Firearms agitator still waiting to fight gun charge (Embody case)

[DaveTN]

Personally, I wonder why they just didn't charge him with disorderly conduct?

Far as I can tell Tennessee doesn't have a disorderly statute.

[Oh Shoot]

Far as I can tell Tennessee doesn't have a disorderly statute.

 

Sure we do,  Disorderly Conduct and Riots section, 39-17-301 thru 317.

 

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

Will they even accept evidence in an arraignment hearing? I thought no.

 

Well, seems so, certainly happened during one of mine. :) There are a number of motions that can be made, the sort of catch all one being:

 

"A party may raise by pretrial motion any defense, objection, or request that the court can determine without a trial of the general issue." Maybe some courts make you do a separate hearing for that, but again, my lawyer did one in the arraignment.

 

Pretty obvious defense to present the one thing that proves you're innocent, ie a federal document that the TN law accepts as not just a defense of the charge, but " a defense to prosecution" of the charge, so would seem that would get inserted at the earliest opportunity?

 

Jeez, you sound like you've never been arraigned before. ;)

 

edit: btw, I've been saying "arraignment" all along, but I think this actually happened for whatever reason in a separate hearing after the fact on a motion to dismiss, don't think Lenny had his supposed ducks in a row to do it during the arraignment.

 

- OS

Edited August 29, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[dcloudy777]

OS, how solid is the info on the arraignment judge not accepting Lenny's NFA documentation is evidence of affirmative defense? Is the hearing transcript available?

That's really Kwik's only shot at a case. The search was good (one look at the "rifle case" is all it will take for a judge or jury to find PC/RS... the damn thing was designed to look exactly like a loaded rifle), the arrest was good, and the charge was dismissed properly. But if the arraignment judge really did just ignore obviously exculpatory evidence, that's not cool at all. Edited August 29, 2014 by dcloudy777

[Oh Shoot]

OS, how solid is the info on the arraignment judge not accepting Lenny's NFA documentation is evidence of affirmative defense? Is the hearing transcript available?

 

Well, I won't swear to anything. ;) But best I remember was audio YouTube with the words typed in at same time. Seems like there was a PDF too, honestly can't remember. But spent some time with it, was quite long, and there was a long discussion regarding it on whatever was the last forum he hadn't been yet booted from at the time.

 

Here's the kicker, at that time Kwik was doing it pro se, and best I remember, he didn't present his motion to include the docs in quite the right verbiage or something minor like that, so the judge kicked it out, and either the judge or prosecutor made a snide remark to the effect they could be forged in the first place. I remember distinctly thinking as I read it that was pretty ridiculous, as how do you prove the docs are valid? Like with another doc attesting they are valid? Which could be "forged" too, eh? Yet judge actually looked at the docs too, best I remember.

 

Anyway, seemed obvious to me that since the information in the motion was certainly allowed and pertinent, the judge used his "discretion" (obvious prejudice) to not accept it. 

 

And yes, he should have had a competent lawyer with him.

 

And again, no I can't swear to the accuracy of my memory, but pretty obvious that the same documents that got this recent judge to throw it out were spurned by the very first one a year ago.

 

Lenny has dumped a bunch of his YouTube stuff and even his main entrance to website is blank right now, and searches didn't find it for me, sorry. Might have to suss the significance down the road if nobody can dig up a transcript.

 

edit: btw, I've been saying "arraignment" all along, but found a couple of links that say this actually happened for whatever reason in a separate hearing after the fact on a motion to dismiss.

 

 

- OS

Edited August 29, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Chucktshoes]

Well, I won't swear to anything. ;) But best I remember was audio YouTube with the words typed in at same time. Seems like there was a PDF too, honestly can't remember. But spent some time with it, was quite long, and there was a long discussion regarding it on whatever was the last forum he hadn't been yet booted from at the time.

 

Here's the kicker, at that time Kwik was doing it pro se, and best I remember, he didn't present his motion to include the docs in quite the right verbiage or something minor like that, so the judge kicked it out, and either the judge or prosecutor made a snide remark to the effect they could be forged in the first place. I remember distinctly thinking as I read it that was pretty ridiculous, as how do you prove the docs are valid? Like with another doc attesting they are valid? Which could be "forged" too, eh? Yet judge actually looked at the docs too, best I remember.

