Attorney sues Portsmouth police over gun license denial! We need to follow this case

[soloman02]

The good news is Pratt just showed everyone how utterly retarded he is as an attorney. Make note of this so that you never hire this guy to represent you.

I'll eat the above words if he wins on the wiretapping charge and creates good caselaw. It doesn't look good though.

 

[exo]

The good news is Pratt just showed everyone how utterly retarded he is as an attorney. Make note of this so that you never hire this guy to represent you.

I'll eat the above words if he wins on the wiretapping charge and creates good caselaw. It doesn't look good though.

prat
/prat/
noun
informal
noun: prat; plural noun: prats

1.
a person's buttocks.
2.
Brit.
an incompetent, stupid, or foolish person; an idiot.

 

[Nick Fury]

So if this case goes down the tubes now, can it set a bad precedent for other towns that violate state law?

Yes. This is exactly it and I suspect why the city and PD allowed this to hit the courts in the first place. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if this attorney is just a paid stooge working for external forces. All charges dropped. But now need to revisit the vague wording to require reference numbers who must respond or the permit is not issued. The tinfoil is tight this morning...

 

[Mr Weebles]

The good news is Pratt just showed everyone how utterly retarded he is as an attorney.

I looked up this guy when the case was filed. He's a credit and collections attorney, and based on one of the reviews I saw it doesn't look like he's a very good one.

 

[soloman02]

I looked up this guy when the case was filed. He's a credit and collections attorney, and based on one of the reviews I saw it doesn't look like he's a very good one.

Great. We have an attorney who has a record of poor performance (in a separate legal field no less) who thinks he is "hot shit" and is trying to make new case law. JFC.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

This clusterf**k should give you guys a better idea why Comm2A is so careful about choosing which cases to fight, and also better insight into why so much case law is bad - there is an eternal shortage of good plaintiffs with good cases and enough resources to go against the much more powerful state. Most of the times, the state decides who to pick who they want to prosecute in order to build the case law they want.

 

[atilla]

Great. We have an attorney who has a record of poor performance (in a separate legal field no less) who thinks he is "hot shit" and is trying to make new case law. JFC.

subject of OP is goin' 'ta jail.

 

[Nick Fury]

This clusterf**k should give you guys a better idea why Comm2A is so careful about choosing which cases to fight, and also better insight into why so much case law is bad - there is an eternal shortage of good plaintiffs with good cases and enough resources to go against the much more powerful state. Most of the times, the state decides who to pick who they want to prosecute in order to build the case law they want.

All good points but does not apply to this case in the least. This was a slam dunk and obviously would have made for some very good case law until this assthat of a lawyer completely and unnecessarily pushed this this case into the shitter.

 

[LoginName]

The good news is Pratt just showed everyone how utterly retarded he is as an attorney. Make note of this so that you never hire this guy to represent you.

I'll eat the above words if he wins on the wiretapping charge and creates good caselaw. It doesn't look good though.

Great. We have an attorney who has a record of poor performance (in a separate legal field no less) who thinks he is "hot shit" and is trying to make new case law. JFC.

This clusterf**k should give you guys a better idea why Comm2A is so careful about choosing which cases to fight, and also better insight into why so much case law is bad - there is an eternal shortage of good plaintiffs with good cases and enough resources to go against the much more powerful state. Most of the times, the state decides who to pick who they want to prosecute in order to build the case law they want.

subject of OP is goin' 'ta jail.

I can't recall the last time I've seen (or read), someone crash and burn/go from hero to zero this quickly and badly.

 

[Bonesinium]

Let me get this straight. A guy records a conversation he is a party to and you guys berate him for being an idiot?? Because of course record your own conversations should definitely be a serious crime, like carrying a concealed firearm without a license or permit.


NH wiretapping laws are probably more BS than the P&R application requiring references.

To me, this looks like exactly the sort of thing I talk about. You go after the state for violations (or in this case a town PD), they will look and find something to go after you for. That is how it works. It apparently works well seeing how many of you so quickly turned on a guy simply for recording a conversation. So much for believing in liberty and freedom.

Maybe it's time to stop pretending.

Unless the alleged recordings play a serious role in the facts of or proving the facts of the P&R application suit, what does it have to do with the merit of it anyways? It isn't like "oh, you violated a bogus wiretapping law so therefore it is okay for the Police to violate other laws".

 

[atilla]

Let me get this straight. A guy records a conversation he is a party to and you guys berate him for being an idiot?? Because of course record your own conversations should definitely be a serious crime, like carrying a concealed firearm without a license or permit.

NH wiretapping laws are probably more BS than the P&R application requiring references.

