Higgins will get at least an earful if allowed to do the Final 4 this weekend. He's damaged goods and another fan base will unleash on him. Mark it down!
Correct way to handle Higgins
- Thread starter DuhVille1
- Start date
I don't know what world you live in, but searching someone unlisted information out on the internet, driving across country to locate them and their home, then proceeding to approach them or their residence seems an awful lot like stalking.
Anytime you go onto private property without the permission of the owner or someone authorized on their behalf it is trespassing. Whether told or not. That's like saying it's not theft if no one told you not to take it.
Confronting someone in this manner could very easily be deemed a threat or threatening, even without the person actually making verbal or physical threats. That act of seeking someone out, driving a large distance to approach the person about a sporting event they seemed dissatisfied over doesn't seem a bit concerning to you?
You don't have to actually physically assault someone to be charged with assault. You can verbally assault someone and appear that you could be a physical threat to that person and still be charged with assault.
Harassment is the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or group. The purpose may very, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain a sadistic pleasure from making someone feel anxious or fearful. All 3 of those could be applied in an incidence like this.
There is a huge difference in someone violating a noise ordinance and you requesting they lower it, than seeking out a strangers information online, driving a good distance to locate him and approaching his residence to tell him how you feel or intimidate him. I feel very sorry for you if you don't understand the difference.
Here, educate yourself. I'm not even wasting my time with the rest of that gibberish.
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-521
The situation has been handled perfectly. Maybe the mofo will think twice about making bullshit calls next time huh? If legs got to get broken then legs got to get broken as the Wise guys would say.
The point got across I believe. When you gotta call the police cuz you scared for your life like a pussy then I think a point has been made to Mr. Higgins.
Walk a straight line cuz the crazies be watching ...you sorry sack of shite.
The point got across I believe. When you gotta call the police cuz you scared for your life like a pussy then I think a point has been made to Mr. Higgins.
Walk a straight line cuz the crazies be watching ...you sorry sack of shite.
So basically you are saying you can't argue with anything I said because it's factually accurate. Then you post a link that further illustrates my point that it could be considered trespassing. Thanks!
Honestly, If I were John Higgins I would be lawyered up, and I'd be filing about 450 lawsuits today...because this I know, going on his business FB page and writing false reviews of his business with the sole intention of hurting his business, is textbook defamation. I bet Higgins has 150 sleeze ball lawyers calling him every day begging him to sue...
The problem with a defamation suit is that it's on the plaintiff to prove it's inaccurate. The people that didn't actually post anything about his business with be in the clear. The one's that did can easily use the other previous negative reviews as evidence that his business was already garnering negative reviews from other clients before the tournament game. That, in itself, will severely limit the scope any defamation, libel or slander case he could bring against the people who posted the reviews. Plus, he also has a duty to mitigate his losses in these circumstances. Which could have been achieved simply by closing down the comments section of his page, or by requiring that each post on his page be approved by him before being made public for anyone to see. Now anyone who made threats against him on that page could be at risk for facing charges. I honestly doubt anything will come of it, but that would be the one area a case could be built.
You apparently can't read. First, it's a misdemeanor, second, there has to be notification, just like I said. I've just been through this with neighbors on my driveway. You're a millennial aren't you.
He'd have to sue them where they live. You know nothing about the legal process but harp on it at every opportunity.
Ok, since you're hard headed, here is the argument against your assault claim :
"Spoken words alone will not be enough of an act to constitute an assault unless the offender backs them up with an act or actions that put the victim in reasonable fear of imminent harm."
Telling someone off wont do it.
Literally you are telling me I can't read when you post a link that says this: In a trespass prosecution, a defendant may introduce evidence that an owner or other person empowered to license access to the property told the defendant that he or she could be on the property. Such statements are verbal acts, i.e., nonhearsay statements, because they have legal significance merely because they were spoken. State v. McCave, 282 Neb. 500, 805 N.W.2d 290 (2011).
