U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Taxpayers to Be Held Liable After Cops Steal Man’s Phone, Film Themselves Conspiring to Frame Him
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/t ... tand-trial-frame-innocent-man/
Published: Sep 29, 2019
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2019-09-29 10:58:38 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 21898
Comments: 130
Hartford, CT — On September 11, 2015, journalist and police accountability activist, Michael Picard was illegally detained for lawfully open carrying and filming police on public property. During the illegal detainment, Connecticut state troopers confiscated his gun and his camera. However, the trooper who took the phone went on to make a critical mistake — he left the camera rolling while conspiring with fellow officers to falsely charge Picard. In 2017, it was revealed by the department that they investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong when they conspired to frame an innocent man. “They were exonerated,” police union attorney Mark Dumas said. “The troopers didn’t do anything wrong. They were doing their jobs, and they do an excellent job.” Apparently this “excellent job” consisted of trampling the rights of an innocent person and conspiring to have them kidnapped and locked in a cage. Sure thing, Dumas. Now, because the system failed to hold the officers accountable, the case is now a civil matter and the troopers involved have been ordered to stand trial in the civil suit brought on by the ACLU of Connecticut. The taxpayers, not the officers will be the ones to pay for the crimes. The Free Thought Project spoke to the ACLU via email this week, who issued the following statement on the case. “The Constitution is clear: people have a right to protest the police, and people have a right against police taking their property from them without a warrant,” said ACLU of Connecticut legal director Dan Barrett, who is representing Picard in the lawsuit. “The evidence, including video, will show that these police employees were more concerned with covering up their bad behavior, undermining free speech, and retaliating against a protester than with upholding the law. We look forward to getting justice for Michael in front of the jury.” We agree. TFTP also spoke to Picard, who told us the following. “People have the right to protest, including the right to protest police, without ticketing or retaliation against them. I am deeply disappointed that these police ignored my rights, and I am hopeful that the court will hold them accountable so that no one else has to experience what I did,” said Picard. As TFTP reported at the time, on that September night, Picard and a friend were on public property and warning drivers of a DUI checkpoint ahead. They were several hundred yards from the checkpoint and not interfering at all when troopers drove up, without lights on, and against the flow of traffic, to begin harassing the two gentlemen. Trooper First Class John Barone, Sergeant John Jacobi, and Trooper Jeff Jalbert falsely claimed that Picard was waving his gun around and pointing it at people. However, Picard was holding a sign the entire time and did not touch his gun. Also, as you will see below, the officers admit that they were lying. “Police should be focused on public safety, not punishing protesters and those who film public employees working on a public street,” said ACLU-CT legal director Dan Barrett, who is representing Picard in the lawsuit. “As the video shows, these police officers were more concerned with thwarting Mr. Picard’s free speech and covering their tracks than upholding the law.” Had Picard actually been waving a gun, these troopers would have approached the situation in an entirely different manner, with guns drawn and possible SWAT backup. However, they did no such thing, because there was clearly no threat from the activists. The fact that there was no threat did not stop the subsequent assault, however. Two troopers approached Picard while forcefully removing his gun and then grabbing his camera, falsely claiming it is illegal to film. When Picard informs the officer can legally film here, the officer ignorantly asserts that “It’s illegal to take my picture. Personally, it is illegal.” “Did you get any documentation that I am allowing you to take my picture”? asks the cop. When Picard attempts to explain to the aggressive officer that he doesn’t need a permit because he is on public property, the trooper then makes the asinine declaration that, “No I’m not (on public property). I’m on state property. I’m on state property.” State-owned roadways and right of ways are public property. The trooper’s assertion that it is illegal to film on his ‘state property’ was entirely false and in violation of Connecticut Bill No. 245, which “protects the right of an individual to photograph or video record peace officers in the performance of their duties.” All this aggressive and unlawful behavior of these troopers, however, was about to come back to haunt them. After illegally confiscating the camera — the trooper forgot to stop it from recording. What happened next was a behind the scenes glimpse of what it looks and sounds like when cops lie to charge innocent people with crimes. The corruption starts as an unidentified trooper begins to search for anything that these gentlemen may have done to make up charges against them. However, they were clean. At this point, Trooper first class Barone chimes in describing how they now have to charge these men with something to justify their harassment and subsequent detainment. “Want me to punch a number on this? Gotta cover our ass,” explains the trooper as they begin conspiring. “Let’s give him something,” says an unidentified trooper, pondering the ways they can lie about this innocent man. “What are they going to do? Are they going to do anything?” says Sergeant Jacobi, noting that they are entirely innocent. “It’s legal to do it,” he continues, describing how the actions of the two activists are completely legal, before going on to make up charges on them. “I think we do simple trespass, we do reckless use of the highway and creating a public disturbance,” Jacobi says as he makes up these false charges against innocent people. “All three are tickets.” Once they figure out the false charges to raise, the officers then brainstorm a story of lies to back them up. “And then we claim that, um, in backup, we had