To me, this looks like exactly the sort of thing I talk about. You go after the state for violations (or in this case a town PD), they will look and find something to go after you for. That is how it works. It apparently works well seeing how many of you so quickly turned on a guy simply for recording a conversation. So much for believing in liberty and freedom.

Maybe it's time to stop pretending.

Unless the alleged recordings play a serious role in the facts of or proving the facts of the P&R application suit, what does it have to do with the merit of it anyways? It isn't like "oh, you violated a bogus wiretapping law so therefore it is okay for the Police to violate other laws".

never said i agreed with anything above. just that he royally ****ed himself.

 

[exo]

Let me get this straight. A guy records a conversation he is a party to and you guys berate him for being an idiot?? Because of course record your own conversations should definitely be a serious crime, like carrying a concealed firearm without a license or permit.


NH wiretapping laws are probably more BS than the P&R application requiring references.

To me, this looks like exactly the sort of thing I talk about. You go after the state for violations (or in this case a town PD), they will look and find something to go after you for. That is how it works. It apparently works well seeing how many of you so quickly turned on a guy simply for recording a conversation. So much for believing in liberty and freedom.

Maybe it's time to stop pretending.

Unless the alleged recordings play a serious role in the facts of or proving the facts of the P&R application suit, what does it have to do with the merit of it anyways? It isn't like "oh, you violated a bogus wiretapping law so therefore it is okay for the Police to violate other laws".

Where are you getting this from the responses? We're upset because this guy has likely torpedoed his case, when if he had just contacted one of the reputable firearms attorneys in NH it was probably going to be a slam-dunk. When the CoP is on the hook for the legal fees in very likely victory, it doesn't make sense for this guy to represent himself.

Nothing that has been said so far says that we think he shouldn't be allowed to do what he did - but for chris'sakes, he's a lawyer and he doesn't know the law regarding recording conversations? Pratt is a prat, like I said.

 

[ixia]

Let me get this straight. A guy records a conversation he is a party to and you guys berate him for being an idiot?? Because of course record your own conversations should definitely be a serious crime, like carrying a concealed firearm without a license or permit.


NH wiretapping laws are probably more BS than the P&R application requiring references.

To me, this looks like exactly the sort of thing I talk about. You go after the state for violations (or in this case a town PD), they will look and find something to go after you for. That is how it works. It apparently works well seeing how many of you so quickly turned on a guy simply for recording a conversation. So much for believing in liberty and freedom.

Maybe it's time to stop pretending.

Unless the alleged recordings play a serious role in the facts of or proving the facts of the P&R application suit, what does it have to do with the merit of it anyways? It isn't like "oh, you violated a bogus wiretapping law so therefore it is okay for the Police to violate other laws".

While this is a legit philosophy to believe, in the real world it is more helpful to not break laws when you're trying to establish new legal decisions with the goal of changing something. Or if it is a case where you're challenging something because of a law you broke, to only break one law at a time.

 

[soloman02]

Let me get this straight. A guy records a conversation he is a party to and you guys berate him for being an idiot?? Because of course record your own conversations should definitely be a serious crime, like carrying a concealed firearm without a license or permit.


NH wiretapping laws are probably more BS than the P&R application requiring references.

To me, this looks like exactly the sort of thing I talk about. You go after the state for violations (or in this case a town PD), they will look and find something to go after you for. That is how it works. It apparently works well seeing how many of you so quickly turned on a guy simply for recording a conversation. So much for believing in liberty and freedom.

Maybe it's time to stop pretending.

Unless the alleged recordings play a serious role in the facts of or proving the facts of the P&R application suit, what does it have to do with the merit of it anyways? It isn't like "oh, you violated a bogus wiretapping law so therefore it is okay for the Police to violate other laws".

I qualified this in this post:

The good news is Pratt just showed everyone how utterly retarded he is as an attorney. Make note of this so that you never hire this guy to represent you.

I'll eat the above words if he wins on the wiretapping charge and creates good caselaw. It doesn't look good though.

He now has the ability to create bad caselaw in two places now instead of one. The first being in terms of references (at the very least he will keep it the status quo: CoP has the ability to power trip), and second on the wiretapping front.

Keep in mind this is an attorney who does not specialize in either section of the laws he is appealing and now has violated. As has been noted, NH has two very good attorneys who specialize in gun law and criminal law.

To put it succinctly: He done ****ed up good.

It will be a miracle if we get out of this with no bad caselaw (let alone getting good caselaw) on either of the items at hand here.

 

[Hiltonizer]

Let me get this straight. A guy records a conversation he is a party to and you guys berate him for being an idiot?? Because of course record your own conversations should definitely be a serious crime, like carrying a concealed firearm without a license or permit.


