Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Dan in Florida on August 22, 2011:

My (non-attorney) understanding is that in the U.S. it's unusual for court orders to be applied to people who aren't parties to the case. This is different in other countries; judges in the U.K., for instance, seem to be fond of issuing sweeping orders muzzling comments regarding a case, applicable to everybody in the country, and extending to speech-suppressing levels that would be unconstitutional in the United States.

Posted by Kyle, Oz on August 22, 2011:

Now I have no knowledge of this law, so just my opinion!

Reading the actual article and NRS 179.285 the two have nothing to do with each other. It is an incident that has been reported and charged. The law relates to exciting things like his ability to vote etc, sounds like bully tactics to me. Be nice to have a link to transcripts to the actual court proceedings and not just an attorney's view of what was said. Not that this guy deserves any more of my time!

---

I'm guessing there never have been online transcripts of his court appearances. If there were, they would be what the court order would properly cover! -rc

Posted by Robb, North Walpole, NH on August 22, 2011:

"...the alleged incident did not occur". Certainly his mugshot was taken or we wouldn't be discussing this so, certainly, SOMEthing occurred. If mugshots are available by way of public information, Too bad, so sad.

Eager to hear when you're accepting donations for a fund toward fighting this. It really ticks me off.

---

The cost estimate for fighting it was why I gave up. It takes deep pockets to prove you're right, and if you don't have to prove it.... -rc

Posted by Anna, Torrington CT USA on August 22, 2011:

Very intimidating to have a process server follow your wife into the driveway. Glad if my upgrade could help in any way towards this!!

Posted by Mike from Dallas on August 22, 2011:

I understand the cost/reward ratio, but can anyone explain to me HOW police records could be adjusted to show that the arrest "never happened"? More importantly, how does ANY judge have that much power to change "history"? I also wonder about all the other publications, especially newspapers, etc that covered the incident. Were they also required to retract, redact, or otherwise indicate that there was never any "such incident"? And, if not, why only some publications but not others? One thing about the law is that you cannot pick and choose which defendants you want to harass in a lawsuit.

I suppose, most importantly, WHO is this guy that he's willing to invest SO much money in interstate summons/notifications for some incident of which most of us have already forgotten?

Posted by Alan - Hoquiam, WA on August 22, 2011:

I suppose soon Google will have to remove all cached pages of this also?

---

Presumably, that will age off of its own accord. -rc

Posted by Greg in Seattle on August 22, 2011:

Two things... AFAIK, the judge cannot gag a news publication and demand they remove a story from their archives. That would violate the First Amendment. Furthermore, so long as your information was true and factual, there would be no cause for libel. At best they could get you to add an addendum.

Second, the court in Reno is a municipal court and cannot order a publication in Colorado to do anything. Furthermore, if they tried, they would have to take their Nevada judgment to a Colorado judge to get it enforced. Which means that after they won anything in Nevada, they'd have to come to Colorado where you could then fight it on purely jurisdictional issues.

I've also heard that local judges don't like out of state judges trying to run roughshod over the rights of their citizens.

Basically, your takedown should do it. No judge would give them a penny and probably sanction them for suing because you took an extra day.

What you may want to do is file a suit against the lawyer and their client in Colorado for summary judgment that your page doesn't violate any laws and to recoup costs involved in the takedown, your suit, and their abuse of the courts.

Posted by Tim in PA on August 22, 2011:

To Mike from Dallas - it is possible that the record was expunged. I do know it is possible to have items completely removed from a record under certain circumstances, but do not know exactly what they are.

I used to work in a police department (not as an officer). Part of my duties included handling the arrest records. That included expunging records when a court order was received to do so. This included destruction of the arrest report, mug shots, finger print cards, etc. and removal from the computer database. Other agencies would receive the same notice (up to and including the FBI, since they also received copies of finger print cards). It did not happen often, but it did happen occasionally. This was almost 20 years ago, however I would not be surprised to find that it is still possible.

Posted by V.T. Eric, Florida on August 22, 2011:

It's sad that in this litigious society of ours that lawyers are required for every god-damned thing. I believe you were perfectly within your rights to post that image of this man.* In the state of Florida, those mug shots are public information.

You did the safe thing, RC. I don't have an issue with that. I probably would have done the same. I wouldn't want to be liable for some large lawyer bill to defend my actions. It does leave a bad taste in the mouth, though.

*I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on the Internet.

Posted by bandit, New Mexico on August 22, 2011:

Gotta be pretty brave to be a process server in a rural area in the West. I know I would have been more than concerned to see someone follow my wife, then block the driveway. Good way to get a visit from Mr Colt.

Also - in New Mexico, blocking a driveway in that manner is technically kidnapping. Do you have a recording of the car?

---

If I did, it's probably rolled off by now -- small camera cache. I'm sure if the sheriff asked him about his actions, he'd just say he parked well away from her so as to not intimidate her. ("Oh... was I blocking the driveway?") And who knows: he may have really thought that. -rc