multiple, um,” the unidentified trooper stutters as he makes up his fake story. “Um, they (the non-existent complainants) didn’t want to stay and give us a statement, so we took our own course of action.” The corrupt cops had then solved their fake case, lied about a cover story, and were set to charge an innocent man with three crimes — all in a day’s work. But there was just one more thing…. “Oh s**t!” blurts out the cop as he realizes their entire scandalous corrupt conversation was just recorded. Apparently, however, the officer felt that it must not have recorded their conversation as the phone was returned. The cops then gave the innocent man back his weapon, and it’s back to the DUI checkpoint for them — to harass and detain more innocent people. Picard explained that all of the troopers involved in his unlawful situation were never disciplined and allowed to progress through the ranks, with some of them retiring. Picard explains: Trooper First Class John Barone, the trooper who said it was illegal for me to record him, seized my camera and recorded himself saying, “We gotta cover our ass,” is now retired and collecting a pension thanks to the taxpayers. Sergeant John Jacobi is now retired and collecting a pension thanks to the taxpayers. Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo, the trooper who said “let’s give him something,” and then helped fabricate a story to charge me, was demoted for reportedly driving drunk, but is now a lieutenant. Lieutenant Stavros Mellekas, who conducted the internal affairs “investigation” and found that the troopers did nothing wrong, was magically promoted four ranks, and is now second in command of the Connecticut State Police. All troopers are being represented by the attorney general’s office and their defense is being paid for by the taxpayers. This is justice in the land of the free.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-67) not displayed.
.
.
.
#68. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, Gatlin (#0)
Is it inferred that the Court will require the taxpayer to pay? That would be false. As I have noted, no governmental entity is a named defendant in Picard v. Torneo, et al. Why is no element of government named as defendant? When you get done with that, the next question is: How could there be a judgment of liability against the taxpayer where no element of government is a party to the lawsuit?
[A K A Stone #59 to Gatlin] Everyone has their own agenda. Your agenda is to trash libe[r]tarians. Just for the record, my agenda is to trash misstatement of law or facts. With Matt Agorist and a few others, such misstatements are in wild abundance.
I start reading and I go into an automatic mode to either disprove or prove what I am reading. With most all the crap that Deckard posts, I continually find myself in the disprove mode. Strangely enough, after I spend all my time disproving what is in the cop-hating article – I am consequently labeled either a “cop-sucker” or a “boot-licker” when all I have done is to challenge opinions and conclusions. If the name-callers would read to comprehend and not read to confirm what they already want to think – they would then find what I am saying is true. That being – I am not defending cops. I am merely exposing the lies and disproving the lies against them. Well, maybe that does make me a cop-supporter. If so, then I will wear the title proudly for I am truly an “law and order” person. Those people who read a biased article and immediately form a firm conclusion will never cease to amaze me. To sum it all up, my analytical mind is always subconsciously asking as I read through an article: Why is the author trying to convince me what I am reading is true – and – is it really true? You and I essentially have the same agenda, which again is: Salute,
Get used to it. I does not look like it will change.
Of course I will continue doing what I am doing ... And I an thoroughly enjoying doing it ...
Picard, Doc 92 at 13-14, the Court stated: Summary judgment will enter in favor of defendants on this claim. And the Court ruled at 27: Do try to keep up old chap. You do not want to be relegated to the short bus again.
One must wonder why the taxpayer will pay if no governmental entity is a party to this lawsuit. The COMPLAINT at 2, paragraphs 10-13, identifies the Defendants: 11. Defendant Patrick Torneo was and is, at all time relevant to this suit, employed by the Division of State Police within the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, with the job title of master sergeant. 12. Defendant John Jacobi was and is, at all time relevant to this suit, employed by the Division of State Police within the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, with the job title of sergeant. 13. At all times relevant to this action, the defendants were on duty for their employer, and were wearing Connecticut State Police uniforms, badges, and pistols. No government entity is party to the lawsuit. The three officers are sued in their individual capacity. Just curious, but what is your legal theory of government liability. Do you infer that the court may order the government to pay, even though they are not party to the lawsuit? If you have no legal theory, you may have to start riding the short bus again.
I loath any reminders of the movie with that title. They would consider that a success that I've been so offended for so long. It's about as bad as those Lars Von Trier movies.
[nolu chan #74] Do you infer that the court may order the government to pay, even though they are not party to the lawsuit? Regarding a legal theory, it appears the legal theory is *c*r*i*c*k*e*t*s*. https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=60173&Disp=7#C7 Why? What is your legal theory? Do you expect the court to order the taxpayers to pay? Perhaps a U.S. Supreme Court opinion will help rouse y'all from your stupor. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677 (1974) At 675-677: 415 U. S. 676 been suggested that § 1983 was intended to create a waiver of a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity merely because an action could be brought under that 415 U. S. 677 section against state officers, rather than against the State itself. Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, supra, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra. Just asking, trying to clarify what y'all are saying. Do you expect judgment for the plaintiff and against the government?