NH wiretapping laws are probably more BS than the P&R application requiring references.

To me, this looks like exactly the sort of thing I talk about. You go after the state for violations (or in this case a town PD), they will look and find something to go after you for. That is how it works. It apparently works well seeing how many of you so quickly turned on a guy simply for recording a conversation. So much for believing in liberty and freedom.

Maybe it's time to stop pretending.

Unless the alleged recordings play a serious role in the facts of or proving the facts of the P&R application suit, what does it have to do with the merit of it anyways? It isn't like "oh, you violated a bogus wiretapping law so therefore it is okay for the Police to violate other laws".

No one is defending the wiretap laws, but he's a meatstick for violating them while fighting CCW BS and consequently flushing the case down the shitter.

 

[LoginName]

While this is a legit philosophy to believe, in the real world it is more helpful to not break laws when you're trying to establish new legal decisions with the goal of changing something. Or if it is a case where you're challenging something because of a law you broke, to only break one law at a time.

At the very least... you don't do it in a court room with a judge, cops and prosecutor present.

 

[Hiltonizer]

It will be a miracle if we get out of this with no bad caselaw (let alone getting good caselaw) on either of the items at hand here.

I think the CCW side will be fine, it will just get thrown at worst, have no effect. Dat tap though...

 

[drgrant]

Great. We have an attorney who has a record of poor performance (in a separate legal field no less) who thinks he is "hot shit" and is trying to make new case law. JFC.

It's not an absolute that it would generate viable case law. Not 100% sure how it works in NH, but I know in MA a district level decision doesn't amount for much. It only becomes a problem if it gets appealed and appealed to higher courts and he continues being a retard. Even at that, there are a bunch of things that can cause a trainwreck and prevent case law from sitting. This isn't like the storage case which got appealed to the NH supreme court and made good binding law out of it. This is turning into like an "Atkinson" case with a tinfoiler running it.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Let me get this straight. A guy records a conversation he is a party to and you guys berate him for being an idiot?? Because of course record your own conversations should definitely be a serious crime, like carrying a concealed firearm without a license or permit.

I think the law is stupid but when you're instigating a fight with the man (and you're controlling the fight as opposed to being under duress) rule number 1 is to stop acting legally retarded. This guy went full retard.

-Mike

 

[Bonesinium]

My post stands. First, you guys are already jumping to berate him for an ALLEGATION from the state that may or may not even be a violation. He hasn't been found guilty of of anything. Heck, he hasn't been charged as far as I can tell.

They are going to start an investigation into whether or not a crime was committed."

So because he did something that very well could be and should be legal, that is a reason to call him an idiot and attack him over? Sounds like some of you guys are siding with the state over a non-violent 'crime' that may not even exist in the first place. That saddens me and flies on the face of the liberty flag so many of you champion.

My bet, is this wiretapping thing is a bully tactic. Standard really. NH has used state wiretapping laws to hassle people in the past and nearly always lose. I wouldn't be so quick to jump to assuming the accusations are valid like most seem to be doing. I BS accusation is just that, BS and has nothing to do with the accused being an idiot. I suppose we will see.

 

[Nick Fury]

My post stands. First, you guys are already jumping to berate him for an ALLEGATION from the state that may or may not even be a violation. He hasn't been found guilty of of anything. Heck, he hasn't been charged as far as I can tell.



So because he did something that very well could be and should be legal, that is a reason to call him an idiot and attack him over? Sounds like some of you guys are siding with the state over a non-violent 'crime' that may not even exist in the first place. That saddens me and flies on the face of the liberty flag so many of you champion.

My bet, is this wiretapping thing is a bully tactic. Standard really. NH has used state wiretapping laws to hassle people in the past and nearly always lose. I wouldn't be so quick to jump to assuming the accusations are valid like most seem to be doing. I BS accusation is just that, BS and has nothing to do with the accused being an idiot. I suppose we will see.

Here you go. Stand on this:

"Roughly an hour into the hearing, Pratt pulled out his tablet and revealed that he was in possession of a recording of the phone conversation between himself and Schwartz."

And just because people are face palming and going WTF? does not in any way, shape, or form imply that they support wiretapping laws. Get real please.

 

[Realtor MA]

All good points but does not apply to this case in the least. This was a slam dunk and obviously would have made for some very good case law until this assthat of a lawyer completely and unnecessarily pushed this this case into the shitter.

This case was never a slam dunk. The facts just weren't understood. They seldom are until a trial begins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[soloman02]

Open recording the state loses. This was a phone call and not open recording. Two different issues. Like has been said when you go into a fight like this you can not give the other side anything that they can grab onto.