Why would you need to prove the property owner or someone empowered to act on their behalf gave you permission to be on the property if you legally don't need permission to be on said property?
so stalking someone on the internet driving to their home, and approaching them isn't enough reason for someone to have reasonable fear for their safety or have them feel they could be in harm? What rational, stable minded people do you know perform these sort of actions?
I'm not a millennial, but I would much rather me a millennial than the moron you're making yourself out to be.
Comments like this also show your true ignorance. You're trying to discredit an entire generation based on their time of birth. However, you seem to fail to realize each generation that comes along is more advanced, knowledgeable and far more capable accomplishing more than the generations before it. However, that would require a basic level of common sense, which you clearly do not posses.
Last edited:
Except, most of the ones I read started out "I hired John to" "John put a roof on my house and" ETC., and the first sentence made it a false statement, not an opinion that can't be proven wrong.
And as I said, those would be easier to discredit, but because of the previous ones that existed, it would be really hard to prove these particular comments, which were only available a short time on his page could in fact harm his business. Do you know he did not in fact do those roofs?
You completely misunderstood what you just posted. It is saying an affirmative defense is claiming permission by someone with authority to do so. It is not talking about the original requirement that notice be given that you can't be there.
Try again.
Nope, you're just acting like you need a safety pin. That entire diatribe sidestepped the issue. Remember, we're on your claim that people are committing various felonies.
WOW... for a guy who obviously knows NOTHING, you sure do claim other's don't an awful lot. Let me educate you, An Oklahoma court can claim jurisdiction in a defamation case, because the injury (defamation) occurred to a business that operates in it's state. I didn't even have to look very hard to find you a couple examples of that.
(EDIAS Software Intern. v. BASIS Intern., Ltd. 947 F. Supp. 412 (D. Ariz. 1996).
(Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D. DC 1998).
In both of those cases, the local court claimed jurisdiction because the defamation occurred to a business that operated inside of their state, and in both of those cases the defamation occurred over the internet, and the defendant lived in a different state. So, NO..he doesn't have to sue where they live. He can sue in Oklahoma, and if his local court claims jurisdiction, then the defendants can travel to Oklahoma to defend themselves.
Nope. That ridiculous on its face. The man's business address is on his website. His home address is public record if he owns his home. That isn't stalking. Somehow it is more serious to you that someone drives across country, rather than across town, to do the exact same thing. Nonviolently give someone a piece of their mind. Good luck finding the felony charge for that one.
And from what I seen before they took the page down....many people used their real FB account and made zero attempt to hide their intent, specifically mentioning the UK game or his bad calls.
Are you mentally challenged? I'm not saying that to be funny or a jerk. Like, I am literally starting to feel bad arguing with you because you seem to have such a struggle comprehending things. You understand what annotation means right?
In both cases you are talking about suits involving businesses. With an individual "personal jurisdiction" is required. And just because a random judge claimed to have it doesn't mean it would stand in appeal.
You're beyond delusional!! So you think it's completely rational to seek out someone you don't know, locate their personal information, drive to their home to confront them about some calls in a basketball game? You don't see and issue here. By the way, what you descibed is the very definition of stalking and harassment. Even if it is just a misdemeanor it's against the law, moron! It doesn't make it any less irrational or psychotic. Youreally need to learn the law and intent.
You're the one that brought the millennial thing. Don't get your parties in a twist just because you got called out for making a ludacris, factually inaccurate statement about a generation you don't understand.
Nope, but you may be. In the example, or annotation, it refers to a prosecution. In other words, a claim that a person was notified to not trespass and they did so anyway. Take off your blinders for a second and think about it. You realize that I could have knocked on your door to say you don't know what you're talking about. Then you could say stay off my property or I'll file trespassing charges. Months go by and you've relocated due to your job and are selling that home. I see it and want to check it out because I liked it. I call the real estate agent and agree to meet then there. Well you find out I was there and you have charges filed against me for trespassing. My simple defense is that your agent authorized me to be there. Now, do you understand what that particular annotation meant? Somehow I doubt it.