Deckard, where are you? Bring me some fine whine. I await your legal theory of how the taxpayers are liable. In the meantime, while you hide in silence... With a view toward your CLE, here is another U.S. Supreme Court opinion. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800 (24 Jun 1982) [footnotes omitted] At 801: At 815-19: Qualified or “good faith” immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U. S. 635 (1980). Decisions of this Court have established that the “good faith” defense has both an “objective” and a “subjective” aspect. The objective element involves a presumptive knowledge of and respect for “basic, unquestioned constitutional rights.” Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308, 322 (1975). The subjective component refers to “permissible intentions.” Ibid. Characteristically the Court has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official “knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury . . . .” Ibid, (emphasis added). The subjective element of the good-faith defense frequently has proved incompatible with our admonition in Butz that insubstantial claims should not proceed to trial. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that disputed questions of fact ordinarily may not be decided on motions for summary judgment. And an official’s subjective good faith has been considered to be a question of fact that some courts have regarded as inherently requiring resolution by a jury. In the context of Butz’ attempted balancing of competing values, it now is clear that substantial costs attend the litigation of the subjective good faith of government officials. Not only are there the general costs of subjecting officials to the risks of trial—distraction of officials from their governmental duties, inhibition of discretionary action, and deterrence of able people from public service. There are special costs to “subjective” inquiries of this kind. Immunity generally is available only to officials performing discretionary functions. In contrast with the thought processes accompanying “ministerial” tasks, the judgments surrounding discretionary action almost inevitably are influenced by the decisionmaker’s experiences, values, and emotions. These variables explain in part why questions of subjective intent so rarely can be decided by summary judgment. Yet they also frame a background in which there often is no clear end to the relevant evidence. Judicial inquiry into subjective motivation therefore may entail broad-ranging discovery and the deposing of numerous persons, including an official’s professional colleagues. Inquiries of this kind can be peculiarly disruptive of effective government. Consistently with the balance at which we aimed in Butz, we conclude today that bare allegations of malice should not suffice to subject government officials either to the costs of trial or to the burdens of broad-reaching discovery. We therefore hold that government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. See Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555, 565 (1978); Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S., at 322. Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment. On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred. If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to “know” that the law forbade conduct not previously identified as unlawful. Until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed. If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. Nevertheless, if the official pleading the defense claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard, the defense should be sustained. But again, the defense would turn primarily on objective factors. By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially in objective terms, we provide no license to lawless conduct. The public interest in deterrence of unlawful conduct and in compensation of victims remains protected by a test that focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official’s acts. Where an official could be expected to know that certain conduct would violate statutory or constitutional rights, he should be made to hesitate; and a person who suffers injury caused by such conduct may have a cause of action. But where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served by action taken “with independence and without fear of consequences.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 554 (1967).
Deckard, where are you? Stand tall and be counted. Hiding in a corner, squatting in your own puddle of warm piss is no way to go through life. I await your legal theory of how the taxpayers are liable. In the meantime, while you hide in silence... With a view toward your CLE, here is another U.S. Supreme Court opinion. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 85-1520. Argued February 23, 1987—Decided June 25, 1987 Petitioner, a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, participated with other law enforcement officers in a warrantless search of respondents’ home. The search was conducted because petitioner believed that one Dixon, who was suspected of a bank robbery committed earlier that day, might be found there, but he was not. Respondents filed a state-court action against petitioner, asserting a claim for damages under the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner removed the suit to Federal District Court and then filed a motion for dismissal or summary judgment, arguing that the Fourth Amendment claim was barred by his qualified immunity from civil damages liability. Before any discovery occurred, the court granted summary judgment on the ground that the search was lawful. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the search’s lawfulness could not be determined on summary judgment, because factual disputes precluded deciding as a matter of law that the search was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. The court also held that petitioner was not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, since the right he allegedly violated—the right of persons to be protected from warrantless searches of their homes unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances—was clearly established. Held: 1. Petitioner is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he can establish as a matter of law that a reasonable officer could have believed that the search comported with the Fourth Amendment even though it actually did not. Whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action was taken. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800. In order to conclude that the right which the official allegedly violated is “clearly established,” the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. The Court of Appeals—which apparently considered only the fact that the right to be free from warrantless searches of one’s home unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances was clearly established—erred by refusing to consider the argument that it was not clearly established that the circumstances with which petitioner was confronted did not constitute probable cause and exigent circumstances. The relevant question here is the objective question whether a reasonable officer could have believed petitioner’s warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed. Petitioner’s subjective beliefs about the search are irrelevant. Pp. 638-641. 2. There is no merit to respondents’ argument that it is inappropriate to give officials alleged to have violated the Fourth Amendment—and thus necessarily to have unreasonably searched or seized—the protection of a qualified immunity intended only to protect reasonable official action. Such argument is foreclosed by the fact that this Court has previously extended qualified immunity to officials who were alleged to have violated the Fourth Amendment. Also without merit is respondents’ suggestion that Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, be overruled by holding that qualified immunity may never be extended to officials who conduct unlawful warrantless searches. Nor is there any merit to respondents’ contention that no immunity should be provided to police officers who conduct unlawful warrantless searches of innocent third parties’ homes in search of fugitives. Pp. 642-646. 766 F. 2d 1269, vacated and remanded.
