Posted on 09/07/2020 6:15:40 PM PDT by Libloather
Can the residents of Seattle whose property and businesses were destroyed, vandalized, or shut down in June, when the city for three weeks allowed and approved of the “autonomous zone,” now sue the city? Two such lawsuits have in fact already been filed in federal court; and in one of them, seventeen different persons and businesses are seeking direct compensation from the city for actual losses suffered.
Ironically, these lawsuits, which attack what legal immunity cities may have in setting the policies and practices of their police forces, occur in conjunction with the vigorous national campaign by Black Lives Matter, associated advocates, and the general media to abolish the related “qualified immunity” that individual police officers have in the regular performance of their duties. The doctrine of qualified immunity was recently reinforced by decisions of the Supreme Court in 2017 and 2018.
Invoking the 14th Amendment’s command that “no state” shall abridge or deny privileges, immunities, due process, or equal protection, the two cases are filed under § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the federal law governing the law of public immunity of both cities and individual police officers. Section 1983 prohibits a state public official, acting “under color” of state law, from depriving any “person” of the “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the [federal] Constitution and [federal] laws.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theimaginativeconservative.org ...
Thomas Ascik is Senior Contributor at The Imaginative Conservative and a retired federal prosecutor.
Anybody can be sued for anything. It doesn’t mean they will prevail.
There’s businesses in Baltimore and Louisville that have filed suit against those cities.
” Section 1983 prohibits a state public official, acting “under color” of state law, from depriving any “person” of the “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the [federal] Constitution and [federal] laws.”
And it gives the right to sue state officials who do so in civil court.
EXCEPT: in the Fourth Judicial District, this clause has been ruled (judge-made law) to apply only to descendants of slaves. (No kidding!). Ergo, no white, hispanic, native american, Pacific islander, etc., has standing to sue under this provision.
This is despite the legislative history of the act (congressional debates) and the express mention of any “person”.
This is the technicality on which the bulk of the Duke lacrosse players’ suit against Nifong and Durham were thrown out — because the law was ruled not to apply to them.
I hope every liberal hell hole is America is sued for trillions after this.
I hope it comes personally out of the salaries and pension plans of the politicians. First, anyways.
If insurers can skate due to acts of god, when government deliberately doesnt do its job, the actual officials ought to be sued and their fortunes confiscated for damages because its very clear in these cases they did not do their proper jobs, and often in fsct encouraged the groups in their behaviors and gatherings and rioting. Also standing down the police forces on purpose.
State laws allowing cities to be sued for damages caused by mobs and riots used to be widespread in the United States
Under eminent domain laws “inverse condemnation” is property of private owners that has been “taken” through government action, or inaction, though no exercise of legitimate eminent domain has been declared by the government authority.
In riots, damage caused by a government decision to abandon policing in one area, abandon public safety, or stand-down due to political reasons would be a clear “inverse taking.”
These laws were gradually removed by states by the 1960s, as leftists took control of most major urban areas.
Yup—definitely worth a shot to try suing in multiple jurisdictions and under a variety of different legal theories.
I learned from the lefties—keep throwing stuff at the wall until something sticks!
NO
Disincorporate and divest.
Don’t tax people to pay for these a##holes inaction
For that you need to name them in lawsuits and SHOULD
The most important defense that cities have is Governmental Immunity. The private sector has no such protection.
(a)All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b)“Make and enforce contracts” defined
For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
(c)Protection against impairment
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
Their strength (”unlimited” resources) is their weakness.
The question is how much of those resources are they willing to spend to defend a whole bunch of lawsuits.
A thousand ants—and the foundation comes crumbling down...
It’s a very high bar to sue a media company.
That’s a given and was not my point. The point is inflicting the cost of defending the lawsuits. They can prevail in court and still pay a very high price. So now there’s a tangible and high cost to lying and they might want to seriously reconsider their approach to the news.
Could this be eligible for SLAPP?
Historically, lawsuits have been filed during or after every riot in Portland, alleging excess police force. And they win every time. It’s like an arranged funding source for terrorists.
I’m no expert and am just threw out a possible basis for the lawsuits. Since there’s demonstrable malfeasance I don’t think this would fall under SLAPP.
Carol Burnette did win her law suit against the National Enquirer but was awarded $1 in damages since the court ruled she was not financially harmed.
It will come from the taxpayers, not the politicians. Sue BLM and ANTIFA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.