Mocek now suing for civil rights violations
Nov 30, 2011, 9:07 pm
#91
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: ONT
Programs: AA Gold, WN A-, UA S, HH ♦, IHG Spire, Hertz Prez O, TSA Disparager
Posts: 2,159
Probably someone with more legal smarts/resources could. From the NM Case Lookup system here's what I found regarding Robert F. Dilley:
Case D-202-CV-198907272 , 1990 Pounds and 8 other plaintiffs v. City of Albuquerque, County of Sandoval, and Dilley, Robert F. among others
Type: Civil Rights.
Several defendants dismissed and some plaintiff's claims dismissed, City obtained a protective order at some point
A Settlement was stipulated in favor of plaintiffs on 4/03/1991
link
He appears on the NM Courts case lookup a bunch of times, mostly divorces and an auto accident. The one cited above stands out. He was sued by the State of NM in BCMetro Court for a parking violation and appeared in the same court on a domestic violence case (NM v. Dilley) in 2006.
So, one civil rights case settled in state courts, a bunch of divorces, parking issues and a domestic violence case charges were domestic violence, criminal damage to property, all charges dismissed in 2006 with the notation, "Pros Unwilling" and no plea.
There may be others, in federal courts, including Mocek v. Albuquerque et al.
Case D-202-CV-198907272 , 1990 Pounds and 8 other plaintiffs v. City of Albuquerque, County of Sandoval, and Dilley, Robert F. among others
Type: Civil Rights.
Several defendants dismissed and some plaintiff's claims dismissed, City obtained a protective order at some point
A Settlement was stipulated in favor of plaintiffs on 4/03/1991
link
He appears on the NM Courts case lookup a bunch of times, mostly divorces and an auto accident. The one cited above stands out. He was sued by the State of NM in BCMetro Court for a parking violation and appeared in the same court on a domestic violence case (NM v. Dilley) in 2006.
So, one civil rights case settled in state courts, a bunch of divorces, parking issues and a domestic violence case charges were domestic violence, criminal damage to property, all charges dismissed in 2006 with the notation, "Pros Unwilling" and no plea.
There may be others, in federal courts, including Mocek v. Albuquerque et al.
Dec 1, 2011, 10:51 am
#92
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
No, make that two cookies. Good ones.
Mike
Dec 1, 2011, 5:38 pm
#94
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: ONT
Programs: AA Gold, WN A-, UA S, HH ♦, IHG Spire, Hertz Prez O, TSA Disparager
Posts: 2,159
So far I haven't seen a single LEO much less Silly Dilley.
Dec 10, 2011, 12:54 pm
#95
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LIS/ATL/other
Programs: UA 1K, Avis PC, Hertz PC, Sixt Plat, Marriott Gold, HH Silver
Posts: 1,983
Good news for Phil: Federal Court Rules Videotaping Police Is A First Amendment Right
Dec 11, 2011, 8:08 pm
#98
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
Good news for Phil: Federal Court Rules Videotaping Police Is A First Amendment Right
Dec 12, 2011, 9:44 pm
#99
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, US
Programs: QF Plat - OW EMD | DL Gold / Starwood Gold
Posts: 6,106
I just sat down and read the entire complaint.
Looks good, Phil.
Will have to hop on pacer and see what the defendants filed for an answer and if a litigation plan and discovery schedule has been filed.
Federal Court, in my experience, is very structured and orderly compared to many state courts.
Will be interesting to see if this goes to trial or if it becomes a "can't comment, but litigation has been resolved to satisfaction of both parties"
I'd personally like to see it go to trial, but most cases never make it that far.
SDF
Looks good, Phil.
Will have to hop on pacer and see what the defendants filed for an answer and if a litigation plan and discovery schedule has been filed.
Federal Court, in my experience, is very structured and orderly compared to many state courts.
Will be interesting to see if this goes to trial or if it becomes a "can't comment, but litigation has been resolved to satisfaction of both parties"
I'd personally like to see it go to trial, but most cases never make it that far.
SDF
Feb 22, 2012, 3:10 am
#100
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Purgatory
Programs: Too many to list. Status is a half dozen.
Posts: 9,235
The defense has filed their response to Phil's complaint on February 13, 2012. Real yawner. Acknowledge or admit very little, deny just about everything, request dismissal of entire complaint and award of defense fees. Nothing unexpected as far as I can tell. It's on PACER. Now Pmocek and the rest of us wait some more.
Feb 23, 2012, 12:16 pm
#101
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
The defense has filed their response to Phil's complaint on February 13, 2012. Real yawner. Acknowledge or admit very little, deny just about everything, request dismissal of entire complaint and award of defense fees. Nothing unexpected as far as I can tell. It's on PACER. Now Pmocek and the rest of us wait some more.
Last edited by Ari; Feb 23, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Feb 23, 2012, 1:45 pm
#102
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Purgatory
Programs: Too many to list. Status is a half dozen.
Posts: 9,235
Only being a novice legal nerd I have no idea what current deadlines are for filing anything in this case. I would like to know so I have an idea when I might find something new in PACER.
Feb 24, 2012, 2:47 pm
#105
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Purgatory
Programs: Too many to list. Status is a half dozen.
Posts: 9,235