Nice diatribe Perry Mason. You on Company time right now or are you off duty?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Is that your legal theory? Go back to squatting in your puddle of warm piss.
Objection your Honor. The record will show that Mr. Deckard espoused no so-called "legal theory", He merely compared nolu spam's....er I mean chan.... Ahem...as I was saying, your Honor - Mr. chan has impressed us all with his nose-to-the grindstone efforts, relentlessly scouring through reams of cases that may help him in the admirable yet so sadly and strikingly Sisyphean (H/T: Tooconservative) task he has been performing and will continue to faithfully perform. The comparison to Perry Mason, the fictional TV lawyer is valid *** Golly gee, I tell you what. Danged if I don't sound just like one of them fancy lawyer-type people. And I never even went to law school.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Key word generally. Not always.
The Department of Children and Families, one of the targets of the father’s $20 million wrongful death and malpractice claim, had never removed Athena or her younger sister from the home or interviewed the mother’s boyfriend in the weeks before Athena’s death. The case had repercussions across the state because Athena had been taken to Windham Hospital only hours before her death with head injuries from abuse, but was released after treatment without a mandated report to authorities. She would return to the hospital a short time later, but would not survive her fresh injuries. https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-athena-angeles-child-abuse-dcf-20190104-rb6ibk7thnaf7o24dg35n2apwq-story.html There is a different case in connecictut and they settled and payed taxpayer money. So they do pay out and were held liable. In the end I suspect Connecticut will pay out in the case we are discussing too. If I am wrong I don't care. It is just my opinion of what will happen. States pay out all the time.
See? It's just so easy to sprinkle that term in almost any sentence. Try to work schadenfreude in there as well. Or go for the brass ring by mixing and matching these words at random. Try to fit Sisyphean schadenfreude into a sentence. Pretty soon you too can sound like the hoity-toity instead of the hoi polloi. LOL
Well, maybe. Apparently there is a state law that can into play. Although the police officer was found negligent, the court found the town responsible for paying damages because of the state's indemnification law. This law requires municipalities to assume liability for any injuries caused by an employee in the performance of his duties and within the scope of his employment that are not the result of wanton or willful conduct. Seymour filed a motion to set aside the verdict, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a motion for a new trial. These motions will not be heard until May because the defendants cannot file motion briefs without reviewing the trial transcripts, which will not be available until then. Once these briefs are filed, the judge may accept the jury's verdict, set it aside in favor of the town, or order a new trial. Due to the state's indemnification law, courts may assign liability to parties not named in the original lawsuit. Or so it seems. I can't find anything that indicates that Connecticut's legislature has subsequently changed that law so it does seem that it is still in effect. Unless nolu can prove that avenue of liability has otherwise been closed off. Certainly, AKA has an argument to make here since a court did impose liability on a party (the town) which was not originally named as a plaintiff in the case. And a federal court could do the same, using Connecticut's own indemnification laws and precedents like this case to justify such a decision.
Spreading liability (aka passing blame for personal responsibilities) IS A LIBERAL TRAIT. I’d be cautious about how far you would support such a slippery slope... even if it is a police officer you would like to hem-up. IMHO, when someone is able to walk to a vehicle, unlock it, sit in it, start it.... and drive it any kind of distance, and they willingly drank alcohol, there is only ONE person 100% responsible.
I am not supporting it at all. I don't live in Connecticut and have no opportunities to change the unique laws of Connecticut. I am simply demonstrating a case where Connecticut law and Connecticut courts and a Connecticut jury did assign liability to a party not named in the lawsuit (the town) when an off-duty cop let a drinking buddy drive and kill himself and a few others. The jury said, at least in part, that the town was responsible because the job description for town police was that they were considered on-duty 24 hours a day and therefore they were always acting under the city's civil liability, even if the city is not named in a lawsuit. Unless the laws of Connecticut are changed, it seems to me that in another case where Connecticut state police are being sued, another jury and another court might decide that the state is responsible for their actions. So do you know whether CT state police are considered legally on-duty 24 hours a day or not? If they are, then how can the state be shielded from liability for any action of state cops as long as it happens on Connecticut soil? There may not be federal laws that can apply to this (as nolu says) but a federal court can and will impose liability if the federal court believes that the state courts are misapplying state laws or are acting corruptly in trying to let responsible agencies off the hook for their liability regarding the conduct of their employees. Federal courts are not utterly powerless in such cases even if federal laws do not apply directly. Well, you'd better move to Connecticut and inform the jurors and the voters and the courts of that fact. Have fun with that.
