Tom-NJ2AS 31 Posted March 9, 2011 http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/09/brian-aitken-to-file-suit-against-new-jersey-officials-for-civil-rights-violations/#ixzz1G7USteOr Brian Aitken, the New Jersey man sentenced to seven years in prison last year for possessing legally owned firearms that were unloaded and locked in the trunk of his car, is filing a civil rights suit against the state prosecutors who put him behind bars and the police officers who searched his car without consent, his attorney told The Daily Caller. Aitken, 27, was convicted of illegally transporting a weapon in August 2010, but was released after four months spent in prison when New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie commuted his sentence to “time served.” (For the full story, read TheDC’s interview with Aitken.) His attorney, Michael Orozco, sent letters to the Mount Laurel Police Department and the Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office Monday to notify them that they would be sued for their behavior in the case, which Orozco claims violated Aitken’s civil rights. The parties have six months to respond. Orozco is filing suit on Aitken’s behalf under Section 1983 of the federal code, which allows citizens to sue state officials who they believe have violated their rights under federal law. He is claiming damages for the two years he spent battling the New Jersey justice system, his time spent in prison, and for the loss of his three-year-old son, who he has been restricted from seeing for more than two years. “I don’t know how I get the two years back,” Aitken told TheDC last month. “All the money, all the time that’s been spent. I lost custody of my son over this. How does he ever get his father back? He doesn’t. You don’t get any of these things back.” Aitken currently lives in Atlanta, where he works as a libertarian activist and new media strategist for the Foundation for Economic Education, a free-market think tank. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/09/brian-aitken-to-file-suit-against-new-jersey-officials-for-civil-rights-violations/#ixzz1G7dDA0VO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LorenzoS 100 Posted March 9, 2011 I think his rights were violated by the overly harsh punishment and possibly by the judge's instructions. But I'm surprised by the "searched his car without consent" part - the story that has been published since last year was that he freely let them search his car since he was confident he did nothing illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maksim 1,504 Posted March 9, 2011 Wow, when will these people realize the difference between legally purchased and illegally possessed in NJ? He broke the damn law... more than 1. Lol. am not surprised he moved out of NJ to Atlanta now. eh, F Brian Aiken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LorenzoS 100 Posted March 9, 2011 Wow, when will these people realize the difference between legally purchased and illegally possessed in NJ? He broke the damn law... more than 1. Lol. am not surprised he moved out of NJ to Atlanta now. eh, F Brian Aiken. Maks, do you think 7 years prison was an appropriate sentence? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maksim 1,504 Posted March 9, 2011 Absolutely not. I think the time served for mags and hollow points is enough. Although after the way it came down, I would be in favor for time for being a douchebag. My problem is really the fact that he is being out that he did nothing wrong. He committed a crime, he broke the law. Based on pure facts. There is alot more on the rumor mill, but since we are talking facts.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom-NJ2AS 31 Posted March 9, 2011 i think he is getting at NJ laws are unconstitutional so he should have never broken the law to begin with. He also has a different lawyer now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maksim 1,504 Posted March 9, 2011 i think he is getting at NJ laws are unconstitutional so he should have never broken the law to begin with. He also has a different lawyer now. Look, we are all adults here, lets be honest, With his newfound name awareness with the general public, and how lucky he is to be painted as a great upstanding citizen, he is pushing to get compensated for his "cruel and unusual" punishment. I am sure a book deal is soon to come. Fact of the matter, even without the 7 year mandatory sentence, his 7 and 7 would still land him in jail, and he would still not see his son. Lastly, how much money did NRA/SAF throw at his case? He should be thankful the community got him out and that he is a "supa-star" who can leverage his name into bigger things. then again, I don't blame him for trying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 177 Posted March 9, 2011 Wow, when will these people realize the difference between legally purchased and illegally possessed in NJ? He broke the damn law... more than 1. Lol. am not surprised he moved out of NJ to Atlanta now. eh, F Brian Aiken. Arguably unconstitutional laws... The same class of laws that I'm willing to bet that a large majority of NJ gun owners at one point in their gun owning life have unconsciously broke at least once , maybe more. Most likely all of this has to do with the police, prosecutor, and judge showing no consideration of the exemptions in their actions during the arrest, prosecution, and trial.. at least for the illegal possession of a handgun part. It would be interesting if he brings 2A into the argument, it could grow to something much larger. I'm lost on the search thing, as I also read that he gave permission to the police to search. Sounds like a hail Mary to try to get all the evidence thrown out , so he can have the records expunged. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maksim 1,504 Posted March 9, 2011 Arguably unconstitutional laws... The same class of laws that I'm willing to bet that a large majority of NJ gun owners at one point in their gun owning life have unconsciously broke at least once , maybe more. Most likely all of this has to do with the police, prosecutor, and judge showing no consideration of the exemptions in their actions during the arrest, prosecution, and trial.. at least for the illegal possession of a handgun part. It would be interesting if he brings 2A into the argument, it could grow to something much larger. I'm lost on the search thing, as I also read that he gave permission to the police to search. Sounds like a hail Mary to try to get all the evidence thrown out , so he can have the records expunged. Dan, there was nothing wrong with the gun that he possessed. He did not fall under the exemptions anyway. He had high cap mags, and an add on of hollow points. Due to a quirk, he also got 7 year mandatory for committing a crime with a handgun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted March 9, 2011 I think this might make Christie revoke the commutation of his sentence. The laws are complete BS, but he broke them. I only read Christie's commutation once, but I think it said it was revocable. Christie doesn't seem like much of a gun rights guy. I know there was speculation this was coming when the commutation (rather than pardon) came out. If there was a plan, and Christie was aware of the plan, probably OK. If not, I think Christie usually responds to a slap in the face by eating the person that slapped him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maksim 1,504 Posted March 9, 2011 I think this might make Christie revoke the commutation of his sentence. The laws are complete BS, but he broke them. I only read Christie's commutation once, but I think it said it was revocable. Christie doesn't seem like much of a gun rights guy. I know there was speculation this was coming when the commutation (rather than pardon) came out. If there was a plan, and Christie was aware of the plan, probably OK. If not, I think Christie usually responds to a slap in the face by eating the person that slapped him. Great point. I guess this may be a factor why Brian bounced out of NJ... doesn't want to crap where he eats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 177 Posted March 9, 2011 Dan, there was nothing wrong with the gun that he possessed. He did not fall under the exemptions anyway. He had high cap mags, and an add on of hollow points. Due to a quirk, he also got 7 year mandatory for committing a crime with a handgun. I suppose I have to re-read the information about the case. I was under the impression that the majority of his sentence was the result of illegal possession of a handgun, and that the whole hubub with the judge was that he would not allow the possession exemptions to be used discussed or used by the jury in their deliberation. "possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes" would mean they were able to prove that he intended to use the gun for unlawful purposes, as in committing a crime against persons or property with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maksim 1,504 Posted March 9, 2011 I suppose I have to re-read the information about the case. I was under the impression that the majority of his sentence was the result of illegal possession of a handgun, and that the whole hubub with the judge was that he would not allow the possession exemptions to be used discussed or used by the jury in their deliberation. "possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes" would mean they were able to prove that he intended to use the gun for unlawful purposes, as in committing a crime against persons or property with it. Correct, there was 7 years for that, however he also got either 7 months, or 9 months for each possession of high cap mags, and hollow points. I firmly have an issue of giving him 7 years, however no one can argue with the two other counts. By saying he is innocent, we are saying he did not possess the high cap mags or hollow points, which would not be true. As far as the moving exemption... it was merely I believe to get off the 7 year charge..., however he moved from CO to his parents house in NJ... and then was moving to his new place in Hoboken? When he came to NJ, whether he was moving or not, the 16 round mags are still illegal. As stupid as the law is, that is what it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted March 9, 2011 Correct, there was 7 years for that, however he also got either 7 months, or 9 months for each possession of high cap mags, and hollow points. I firmly have an issue of giving him 7 years, however no one can argue with the two other counts. By saying he is innocent, we are saying he did not possess the high cap mags or hollow points, which would not be true. As far as the moving exemption... it was merely I believe to get off the 7 year charge..., however he moved from CO to his parents house in NJ... and then was moving to his new place in Hoboken? When he came to NJ, whether he was moving or not, the 16 round mags are still illegal. As stupid as the law is, that is what it is. I also read his roommate at the place he was "moving to" said he had seen the handguns at the apartment on prior occasions. If true, that would pretty much rule out the "moving" exemption. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krdshrk 3,877 Posted March 9, 2011 I also read his roommate at the place he was "moving to" said he had seen the handguns at the apartment on prior occasions. If true, that would pretty much rule out the "moving" exemption. Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 177 Posted March 9, 2011 If only NJ jurors were like NYC ones... as in the ones who recently acquitted Jonathan Ryan of blatantly obvious NYC illegal possession of a handgun charges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maksim 1,504 Posted March 9, 2011 Do you believe everything you read on the internet? You should. =) Often times, the net is far more accurate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zed's_Dead 16 Posted March 9, 2011 Look here for a great quick legal article about 1983 actions and the 2nd Amendment after the McDonald case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zed's_Dead 16 Posted March 9, 2011 If only NJ jurors were like NYC ones... as in the ones who recently acquitted Jonathan Ryan of blatantly obvious NYC illegal possession of a handgun charges. I knew Plaxico should've taken it to trial!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted March 9, 2011 F Brian Aiken. that has pretty much summed up my view on the situation since day 1.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cemeterys Gun Blob 165 Posted March 9, 2011 I got a mailing from the 2AF yesterday. They mentioned Aitken, and at the end of the article, they wished Aitken best of luck with his legal endeavors. Sounds like a polite F.U. in my opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted March 9, 2011 Do you believe everything you read on the internet? What word of "if true" do you not understand? I could help you with that if you let me know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anselmo 87 Posted March 10, 2011 illegal search? Nappen should have used that at the original trial. The prosecution had enough evidence to get a conviction... Civil rights violation sounds like an attack to NJ's gun laws. I hope there is a movement there. If Aitken was to argue "I broke NJ law but NJ law violates my civil rights" I'd be all for that angle. If judge not allowing the moving defense was invalid, it would have made grounds for appeal. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vjf915 456 Posted March 10, 2011 I think his rights were violated by the overly harsh punishment and possibly by the judge's instructions. Yea ummm, only problem there is that I'm almost certain that judge's are immune from civil prosecution pertaining to the cases they handle. So good luck to Aitken if he tries to sue the judge. I agree with Maks and vlad, eff BA. The dude needs to shut up before everything backfires on him, he should just quit while he is ahead. illegal search? Nappen should have used that at the original trial. This.... If judge not allowing the moving defense was invalid, it would have made grounds for appeal. This.... If Aitken was to argue "I broke NJ law but NJ law violates my civil rights" I'd be all for that angle. And DEFINITELY this.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zed's_Dead 16 Posted March 10, 2011 The article I posted talks about why a challenge on the basis of saying "NJ law violates my constitutional rights" would be so difficult. Essentially, the law in regard to a "constitutional right" must be well settled before a court will say that legislation or government action is violative of that right. 2nd Amendment rights, as pointed out in both Heller and McDonald, are anything but settled at this point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Malsua 1,422 Posted March 10, 2011 I'm ready for this guy to vanish from the public conscience. He's not a poster boy and it I throw up a little in the back of my mouth every time I read this guy's name as if he's a champion of gun rights. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray Ray 3,566 Posted March 10, 2011 This guy again? I'm tired of hearing his name. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Malsua 1,422 Posted March 10, 2011 This guy again? I'm tired of hearing his name. +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,369 Posted March 10, 2011 illegal search? Nappen would have used that at the original trial. There I corrected it. Nappen may not be impressive in person but he's no dummy and would have gotten everything thrown out in a pretrial hearing if there was an illegal search. Yea ummm, only problem there is that I'm almost certain that judge's are immune from civil prosecution pertaining to the cases they handle. AFAIK this is correct. Who would take a job as ajudge if you could be sued for a decision you made. AFAIC Aitken is not loooking for justice. He knows an appeal to his criminal case would be lost. He is looking for money and that's it. I think he has no chance of winning but the insurance company for the Mt Laurel PD (if this is covered by insurance) and the city fathers there have to look at it this way. Aitken has no chance of winning but it will take $200,000 to fight this case. If we settle out of court for $50,000 it will cost us way less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vjf915 456 Posted March 10, 2011 AFAIK this is correct. Who would take a job as ajudge if you could be sued for a decision you made. Which is exactly the purpose of it. If judges could be sued civilly for court decisions, they would be spending more time in front of a judge than as a judge. However, I do believe that the requirement is in regards to the judge working in good faith of the law. If the judge sits there and says "Eff it, I don't like black people, Jayquan I'm sentencing you to three times the maximum sentence for your crime.".....pretty sure that immunity is gone. Aitken has no chance of winning but it will take $200,000 to fight this case. If we settle out of court for $50,000 it will cost us way less. A large part of me hopes that they DON'T take the cheap route, go to court, and win....just to shut Aitken up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
