By now, considering the documentation presented in this post and its predecessors (not to mention what is to come), two things are painfully obvious: (1) the Rutttenbergs have been subjected to a vicious injustice which has subjected them to substantial economic and emotional damage; and (2) the public’s interest in the assurance of the protection of their constitutional rights from the malfeasance of powerful officials has been sorely compromised. The cleansing sunlight focused by the likes of Graig, Radley. Anke and others will go far in the battle to protect the public. The Ruttenbergs, on the other hand, can only be made whole by a fair application of due process of law in the Federal court.

The dismissal of Ruttenberg v. Jones, 1:06cv639, by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Distric of Virginia, has been appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit located in Richmond, Virginia. The Docket Number is 07-1037. The Docketing Statement sets forth the following issues for consideration by the court:

(1) Whether the trial court erroneously concluded that plaintiffs’ had no protectible property interest in their conditional use permit.

(2) Whether the trial court erroneously concluded that adequate post-deprivation remedies were available to the plaintiffs, when the complaint clearly stated that certain defendants manufactured evidence to support the deprivation of plaintiffs’ licenses and permits and then lied during official proceedings about their conduct.

(3) Whether the trial court’s decision to dismiss Count 1 erroneously ignored the deprivation of plaintiffs’ property interest in the business itself, for which there is no remedy in any state court post-deprivation proceedings.

(4) Whether the trial court’s (sic) erred in ruling that plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate deprivation of their First Amendment rights, when the allegations in the complaint, taken as a whole, are accepted as true.

(5) Whether the trial court erred in finding that defendants’ were entitled to qualified immunity on Count 3 when the conduct alleged in the complaint included the intentional manufacturing of false evidence to support a raid on plaintiffs’ premises and fabricated testimony regarding the raid; as well as the knowing search and seizure of premises not subject to administrative search in clear violation of plaintiffs’ fourth amendment rights.

(6) Whether the trial court erred in rulng that plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deprive them of constitutional rights, when the allegations in the complaint, taken as a whole, are accepted as true.

The Ruttenbergs have excellent representation in this matter. Although Neil Ruttenberg is one of the counsels of record, I’m referring now to his co-counsel. I have no doubt that comprehensive, in depth, articulate arguments will be filed on their behalf. However, there is a strong tendency for courts to protect police officials from 42 USC § 1983 litigation in their desire, probably properly so, to allow police to perform their essential duties without the constant harrassment of nuisance suits. The Ruttenbergs need to convince the court that this is not a nuisance suit. They need to convince the court that the proper resolution of the issues presented above is essential for the protection of the most basic of constitutional rights. The Ruttenbergs would be most grateful if interested constitutional experts would consider amicus curiae briefs to the 4th Circuit on their behalf. Its just possible that many in the public would be grateful as well.

If your interested, pleasse send an e-mail to Greg who will make the necessary connections.

I haven’t written a column about this because Greg said there was an article coming and I thought I’d wait for the article.

Having been involved in the 2004 election for the off-track betting, I have an opinion from that perspective, but I never knew what was happening behind the scenes.

LI, nice try though, trying to tie Gill to this mess.