There is case law that state they can make arrests, off duty, provided they have the PC to make that arrest, and if they get hurt making that arrest, they are covered by work insurance. However, they aren’t paid off duty... so I would think they don’t have to act.
However, they aren’t paid off duty... so I would think they don’t have to act. And yet, in the CT case I cited, the jury did hold the town liable. Apparently, in the Seymour case, the jury concluded that the indemnification statute required the town to assume liability for its police officer. According to Frank Szilagyi, attorney for the defendants, because town regulations stated that police officers were on duty 24 hours a day, the town was obliged to indemnify off-duty officers even if they were not engaged in a “public duty imposed by law” as required by the statute. The procedural history of this case led to a complicated apportionment of liability between the parties. The case began as four lawsuits, on behalf of the each occupant of the car involved in the crash, including the driver. The passengers each individually sued the town of Seymour, the driver, and the owner of the bar that served the alcohol. The driver sued the town and the bar. Before trial, these individual suits were consolidated. Yet the jury did not read a collective verdict at the end of the trial, but found different levels of liability among the parties. In the lawsuit where the plaintiff was the car driver, the jury divided responsibility equally between the driver and the town. Yet in the other three lawsuits, the jury found the driver 53% responsible, the town 35%, and the bar that served the alcohol 12%. Douglas Mahoney, attorney for the plaintiffs, said that the inconsistency can be explained by settlements between the parties before the jury reached a verdict. In this case, the car driver's family settled with the bar before the verdict, leaving the jury to apportion liability between only two parties, the driver and the town, rather than three parties. Attorney Szilagyi also said that the bar's withdrawal from the driver's lawsuit caused confusion among the jurors and may have led them to reach the dual verdict.
Where does your local court pick it’s jury pool from? The same liberally indoctrinated people that watch MSM, get college indoctrinated degrees... and watch indoctrinated Hollyweird on TV. Pretty soon, we’ll be able to sue a taxi driver for going off duty 5 minutes before a drunk leaves the bar. Of course he could have prevented it.
Well, maybe. I wonder what the liability is if a veteran police officer poisons a neighbor's cat with a fish poisoned with antifreeze, a piece of bait intended to harm a domestic animal. What would the police officer's employer's liability be? Know of any cases like that? I know a lot of states have laws to protect domestic animals, even crappy ones like rats and hamsters and ferrets, from being killed even if the laws would otherwise allow it if they were not someone's pet. You may be able to kill feral cats in all 50 states. But a cat or dog or other pet is pretty hard to consider feral, especially if they have a home base and lack hunting skills to feed themselves which is true of a lot of pets, some of whom may kill prey, like a cat killing a mouse, but won't eat it.
If it’s roaming free... it’s feral. do·mes·ti·cate (dY-ms′t--kt′) tr.v. do·mes·ti·cat·ed, do·mes·ti·cat·ing, do·mes·ti·cates 1. To cause to feel comfortable at home; make domestic. Wild animals roam. Domestic pets belong on your property or IN your home. Do you let your cat shit on your neighbors, too? Be honest.
I don't have any pets currently. I take a very dim view of large dogs roaming free and leaving surprises on other people's lawns to find when mowing grass. I'm extremely hostile to large dogs crapping on my lawn and to their owners. Cats, well, I don't like the little dead-looking spots they cause for a month when they take a big pee on your lawn. But their turds aren't big enough to make a mess out of the mower. So I wouldn't throw a antifreeze-poisoned fish out on the lawn to kill a trespassing cat to keep it from peeing or pooping on my lawn, you know, like some cops would. We do have a roaming cat problem in the neighborhood though. Including mama cats who keep crapping out litters of kittens. They were down to two kittens, then one disappeared. Last week, I went out to walk and noticed the last kitten, barely able to navigate on its own, was crying and mewling more than a block away in the alley. I think its mama lost track of it and it wandered off. It's probably dead by now if some softie idiot didn't take it in so they could brag to their friends about "rescuing" that poor kitten, blah-blah-blah. So we're back to a couple of mama cats, waiting to get knocked up and have kittens in the spring, of which only one or two will survive to reproduce. But they don't make a big mess or pee on stuff too much. I suppose they do pose a hazard to other cats and the old bat and her granddaughter who feed the cats (sometimes) and let them live under her porch might catch toxoplasmosis from them but that is their business if they want to catch brain diseases from semi-feral cats. It's a free country and people can have all the cat-based brain diseases they want.