That's not what it is saying at all. If you relocated then you no longer dwell at that said residence. Which would you mean you are no longer a threat to that person at said residence and you have a right to view the property because it is for sale to the public. However, if you were viewed as a risk to the property itself then you would be banned from entering it and could still be sued for trespassing.
The situation this annotation is referring to is in the situation you were actually given permission (which is required) to enter a private property, and then for whatever reason; damages, injury, illegal activity etc.. occurred at the property, the property owner or acting agent could come back and say they never gave you permission to enter said property because their is no physical proof. However, that annotation is stating that verbal consent is a sufficient legal permission in the state of Nebraska. See those words"Told" and "Verbal Act"? I would have thought that would have given you some better clues as to what it was referencing.
If someone shows up on your doorstep uninvited, you can simply call the cops tell them you feel in danger or threatened and that person will be removed. That's because it is illegal to enter a persons property without their permission, regardless of intent or actions. They could be there mowing your damn yard, clearing weeds or putting out a fire or offering assistance. If you don't want them there it is trespassing. Plain as day. If you don't understand that then good luck in life.
Good lord, you are being obtuse. Read the law. They have to be notified FIRST. Yes, you can ask anyone to leave your property but that doesn't necessarily equal trespassing. Yep, I have no idea what I'm talking about even though I just went through this with the sheriff dept, attorneys and a judge. You go right ahead and keep believing your nonsense. Even when you read it, you still dont know what you're talking about. Oh, and in my example, you still own the property genius, you wouldn't need to be home to prosecute someone for trespassing. You merely need proof that they were on your property after being notified to stay off it. Unless they have that pesky affirmative defense that you don't understand.
God you're literally less intelligent than some special needs people I know. Owning a residence and dwelling at a residence are two very different things. Why do you think a landlord is required to give 24 hours notice to enter a property unless otherwise noted in the lease or in case of emergency? They still own it, but they don't dwell in it, which gives them less rights over the property when someone else does dwell there. In your dumb ass example, you mention he has moved and no longer dwells at the original property where the trespassing violation occurred. To save your indigent mind from having to read or search for something, to dwell means to live in or at a specified place. Which again, you stated was away from the original property. That means, the person is no longer at physical risk if the offender enters the residence that is now for sale and vacant, per your scenario. It is also for sale to the general public, which allows him to be able to view and enter said property as long as he is not deemed a risk to the physical property.
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. You keep spewing affirmative defense, what you fail to comprehend is it is agreeing verbatim with what I am relaying to you. If a defendant can prove the plaintiff granted them permission to be on the property, by way of there-self or an agent representing them, then the defendant wouldn't be charged with trespassing. No shit?? That's because he proved he was granted permission. I seriously doubt Higgins would ever give permission for someone to come to his home and harass him. But I forget, in your world locating strangers address's, driving across town or country and confronting that man at his residence is completely fine and normal. Because, you know that's completely rational behavior. The fact that you condone such things and think its normal speaks volumes to your overall lack of intelligence and just further reiterates your total lack of understanding of laws and common decency. Not to mention shows a complete lack of self control and overall common sense.
And for personal jurisdictional he would need to prove that the defamation was intended to hurt his business in his state, and that the blunt of the injury was felt in the state he conducts business in. Check...and Check... And even if he failed to get a local court to claim jurisdiction, how hard is it for him to call an attorney in Kentucky..and say ". I want to sue a bunch of people in Kentucky" , Fax machines, printers, scanners... He doesn't need to come to Kentucky initially, not for the filings, not for the mediations in attempt to settle, he doesn't have to show up until he gets court dates, he owns his own business, he has as much free time as he needs.
Last edited:
With all due respect, this is of little consequence to me. All of the sudden he becomes a better ref? To me, if he did become "better", then it would be proof positive of his intentions to sabotage UK in the first place.
If one could get the suit in front of one of the judges that's ruled against the refugee executive order, my guess is that you could get a summary judgment in the fans' favor and an award of a few billion in damage$.
Similar threads
