Matthew Hardin v. Eric Tollefson, Minnesota Case 34-CV-25-364 - The Bodycam Lawsuit

[Leylon Sneed]

There's already one related appeal, but, yeah, he can appeal this too.

IANAL but part of this said with prejudice , doesn't that mean no Mulligan's?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

IANAL but part of this said with prejudice , doesn't that mean no Mulligan's?View attachment 8481440

I don't see what that has to do with what I said.

 

[McMitch]

IANAL but part of this said with prejudice , doesn't that mean no Mulligan's?View attachment 8481440

I don't see what that has to do with what I said.

He doesn’t understand the difference between “with prejudice,” as in Hardin cannot relitigate on this issue versus an appeal to overturn the decision itself.

 

[Leylon Sneed]

I don't see what that has to do with what I said.

Well I'm obviously retarded, but an appeal would be a do over(a Mulligan). I know there's two separate cases, and I'm not clear on which one this one is, but wouldn't with prejudice mean that at least that part can't be appealed?

I just saw nulls post, which clarified a little, I just don't understand the use of that language.

 

[McMitch]

Well I'm obviously retarded, but an appeal would be a do over(a Mulligan). I know there's two separate cases, and I'm not clear on which one this one is, but wouldn't with prejudice mean that at least that part can't be appealed?

I just saw nulls post, which clarified a little, I just don't understand the use of that language.

“With prejudice” means Hardin cannot start a brand new lawsuit from the beginning with the hopes of achieving a different judgement; an appeal means Hardin is going to a higher level court to convince them this court decision is erroneous and must be overturned, including for order 2. Court proceedings very rarely actually operate under mulligans.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Well I'm obviously retarded, but an appeal would be a do over(a Mulligan). I know there's two separate cases, and I'm not clear on which one this one is, but wouldn't with prejudice mean that at least that part can't be appealed?

I just saw nulls post, which clarified a little, I just don't understand the use of that language.

There is currently only one appeal and that is in Nick's criminal case regarding the ruling the Judge made on Mr. Hardin's motion to intervene. It recently got an update here.

This was a separate case where Mr. Hardin sued the sheriff and other officials for not providing him the records when they were supposed to. Mr. Hardin can still appeal this partial loss (bodycam was dismissed, but the parts regarding other records are still pending). Dismissal with prejudice refers to the fact that he cannot refile this lawsuit. But he can appeal.

 

[Qonas]

he isn't "really a legal expert"

It would be nice if the results of his cases actually reflected this.

 

[Chukipz]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=lEAh6I-kaEA

I love the Chris-Chan Stress Sigh in the last couple of seconds there.

 

[TrainWreckWatcher]

I never expected the county to agree to it.
We knew they were corrupt.
My hope is for the supreme court to hear this because that is the funniest outcome.
Is that option no longer available?

E:

Hardin is going to a higher level court to convince them this court decision is erroneous and must be overturned,

Okay so what I expected is going to continue forward.
God I hope this goes all the way to the US supreme court.

 

[Path Wanderer]

@Rekieta give us bodycam footage pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplesepleasepleasepleaseplease

 

[Useful_Mistake]

My hope is for the supreme court to hear this because that is the funniest outcome.
Is that option no longer available?

He has yet to appeal this loss to the appellate court. Then there's the state Supreme Court. Then there is the federal Supreme Court.

 

[Potentially Criminal]

He has yet to appeal this loss to the appellate court.

They've already stated how they feel about access to the bodycams in the intervention case.

Then there's the state Supreme Court.

It would be a discretionary review and you would need to raise a question under Section 2. They will certainly decline to hear it.

Then there is the federal Supreme Court.

Any money that would be used to try and get certiorari from SCOTUS would be better used buying me cheeseburgers, models, and AR15 magazines.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

They've already stated how they feel about access to the bodycams.


It would a discretionary review and you would need to raise a question under Section 2. They will certainly decline to hear it.
View attachment 8494237


Any money that would be used to try and get certiorari from SCOTUS would be better used buying me cheeseburgers and models.

I didn't opine on the success, I just answered the poster about the options available.

 

[Path Wanderer]

They've already stated how they feel about access to the bodycams in the intervention case.


It would be a discretionary review and you would need to raise a question under Section 2. They will certainly decline to hear it.
View attachment 8494237


Any money that would be used to try and get certiorari from SCOTUS would be better used buying me cheeseburgers, models, and AR15 magazines.

So is it all over then, Kiwivros?

Has Rackets won?

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Has Rackets won?

If you can call the current state of his life "winning", I guess so.

But the self-inflicted damage to his reputation is irreparable. All the information he so desperately wanted to hide has come out.
If he believes all this is because someone "defamed" him, a public figure, with actual malice, then I hope Null hires Randazza (or whatever his name is), just for the lulz.

 

[Kosher Dill]

He has yet to appeal this loss to the appellate court. Then there's the state Supreme Court. Then there is the federal Supreme Court.

I won't be satisfied until Christ Himself sits in judgement with a council of archangels to decide if we can see Nick's piles of dirty laundry.

 

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

April is still the wildcard element.

Imagine going through all this to access the bodycam footage just for her to drop footage of the house in a drug-fuelled outburst from absolutely fucking nowhere, Ralphamale style.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Imagine going through all this to access the bodycam footage just for her to drop footage of the house in a drug-fuelled outburst from absolutely fucking nowhere, Ralphamale style.

She would have to be severely retarded or, as you say, on a drug-fuelled bender, to do that.
It would violate MN law and she would severely fuck herself by publishing unredacted footage of 3 children.

 

[Path Wanderer]

I won't be satisfied until Christ Himself sits in judgement with a council of archangels to decide if we can see Nick's piles of dirty laundry.

"You should release the footage"

 

[Disgruntled Pupper]

Our only hope is EWU Crew. Come on, YouTube sloppers, you got the money to start your own case, and you're not the mean stinky Farms, get that footage for us.