You wanna know how that’s caused? lol. Two things. 1) Lazy cat owners like A K A Flip Flop, who are too fucking lazy and cheap to buy cat litter, and clean a fucking litter box. So they love on the cat for an hour a day and allow it to shit on their neighbors for 23.... that’s called love. Then they EXPECT ME TO VALUE THEIR CAT, LIKE THEY DO. YOUR CAT is no different than a deer to me. You expect too much. 2) Sheep that allow it, and call animal control... and nothing is done. For the record, I’ve not killed a single kitty, besides a few unfortunate ones that kamikaze ran under my moving vehicle... and I don’t even know if they died. I just can testify that when I looked in the rear view mirror, the vermin was still flopping around like a fish out of water.
I'm not mean enough just to kill them wantonly. That would change if they annoyed me enough. I don't allow them to perch on the front step or back porch for their little mewling outbursts or their cat orgies. That's what the hose is for. They seem to understand quickly that they aren't welcome when you douse them with cold water. I know it isn't as much fun as antifreeze but I make do with what I have on hand.
And that’s what I know about A K A Flip Flop. He can threaten to “kick my ass” all he wants, but he ain’t built for the job.
I know it isn't as much fun as antifreeze but I make do with what I have on hand. You should study small felines. They don’t learn... but their behaviors can be modified by removing reproductive organs, front claws... or even their blood pressure. Trying to teach a cat not to return and victimize your property is like trying to convince A K A Flip Flop that he’s a lazy pet owning asshole neighbor.
Cats hate certain things. Like sudden noises made by vacuum cleaners and most electrical fans at startup. They dislike being wet in general but especially being soaked to the skin by being immersed. They dislike electrical sparks if the voltage is high enough. There are things they hate enough that they remember if you have done something to them, like a sudden bucket of water on them. Or a shop vac starting up very near them.
Objection your Honor. The record will show that Mr. Deckard espoused no so-called "legal theory", He merely compared nolu spam's....er I mean chan.... Ahem...as I was saying, your Honor - Mr. chan has impressed us all with his nose-to-the grindstone efforts, relentlessly scouring through reams of cases that may help him in the admirable yet so sadly and strikingly Sisyphean (H/T: Tooconservative) task he has been performing and will continue to faithfully perform. The record will show that I requested Deckard's legal theory at #74 and #76, and he has yet to respond to either. Instead, as is his custom, he chose to irrelevantly respond to #78 which quotes a case on qualified immunity. Accepting your latest mealy mouthed excuse, you deny saying anything about anything, and have no legal theory about how to defend the Matt Agorist screaming headline that the tax payer will pay. As you deny all knowledge, your non-opinion opinion is worthless, as usual, and you a relegated back to your corner to squat in your own warm piss. Attempts to posit a viable legal theory so far are acts of futility, as addressed below.
Key word generally. Not always. I have added the context back in for you. Do you allege the officers in Picard were merely performing discretionary functions? If not, your cited matter is irrelevant. In any case, that is a disscussion of the application of qualified immunity. Do you find qualified immunity applies to the officers? If so, any associated charge is dismissed on summary judgment and nobody pays. Do you find the officers do not qualify for qualified immunity? Why not? If you find the officers' acts or omissions were wanton, reckless or malicious, and thereby voided their claim to qualified immunity, the Court will assess any damages against the officers as individuals. Under what law do you hold that Connecticut is liable to pay the officers, who acted within the discharge of their duties, for damages assessed for acts which were wanton, reckless or malicious? So far, you have made zero progress.
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-athena-angeles-child-abuse-dcf-20190104-rb6ibk7thnaf7o24dg35n2apwq-story.html In the end I suspect Connecticut will pay out in the case we are discussing too. If I am wrong I don't care. It is just my opinion of what will happen. States pay out all the time. Yes there is a DIFFERENT case in Connecticut. It is so different that it is in STATE court and not in FEDERAL COURT. Cases may be brought in State court if the state permits them. When an individual brings a case in Federal court, the State may not be named as a defendant. The Federal government cannot award damages against a State. This whole case is irrelevant.
This whole case is irrelevant. Au contraire. The Supremes on a number of occasions have explicitly upheld the abrogation of state sovereign immunity. Which punches big holes in all your posts about how federal courts can never ever do such things to state governments (or sovereign municipalities). Not only can the courts throw away any restraints on state sovereignty, the courts have ruled that Congress is empowered to do exactly the same thing. So Congress and federal courts all can (and have) violated your alleged state sovereignty immunity ideas. Annotation Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity in connection to its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes the states as covered employers. Current and retired male employees of the state of Connecticut sued the state in federal court on the grounds that its statutory retirement plan violated the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against them based on their gender. While the federal district court ruled in part for the employees, it held that the Eleventh Amendment prevented them from receiving back pay. On appeal, the court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment may not be enforced through a private action for retroactive damages. Majority Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a Congressional grant of authority for the federal court system to award money damages to private individuals who have been subjected to employment discrimination by a state government. These provisions limit the sovereign immunity provided to states by the Eleventh Amendment, especially since the Fourteenth Amendment imposes substantive limitations on state authority. Congressional action under Section 5 is particularly authoritative because it is derived not only from its own legislative authority but also from a Constitutional text that is designed to limit state authority. Certain types of actions thus may be permissible in this context that otherwise would be barred by state sovereign immunity. Concurrence Concurrence Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean that it never happens. We don't have a solar eclipse every day but that does not mean there is no such thing as a solar eclipse. I think you owe Stone an apology. Apologize now. Thank you.
