a saying: "Keep back 300 feet." They know what they're doing, give them room. Maybe Comm2A is working with the OP behind the scenes. Nothing we say here is going to change their job or abilities.

If you think my legal hole-poking is bad, you won't want to stay tuned for the beating he's going to take in court. Every entity involved here gets sued all the time and keeps attorneys on retainer specifically to shut them down. He's going up against skill, experience and a ton of money, legal teams backed by publicists, unions, national organizations of similar employees. This is all they do, every day, for the past few decades. As an FYI, the police departments, colleges, businesses all have their own lawyers waiting in the wings for this very thing, and some of the individuals named will probably show up with a few of their own to represent their personal best interests as well. These are lawyers who know how to play the game with continuances, jury selection, every step of the process from walking in the courtroom door to the endless appeals at the end of the case. And they'll all be working together to make the suit as unpleasant as possible for the other side.
 
The best thing that can happen here is that you withdraw your suit. The second best thing is that it gets dismissed on 12b6 grounds. Your asking people to file an amicus brief on issues they may not have any grounds to do so - you are too unfocused for amci to determine how your case matches theirs. You may feel bad about all of this, but the court does not care. And, furthermore, a First Year law intern could DESTROY your complaint - I am not kidding, it would be ripped to shreds. Your not making a statement other than your lack of understanding - if there is one thing I can pass along about the Courts, no one will care. Are you prepared to make your arguments on the inevitible motions to dismiss? Are you prepared for Summary Judgement? Are you prepared to Depose all of those witnesses? You are talking about expertise I guarantee you do not have. I have had people walk through my door, tell me they have been to 3 attorneys' and no one will take their case - the reason? They have no case - and they don't want to hear that. On the grounds that you are identifiying you have no case - if a competent attorney told you you have no case, they were not lying to you. That is not insufficient zeal, it is honest truth.
 
I just wasted 64 cents updating the docket: http://ia600607.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137434/gov.uscourts.mad.137434.docket.html

Atkinson's ridiculous FAIL continues, including such brilliances as requesting notices of default for people not named as defendants and the judge granting an order that Atkinson stay away from defendants homes and serve future process on their attorneys rather than at their homes.

It kind of amazes me just how much work a crackpot willing to pay the filing fee can raise.
 
Well, he's gotten the (negative) attention of Alan Gura and SAF [thinking].

From their Amicus brief in Masciandaro v. United States...

The Second Amendment has often proven the adage that hard cases make for bad law. Broad disposition of poor Second Amendment claims may hurt the legitimate rights of peaceful, responsible people whose conduct should be protected.

Prior to its resurrection in Heller, a leading cause of the Second Amendment’s demise was the fact that in most cases raising a Second Amendment issue, the claimants were often unsympathetic criminal defendants or others raising facially untenable claims. Miller and its progeny proved as much. In the post-Heller environment, amicus strongly believes that the greatest threats to the Second Amendment’s vitality continue to be poorly-considered, often extremist positions litigated by people who should know better.

Amicus does not reference the criminal defense bar’s duty to provide zealous representation, although such cases will often not produce positive precedent. The problems manifest themselves in myriad other ways, for example, with sweeping Second Amendment complaints alleging vast conspiracies.[7]



[7]Atkinson v. Town of Rockport, No. 11-cv-11073-NMG (D. Mass. filed June 15, 2011) (474 page pro se third-amended complaint); Rothery v. Blanas, No. 08-cv-2064-JAM (E.D. Cal. filed Sept. 2, 2008) (78 page, 808 paragraph amended complaint), appeal pending, No. 09-16852 (9th Cir. filed Aug. 25, 2009).
Click to expand...

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/masciandaro/SAF-Cert-Amicus-2011-07-25.pdf
 
You know you've gone full retard when the good guys (who would otherwise be on your side) are going out of their way to tell you to STFU. [laugh]

-Mike
 
This guy will be lucky if the court does not sanction him under Rule 11 for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Those attorney's fee could be huge. Kopelman & Page = big bucks!
 

Similar threads

The Michigan Man is Coming to Town! | Join me on a Road Trip to see David Hogg!
Replies
1
Views
230
MassPete
MassPete
Knife Rights Files Amicus Brief in MA Supreme Court Switchblade Case
Replies
13
Views
539
Palladin
Palladin
Personal transfer of pre-Healy MA compliant AR and/or lowers
Replies
4
Views
266
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
eFA-10 For Shotgun Purchased Out of State, What Do I Put In The Dealer Info Area?
Replies
3
Views
163
Rick O'Shea
Rick O'Shea
Wild case resolved LTC suitability
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
180 GRAIN FMJ
180 GRAIN FMJ
Back
Top Bottom