Pretty much. He admitted to recording a phone call between him and the police Captain in court. Seriously? Talk about inserting ones foot into ones mouth. The prosecutor uses the term investigation because in order to get a conviction, he has to cross all his T's and dot all the i's. Keep in mind, a prosecutor is not going to remember the nuances of all laws all the time. A warrant allows police to gain a copy of the recording to analyze for a longer period of time so they can sit down with a copy of the law in front of them and read the nuances again.

DiLando told the court that when she entered the room to listen to Pratt's recording, she decided to bring a state trooper with her to have a witness. After listening to the recording and conferring with the same trooper, DiLando said she had serious concerns that Pratt had violated state law.

It is possible Pratt was ignorant of the wiretapping law but ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of a prosecutor, judge or jury.

I don't agree with the two party law but it is there. And Pratt does not practice in this field, which means it is highly unlikely he has a solid plan of action in place to get a good NHSC or SCOTUS ruling from this stunt.

It was a slam dunk for Pratt since the denial letter said references were the denial reason and state law does not require them (and no case law on them AFAIK). He had everything he needed. Pulling out the recorded phone conversation was beyond dumb. He buggered up the whole case, unless the Captain gave consent. I frankly don't find that likely because the captain would have told the prosecutor of the recording if he had been informed of the recording and given consent. If Pratt asked for consent, got it but didn't record the cop giving consent, now the cop can lie and Pratt is screwed.

This ends badly for Pratt in far too many ways.

 

[soloman02]

This case was never a slam dunk. The facts just weren't understood. They seldom are until a trial begins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Furthermore:

Schwartz said police also notified Pratt that his denial was being held until the references responded.

That right there is a blatant violation of state law. You cannot hold on to the denial letter past 14 days. Either give the license or give the person the denial letter. The courts have been very clear they don't put up with that BS.

 

[Garys]

All good points but does not apply to this case in the least. This was a slam dunk and obviously would have made for some very good case law until this assthat of a lawyer completely and unnecessarily pushed this this case into the shitter.

I'd be surprised if a district court decision in an individual case would be precedent setting. I'd think it would be more persuasive if it has any meaning outside of the individual case at all. Maybe someone with experience in NH law can tell us.

 

[Nick Fury]

This case was never a slam dunk. The facts just weren't understood. They seldom are until a trial begins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No your right. The case was full of holes. Good thing he plugged them all up with that "alleged" recording...

Now he faces wiretapping and will have to withdraw his case to save his ass and the PD gets bolder than ever. The "evidence" for the defense was nothing more than a direct challenge to the almost universally accepted interpretation of the law. Why the plaintiff chose to torpedo it is baffling to say the least...

 

[Garys]

Open recording the state loses. This was a phone call and not open recording. Two different issues. Like has been said when you go into a fight like this you can not give the other side anything that they can grab onto.

As you point out, the Boston case was a matter of someone openly audio and video recording public officials performing their duties. The First Circuit was very clear that that is legal. What isn't legal is the surreptitious recording of in person or phone conversations absent a warrant. MA and NH are two party consent states, but New York isn't. Even if he was talking to Schwartz in person and had the recording device turned on, but hadn't informed Schwartz, it would be illegal.

That's why even when you call 9-1-1 the answering person has to inform you that the call is being recorded. Or if you call Comcast customer service for that matter. At one time and it might still be required, the phone line had to beep every 15 seconds to remind you that you were being recorded.

Whether a state requires one party or two party consent is up to the states. SCOTUS doesn't care. As I recall, the federal rule on this is one party consent, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

[Realtor MA]

This isn't Mass. This is a New Hampshire case, with very defined laws and precident from other cases.

Given the fact that a twist in this case has now been revealed it is clear it was never a slam dunk. Without the twist maybe it would be. But it is not and with the benefit of hindsight we can see it never was all that simple. There are almost always a few twists and turns. I'm not disputing the clarity of the law. I'm just pointing out the notion that things are'nt always as easy as they appear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rob Boudrie]

MA and NH are two party consent states

Incorrect. MA does not require two party consent, but prohibits surreptitious recording. A curious twist is that a recording of someone saying "please turn that recorder off, I do not consent to recording" could be used as the basis of a defense to wiretapping charges even if the recorder was not turned off.

 

[terraformer]

This clusterf**k should give you guys a better idea why Comm2A is so careful about choosing which cases to fight, and also better insight into why so much case law is bad - there is an eternal shortage of good plaintiffs with good cases and enough resources to go against the much more powerful state. Most of the times, the state decides who to pick who they want to prosecute in order to build the case law they want.

Bingo! We don't stoop to talking about it but we have this crap happening in MA. Comm2a isn't the end all, be all of ma gun law, but we try to be careful.