Page History: Lindsly vs. Worley, et al.

Compare Page Revisions

231 230 229 228 227 226 225 224 223 222 221 220 219 218 217 216 215 214 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 199 198 197 196 195 194 193 192 191 190 189 188 187 186 185 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 167 166 165 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 155 154 153 152 151 150 149 148 147 146 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Current 231 230 229 228 227 226 225 224 223 222 221 220 219 218 217 216 215 214 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 199 198 197 196 195 194 193 192 191 190 189 188 187 186 185 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 167 166 165 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 155 154 153 152 151 150 149 148 147 146 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

« Older Revision - Back to Page History - Newer Revision »

Page Revision: 2010/05/14 01:42

The Truth according to Gerald Lindsly:

A federal civil suit concerning the attempted murder committed by Michael Worley against myself and the conspiracy of the Hamilton County "Justice" Center to cover up and minimize said act.

< 06?: One of ADT's employees submitted only possibly incriminating video evidence at a trial of which I was defendant. He neglected to show footage of myself trying to leave the scene empty handed. I was acquitted of a charge of burglary although I did admit to trespassing.

08/03?/06: I intentionally triggered an ADT security alert because I was mad at them. I immediately left the scene. The Cincinnati police used stealth to confront me at a busy intersection and told me they were going to take me to an insane asylum. I said "No way" and tried to walk away. I was immediately tasered at least 3 times until I lost consciousness and fell to the payment in the middle of the street. There were many witnesses to this brutality. If they had told me I was under arrest, I would have shown them empty hands and asked "why?". I was arrested and taken to the county jail.

08/04/06: Sherrif Worley did intentionally try to kill me. He drove his knee into my face with the largest force he could muster and thereby caved in my skull. I suffered concussion, broken bones, memory loss, bleeding from the nose and mouth, bruising, swelling, black eyes, a scratched cornea and a tremendous amount of pain for a considerable time. I required major surgery under anesthesia and near emergency to partially repair the damage done. The medical bills were near $20k.

I now have a metal plate and screws driven into bone installed in my head to support my cheekbone and to protect my brain. The shape of my face could not be restored entirely and I am permanently disfigured. I daily suffer bone grinding, aching head pains in addition to some numbness and tingling due to nerve damage. These griefs will be with me for the rest of my life. I am sorry, but at this time I can't help crying most of the time on the inside, but I try not to let that show.

08?/06: Prosecutor Deter charged me with attempted burglary (I had picked up an ADT sign that was in front of an open window, stuck it through the window and dropped it, hollered "ADT Security Check!" and left the scene). In retrospect, I was clearly innocent of that charge and should have plead so. However, at the time, I was somewhat incapacitated by injuries and thought I would suffer less if I asked for a judgment of temporary insanity. I thought wrong. I was confined in the nut house for well over a year during which I jumped through hoops for mental health employees.

01?/07?: I asked an attorney to sue for reparations.

02/07?: The prosecutors office offered me $20k to drop the issue and stay out of court. I thought I deserved more since I will be suffering for the rest of my life. My attorney asked them for $40k. They decided they would be better off if they tried to cover their asses and deny my claims.

07/27/07: Plaintiff formally files Complaint against Michael Worley and Willy Dalid claiming deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983, assault and battery, and negligence.

11/15/07: Preliminary Pretrial Conference held. Later that day, Honorable Judge Spiegel decided this key issue: "This is expected to be a five-day jury trial."

I believe he underestimated the amount of corruption present in the legal system. As the case progressed, the conspiracy grew larger and further tainted with deceit. No criminal charges have yet been filed. I have been advised by my attorney that filing such charges would be vindictive. Judge Spiegel did not have the evidence before him to know that assault and battery of that magnitude represented attempted murder. He also did not know that the county sheriffs and prosecutors, and witnesses would lie in order to seek personal gain or protection.

12/27/07: Defendants file Motion To Dismiss arguing that Plaintiff was incompetent when the suit was filed and thus violated Civil Rule 17(c)(2).

01/09/08: Plaintiff responds that the purpose of Civil Rule 17(c)(2) is to protect the interests of incompetent persons and is only served by requiring a guardian ad litem or next friend if it were in the Plaintiff's best interest and is not mandatory.

01/10/08: Defendants reply that an incompetent lacks the capacity to file a suit.

06/05/08: United States Senior District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel issues an Opinion and Order in which he DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to comply with Rule 17(c)(2) and GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint and appoint a next friend to accord with Civil Rule 17, within thirty days.

08/29/08: Defendants file Motion for Summary Judgement claiming (a) my injuries were self-inflicted, (b) the Defendants had "qualified immunity" because they supposedly didn't violate my constitutional rights, and (c) I failed to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act since I did not exhaust the administrative remedies available to me at the detention facility.

05/01/09: The Court dismisses the case without prejudice, saying only that claim (c) was sufficient for dismissal and that it need not address the Defendants' other claims.

05/09: Defendants file Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs citing the $30,000 they have spent to 'win' the case.

05/26/09: Plaintiff refiles Complaint.

06/23/09: Defendants file Motion for Summary Judgment, reasserting their claims (a) and (b) above.

07/09/09: The Court rules that the Defendants are not a prevailing party, and not entitled to costs.

04/28/10: Honorable Senior United States District Judge Sandra S. Beckwith issues a Memorandum and Order in which she succinctly describes the known facts of the case and denies several motions of the Defendants. Key quotes: "there is sufficient evidence in the record for a reasonable juror to conclude that Defendants used a excessive force against Plaintiff. Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the record shows that he simply tossed the towel up in the air and that this action did not pose any safety or security threat to the Defendants. The internal affairs investigation concluded as much and also found that there was no need for the Defendants to immediately take Plaintiff to the ground for tossing the towel. Moreover, Plaintiff suffered more than de minimis injuries from being tackled by the Defendants... there was no legitimate governmental interest in using force against him" "In conclusion, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion for sanctions are not well-taken and are DENIED."