City Attorney Young also claimed to Officer Long that “he would be considering
applying for protection orders against some of the leaders in the protest groups that he felt were
especially threatening and intimidating

City Attorney Young claimed to Moore that he had been the victim of Intimidating
a Public Servant under RCW 9A.76.180, and sought criminal charges against Mr. Gibson.
City Attorney’s Office does not have lawful authority to file felony charges.
As Young did not himself have authority to file felony charges, he pressured
Moore to arrest Mr. Gibson on alleged felony charges so that Clark County Prosecuting
Attorney’s Office could file charges.
initiated an internal investigation into Sergeant Moore for
allegedly being sympathetic to “Joey Gibson” and allegedly being unsympathetic to Antifa

p. 43
On August 3, 2020, defense counsel for Ms. Carroll filed a motion to dismiss
charges filed by VCA, arguing that the charges were unconstitutional selective prosecution in
retaliation for speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution
Allowing defendants, to selectively target Mr. Gibson for arrest or prosecution
based on his position as a leader or organizer of a public prayer protest would irreparably harm
Mr. Gibson’s and his rights under First, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments to United States
Constitution p46
Allowing defendants, to arrest or prosecute Mr. Gibson based on his participation
in a public protest or prayer would also cause irreparable harm to his rights under the First, Fifth,
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

More from braingarbage

In the MATTER OF Jones David HOLLISTER
A171609.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
July 8, 2020.
https://t.co/qB3G8IAtxS we must correctly interpret the statute.
Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72, 77, 948 P.2d 722 (1997).
legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary

Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.

https://t.co/oJuecwvEKc


Bruce L. Campbell, John C. Clarke, and Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Transgender Law Center, interACT, and Beyond Binary Legal.

Does ORS 33.460 permit the circuit court to grant a legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary? The circuit court concluded that the statute does not permit such a change, and it denied petitioner's application under ORS 33.460

More from Court

Some initial observations about this case, and in particular what the Court of Appeal made of the Attorney General’s application to refer these sentences as “unduly lenient”.

Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.


First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.

It appeared an overtly political decision.


Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.

A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.


On the day of the hearing, it appeared from selected reports that the AG was out of her depth. She appeared to be making political submissions to the Court of Appeal that have no place in a case of this type.


The Court of Appeal judgment helps understand what happened.

The AG played a limited role. She “rehearsed some of the facts and said that the sentences had caused widespread public concern”

Her contribution was seemingly not considered by the Court to be legal submissions. Oof.

You May Also Like