Looks like there’ll be more suits from individuals before long, too.
Eric the Holder will get all of his “judges” to toss these lawsuits. The old “no standing” thing these “judges” always use against conservative Americans.
It is not conservative and should not be portrayed as such. It has a single agenda item: fair elections without voter fraud. It does not take positions on the issues.
This reminds me of a Clinton era shenanigan.
Unelected left-wing fanatics are obviously the ones who are after us.
Though not the same this may be germane. Roberta Achtenberg of Clinton's HUD launched investigations of citizens of Berkeley, Calif. who had opposed HUD proposals with letter-writing, pamphleteering or other forms of peaceful protest. Achtenberg ordered the protesters to turn over diaries, phone messages and other personal papers. She threatened to fine the protesters $50,000.
If memory serves a federal judge cleared the way for bureaucrats and Ms Achtenberg herself, personally, to be held accountable and open to legal action. Again if memory serves Ms Achtenberg hightailed it back to San Francisco leaving her "brilliant" federal career behind.
I did not read much of the document but I do recall reading that the decisions left bureaucrats open to be personally responsible for their actions on the job and they could be sued as individuals. I believe the higher court agrees.
My point: I have no training in law.. I do wonder however if the courts' opinion matters vis-a-vis a citizens rights against bureaucracy lies and wrong-doing (the Drake's Bay Oyster Company decision).
For example the court wrote,
"When government officials violate citizens' clearly established First Amendment rights, however, we will not apply the doctrine of qualified immunity to defeat a remedy of damages to which the citizens are entitled under Bivens."I did not research Bivens.
.. and a FReeper replied to my comments above
"You are correct. You intended to violate the 1st Amendment you loose sovereign immunity. You are on your own dime."
Another FReeper also replied to my comments with details of Bivens
To any and all who may want to know just what a Bivens lawsuit is; here's a short Syllabus of the Bivens (Lawsuit / Action)
The reason Bivens (Lawsuit / Action) was an important decision, is before the Bivens decision, almost all federal courts would grant 12(b)6, Motion(s) to Dismiss (your case) "FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED." Put in layperson terms, Yes you were injured (not physically injured, but through some Constitutional depredation) but because the government official has "Qualified Immunity," there is no remedy to make you whole.
Bivens and some other (well known) lawsuits changed the "Qualified Immunity," landscape so to speak. Still a BIG HURDLE 12(b)6, Motion(s) to Dismiss to over come, i.e., make some type of mistake in your Pleadings and the judge will grant the 12(b)6, Motion(s) to Dismiss. You get just ONE BITE @ the apple, make a boo-boo, your toast, can you say Motion Granted (to dismiss).
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/388/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics No. 301
Argued January 12, 1971
Decided June 21, 1971
403 U.S. 388
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED SATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner's complaint alleged that respondent agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, acting under color of federal authority, made a warrantless entry of his apartment, searched the apartment, and arrested him on narcotics charges. All of the acts were alleged to have been done without probable cause. Petitioner's suit to recover damages from the agents was dismissed by the District Court on the alternative grounds (1) that it failed to state a federal cause of action and (2) that respondents were immune from suit by virtue of their official position. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the first ground alone.
Held:
1. Petitioner's complaint states a federal cause of action under the Fourth Amendment for which damages are recoverable upon proof of injuries resulting from the federal agents' violation of that Amendment. Pp. 403 U. S. 390-397.
2. The Court does not reach the immunity question, which was not passed on by the Court of Appeals. Pp. 403 U. S. 397-398.
409 F.2d 718, reversed and remanded.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, STEWART, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. HARLAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 403 U. S. 398. BURGER, C.J., post, p. 403 U. S. 411. BLACK, J., post, p. 403 U. S. 427, and BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 403 U. S. 430, filed dissenting opinions.
Page 403 U. S. 389p
Obama has created a government that would put the KGB to shame.
Impeachment File on Benghazi Coward B. Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, a legal citizen of the sovereign Nation of Indonesia.
Yep. Sue the low level employees. If they were operating outside of the law and without orders they are not protected from personal liability. If threatened with losing all their property maybe they will roll over on the higher ups.