 

Anyway, seemed obvious to me that since the information in the motion was certainly allowed and pertinent, the judge used his "discretion" (obvious prejudice) to not accept it. 

 

And yes, he should have had a competent lawyer with him.

 

And again, no I can't swear to the accuracy of my memory, but pretty obvious that the same documents that got this recent judge to throw it out were spurned by the very first one a year ago.

 

Lenny has dumped a bunch of his YouTube stuff and even his main entrance to website is blank right now, and searches didn't find it for me, sorry. Might have to suss the significance down the road if nobody can dig up a transcript.

 

edit: btw, I've been saying "arraignment" all along, but found a couple of links that say this actually happened for whatever reason in a separate hearing after the fact on a motion to dismiss.

 

 

- OS

 

Didn't I see somewhere that Lenny actually has a lawyer representing him now? It looks like he is listening.

[JayC]

The search doesn't seem to be good per current case law...

 

First, even if there was a rifle in the case, what specific to that gun probable cause did they have to believe it was loaded?  Remember carrying an unloaded rifle without a case is perfectly legal...  You also have 39-17-1307f3 to contend with...  which says a person does not possess a firearm...  if the firearm is in a ... container that is securely locked and to which the respondent does not have the combination, keys or other means of normal access.  This includes specifically NFA items.

 

Now, lets say you could muster the probable cause, that just means you qualify for a warrant...  that doesn't give you permission to search...  for that you need a search warrant or an exigent circumstance to search...  they didn't have a warrant... and I don't see how they can claim a valid EC in this search...  Leonard was detained, they had custody of the locked container, and were mere blocks away from a court house full of judges to grant search warrants.

 

I think the search is the most likely problem in a 1983 lawsuit.

 

OS, how solid is the info on the arraignment judge not accepting Lenny's NFA documentation is evidence of affirmative defense? Is the hearing transcript available?

That's really Kwik's only shot at a case. The search was good (one look at the "rifle case" is all it will take for a judge or jury to find PC/RS... the damn thing was designed to look exactly like a loaded rifle), the arrest was good, and the charge was dismissed properly. But if the arraignment judge really did just ignore obviously exculpatory evidence, that's not cool at all.

 

[dcloudy777]

The search doesn't seem to be good per current case law...
 
First, even if there was a rifle in the case, what specific to that gun probable cause did they have to believe it was loaded?  Remember carrying an unloaded rifle without a case is perfectly legal...  You also have 39-17-1307f3 to contend with...  which says a person does not possess a firearm...  if the firearm is in a ... container that is securely locked and to which the respondent does not have the combination, keys or other means of normal access.  This includes specifically NFA items.
 
Now, lets say you could muster the probable cause, that just means you qualify for a warrant...  that doesn't give you permission to search...  for that you need a search warrant or an exigent circumstance to search...  they didn't have a warrant... and I don't see how they can claim a valid EC in this search...  Leonard was detained, they had custody of the locked container, and were mere blocks away from a court house full of judges to grant search warrants.
 
I think the search is the most likely problem in a 1983 lawsuit.

Not a chance. The case is clearly designed to precisely mimic the appearance of an AR-15 type rifle with a magazine inserted. One look at the evidence pictures (or the "case" itself) is all it will take. And in today's USA, a person walking around in what appears to be body armor with what appears to be a loaded semiautomatic rifle in an urban area is all the exigency circumstances you need to search.

[JayC]

The first MNPD stop, unless something comes out during discovery was a good Terry Stop...  but they let him go...  The second MNPD stop is going to have to proven some new RAS/PC occurred between stop 1 and stop 2...  but stop 2 went way beyond a basic terry stop.

 

To search a locked container, even if you know 100% that it contains illegal contraband, current case law is pretty strict...  My understanding is the only exigent circumstance that could apply is the public safety/emergency exception...  that would require MNPD to prove that even though they had complete control over the container, they needed to open it to save themselves or a third person...  but I don't see how that argument holds water since they had complete control of the case, and were only a couple of blocks from a judge who could issue a warrant...

 

Also, just because he had a rifle, what specific PC did they have the rifle was loaded?  

 

Not a chance. The case is clearly designed to precisely mimic the appearance of an AR-15 type rifle with a magazine inserted. One look at the evidence pictures (or the "case" itself) is all it will take. And in today's USA, a person walking around in what appears to be body armor with what appears to be a loaded semiautomatic rifle in an urban area is all the exigency circumstances you need to search.