Y'all defenders of the honor of TFTP/Matt Agorist [not including GI] are looking for a case where an invididual sues in Federal court and the court awards damages against a State. This mystical case must adddress the State immunity problem posed by Edelman which states that, "A suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability payable from public funds in the state treasury is foreclosed by the Amendment if the State does not consent to suit." Suits in State court do not adddress the question. State laws about the liability of (non-sovereign) cities, towns, villages, or municipal entities are not relevant. Or you are looking for a State law where the State volunteers to reimburse the officers where the officers' acts or omissions were wanton, reckless or malicious. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677 (1974) At 1 (Syllabus) (a) A suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability payable from public funds in the state treasury is foreclosed by the Amendment if the State does not consent to suit. Pp. 415 U. S. 662-663. At 675-677: 415 U. S. 676 been suggested that § 1983 was intended to create a waiver of a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity merely because an action could be brought under that 415 U. S. 677 section against state officers, rather than against the State itself. Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, supra, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra.
deleted
Don't try to obfuscate or change the subject by throwing lots of irrelevant text at us. You owe Stone an apology. Apologize now. Thank you.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0172.htm [excerpts] In December 2005, a Waterbury Superior Court jury found an off-duty Seymour police detective negligent for failing to prevent an intoxicated driver who was drinking at a bar with him from driving. That driver veered off the road after leaving the bar, killing himself and two passengers and seriously injuring another passenger. The jury awarded more than $1 million each to the families of the deceased men, and $2 million to the crash survivor. Although the police officer was found negligent, the court found the town responsible for paying damages because of the state's indemnification law. This law requires municipalities to assume liability for any injuries caused by an employee in the performance of his duties and within the scope of his employment that are not the result of wanton or willful conduct. Please note that this is for State ligitation involving a town, and the indemnity law cited here contains various conditions to liability. Picard is a Federal case in Federal court where the State is NOT a named defendant. And in all the discussion and attempted defense of the screaming headline of Matt Agorist, not one mumbling word has been uttered about the applicable law and its coverage. Nobody has yet identified said law pertaining to STATE officers and employees.
That doesn't sound like an apology.
[Tooconservative #105] Don't try to obfuscate or change the subject by throwing lots of irrelevant text at us. You owe Stone an apology. Apologize now. Thank you. I am sorry, but you, sir, owe everyone an apology for wasting their time and misleading them. Your case at the Justia link does not support your fantastic conclusions. Your quote in your pretty shaded box does NOT come from the opinion of the Court. That Congress can abrogate state sovereignty in connection to its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment provides no evidence whatsoever that it did, in fact, abrogate state sovereignty in the case of Picard. In your selected irrelevant case, "Current and retired male employees of the state of Connecticut sued the state in federal court...." In the Picard case, state employees were sued in their individual capacity. by a non-state employee. In Picard, no government entity is even named as a defendant. Fitzgerald states its threshhold "of congressional authorization" for a citizen to sue his state employer, which was absent in Edelman." 1. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar a backpay award to petitioners in No. 75-251, since that Amendment and the principle of state sovereignty that it embodies are limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants Congress authority to enforce "by appropriate Page 427 U. S. 446 legislation" the substantive provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which themselves embody significant limitations on state authority. Congress, in determining what legislation is appropriate for enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, may, as it has done in Title VII, provide for suits against States that are constitutionally impermissible in other contexts. The "threshold fact of congressional authorization" for a citizen to sue his state employer, which was absent in Edelman, supra, is thus present here. Pp. 427 U. S. 451-456. Fitzgerald is an entirely different context than Picard. First, I note that the case you refer to as Fitzgerald v. Bitzer abbreviates the actual caption which shows it is against a government entity, the State Employees' Retirement Pension. Fitzpatrick et al. v. Bitzer, Chairman State Employees' Retirement Commission et al., 427 US 445 (1976) Abbreviating the state entity out of the caption does not change the fact that the named defendent in the caption is a government entity. It is quite clear at the official source., as shown below. Justia contains a disclaimer: "Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources." https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep427/usrep427445/usrep427445.pdf Fitzpatrick does not carve out any exception to Edelman's application to Picard. Fitzpatrick at 447: MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court In the 1972 Amendments to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress, acting under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, authorized federal courts to award money damages in favor of a private individual against a state government found to have subjected that person to employment discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The principal question presented by these cases is whether, as against the shield of sovereign immunity afforded the State by the Eleventh Amendment, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974), Congress has the power to authorize federal courts to enter such an award against the State as a means of enforcing the substantive guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the effect of our decision in Edelman was to foreclose Congress’ power. We granted certiorari to resolve this important constitutional question. 