A motion to dismiss was filed recently in the Nancy Genovese v Town of Southampton case (Mother of 3 Arrested for Taking Pictures of Tourist Attraction at Airport). The motion seeks to dismiss the complaint against the Town of Southampton and former Southampton Town Police Lieutenant Robert Iberger, and FINALLY reveals the the town’s version of the events that happened that night. Now Nancy has the opportunity to file opposition papers and address the claims and defenses made by the town and the police lieutenant. I’ll post a summary of the motion soon. In the meantime, many of you have asked for copies of documents, so here they are. Happy reading.
.
they better not grant this. or if they do I would not want to be living in that town. surely this is justmore legal wrangling. i say give her a default judgment like she would have gotten if this had been two normal citizens suing each other. The city already got one freebie!!!
I have a case like this out in California. I was beaten up by the Suisun City cops at a public crime forum meeting in front of TV Cameras after the cops stupidly believed a report by a felon and a a guy whos neighborhood car repair business I had shut down that claimed that I had tried to run them over as I left my home for the public meeting. Lucky for me I have a home security camera and it time date stamped recorded me leaving uneventfully. I suffered a concussion, bruises and lacerations. Im a retired military officer too.
We’re getting closer and closer to the totalitarian police state, DHS gives local, state and fed police lots of latitude in dealing with anybody anytime. They can find something to hold you on if nothing else, suspicion. And they want to be able to hold you indefinately without council or being brought before a judge. If the air base had something they didn’t want someone to see, then it should have been in a secure area not just behind a fence in the background that someone could see driving by on a public road. I would probably stop and take some photographs of a helicopter that was on display as a tourist attraction – that’s kinda what it’s for. As for the weapons, the one was in a case, not loaded, no ammunition available = legal transport. I drive a jeep grand cherokee, my rifles are always in a case when I go to the range and in the rear of the vehicle, but they’re not loaded and ammunition is not readily available. How else are you supposed to transport them to and from a range? Just give our DHS/cops more power to abuse you.
That ”airbase” isnt considered by the Dept. Of Defense a high priority asset. There are no alert fighters, bombers or nuclear weapons. The Air Force calls it priority C resource. Looking at google maps satellite view it looks like the tourist attraction helocopter is a old ch53.
Lawyer up, Rich, it looks like they went after you for nada, and you’ve got a civil rights case ahead of you.
That ”airbase” isnt considered by the Dept. Of Defense a high priority asset. There are no alert fighters, bombers or nuclear weapons. The Air Force calls it priority C resource. Looking at google maps satellite view it looks like the tourist attraction helocopter is a old ch53.
I have seen the testimony removed and put back. The Police docs were removed more than once. There were pages missing in the docs. Is there a reason for not adding all of the pages especially on the police Iberger and Carlock docs? Or maybe the missing pages are added back to the docs.
It has been some time since anything has happened on this case. Was it settled or closed? I am unable to find anything showing any activity since April last year. Are you allowed to say it was settled if it was a confidential arragement?
Kate,
It’s still open, the city, cops, and lawyers are like monkeys trying to screw a football right now. They will come up short and have to pay. It’s just a matter of time.