 

[Garufa]

According to the agitator's website he spent a couple of hours in downtown Nashville today with the exact same gear.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Garufa

[mikegideon]

According to the agitator's website he spent a couple of hours in downtown Nashville today with the exact same gear.

 

He's not gonna be happy until somebody unloads a mag into his ass. Maybe TGO David will put up a memorial section.

[Chucktshoes]

He's not gonna be happy until somebody unloads a mag into his ass. Maybe TGO David will put up a memorial section.

When that happens, I'll be right there he asked for it and marvelling at his luck in lasting that long. 

[Oh Shoot]

According to the agitator's website he spent a couple of hours in downtown Nashville today with the exact same gear.

 
Aha, he's back up.
 
Looking at his list of chain of events regarding this charge, I see the hearing I've been mentioning was actually indeed after the preliminary hearing, and he wasn't actually indicted and arraigned until May of this year, wow.
 

When that happens, I'll be right there he asked for it and marvelling at his luck in lasting that long.

 

I've said in the past that I don't think looking for the pay day has really been his primary focus all along. I think the guy really is pathological, some kind of Spartacus/Sacrificial Gun Christ complex.

 

- OS

Edited August 29, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Chucktshoes]

 

 

I've said in the past that I don't think looking for the pay day hasn't really been his primary focus all along. I think the guy really is pathological, some kind of Spartacus/Sacrificial Gun Christ complex.

 

- OS

That's as plausible a scenario as any. I couldn't argue against it.

[Oh Shoot]

Didn't I see somewhere that Lenny actually has a lawyer representing him now? It looks like he is listening.

 

Missed this post, but yeah AFAIK he did pick up one at some point in the saga.

 

- OS

[Garufa]

If the guy was looking for a payday he'd have a bucket, guitar or rifle case laying on the sidewalk in front of him while he proselytizes for people to throw change into.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Garufa

[Oh Shoot]

If the guy was looking for a payday he'd have a bucket, guitar or rifle case laying on the sidewalk in front of him while he proselytizes for people to throw change into.

 

:rofl:

 

Damn sure would have been far ahead of what he's taken in thus far, no doubt about that!

 

- OS

Edited August 29, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[GlockSpock]

The question is: If someone puts him down while out "protesting", will the Nashville AG do anything?

[Dustbuster]

"Shaking your bare ass in front of a nest filled with angry hornets will never reap honey"

 

If ya wanna challenge the law go to law school.Its much nicer than making cops think youre gonna blast  something closeby by running a one man parade.

 

F for Fail......

[dcloudy777]

He doesn't care a whit about getting any sort of law changed, he's stated that on a few different occasions.

[K191145]

I know many of us here believe the charges in his case should have been dropped and never filed because he didn't violate any firearms laws and I still believe that. That being said, the day this clown does violate a law that is actually on the books and legitimatly charged with a crime i'll celebrate along with everyone else. I would love to be that little devil on his shoulder that says in his ear, that cop is in your face, go ahead and shove him back away from you. I don't condone shoving LEO's but I would bet the LEO he shoved wouldn't mind that at all. I'm all for getting this idiot off the street and out of the media but it has to be legit or it will just be dropped again and he will be back in the news.

[tnhawk]

.......If I controlled the civil trial jury, I'd probably find in his favor and award him $1.

 

His actions were carefully planned to obtain the publicity he has received.  That and one cent should be his settlement.

[Dustbuster]

He shouldn't get squat. No reasonable person parades around police headquarters with a weapon sling over their back. Metro could have kept him on the street for hours wearing his ass out with questions. If some douche is in a public place pacing or loitering with a weapon they need to be addressed properly out of concern for public safety. If he didn't violate any law then so be it but, if he wants recognition he's better off auditioning for the Howard stern show then taunting cops for real attention. Doing anything to wow the crowd w a gun isn't the best thing to do in the past 10 years..

[gregintenn]

Perhaps he'd get more attention in Ferguson, Missouri. :shrug:

[Oh Shoot]

He doesn't care a whit about getting any sort of law changed, he's stated that on a few different occasions.

 

His suit regarding constitutionality of the HCP would certainly have changed it big time if he'd won.

 

- OS