423 U. S. 1031 (1975). We reverse. Do you seriously allege that Picard is about the State of Connecticut having subjected Picard to employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin? Do you seriously allege that Picard was an employee of the State of Connecticut? At 451: All parties in the instant litigation agree with the Court of Appeals that the suit for retroactive benefits by the petitioners is in fact indistinguishable from that sought to be maintained in Edelman, since what is sought here is a damages award payable to a private party from the state treasury. In Fitzpatrick et al v Bitzer, Chairman State Employees' Retirement Commission et al, 427 US 445 (1976) alleged state liability is self-evident in that a government entity is named as the sole defendant. Ditto for Edelman. In Picard, it is obvious that no government is named as a defendant, and all defendants are sued in ther individual capacity. You have found an exception the the 11th Amendment requirement when employees of a state sue their own state for a violation of Federal employment discrimination law, with the government having acted in its official capacity. In Picard you have employees who may have acted outside the scope of their employment, having been wanton, reckless or malicious. In the Picard case, as a matter of legal fact which you attempt to ignore, no legal governmental entity is a defendant. The government is not represented and does not appear in court. If the employee defendants in Picard are to be reimbursed for any damages assessed against them, they must obtain that from the State. Instead of you you ass pickers busying yourselves with irrelevant bullshit, try the applicable state law which has seemingly eluded you. Conn - Indemnification of state officers and employees https://codes.findlaw.com/ct/title-5-state-employees/ct-gen-st-sect-5-141d.html Title 5. State Employees § 5-141d. Indemnification of state officers and employees. Duties of Attorney General. Legal fees and costs. Enforcement action. Exceptions (a) The state shall save harmless and indemnify any state officer or employee, as defined in section 4-141 , and any member of the Public Defender Services Commission from financial loss and expense arising out of any claim, demand, suit or judgment by reason of his alleged negligence or alleged deprivation of any person's civil rights or other act or omission resulting in damage or injury, if the officer, employee or member is found to have been acting in the discharge of his duties or within the scope of his employment and such act or omission is found not to have been wanton, reckless or malicious. (b) The state, through the Attorney General, shall provide for the defense of any such state officer, employee or member in any civil action or proceeding in any state or federal court arising out of any alleged act, omission or deprivation which occurred or is alleged to have occurred while the officer, employee or member was acting in the discharge of his duties or in the scope of his employment, except that the state shall not be required to provide for such a defense whenever the Attorney General, based on his investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case, determines that it would be inappropriate to do so and he so notifies the officer, employee or member in writing. (c) Legal fees and costs incurred as a result of the retention by any such officer, employee or member of an attorney to defend his interests in any such civil action or proceeding shall be borne by the state only in those cases where (1) the Attorney General has stated in writing to the officer, employee or member, pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, that the state will not provide an attorney to defend the interests of the officer, employee or member, and (2) the officer, employee or member is thereafter found to have acted in the discharge of his duties or in the scope of his employment, and not to have acted wantonly, recklessly or maliciously. Such legal fees and costs incurred by such officer, employee or member shall be paid to such officer, employee or member only after the final disposition of the suit, claim or demand and only in such amounts as shall be determined by the Attorney General to be reasonable. In determining whether such amounts are reasonable, the Attorney General may consider whether it was appropriate for a group of officers, employees or members to be represented by the same counsel. (d) Such officer, employee or member may bring an action in the Superior Court against the state to enforce the provisions of this section. (e) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any such officer, employee or member to the extent he has a right to indemnification under any other section of the general statutes.
Comments (109 - 130) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest the troopers involved have been ordered to stand trial in the civil suit brought on by the ACLU of Connecticut. The taxpayers, not the officers will be the ones to pay for the crimes.
#69. To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#59)
#70. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#69)
(Edited)
… my agenda is to trash misstatement of law or facts.
That is the basically the same with me. … to trash misstatement of [what is presented as] facts.
Gatlin
#71. To: Gatlin (#70)
Strangely enough, after I spend all my time disproving what is in the cop-hating article – I am consequently labeled either a “cop-sucker” or a “boot-licker” when all I have done is to challenge opinions and conclusions.
#72. To: nolu chan (#71)
(Edited)
#73. To: Deckard (#44)
[Matt Agorist] The taxpayers, not the officers will be the ones to pay for the crimes.
Some district courts have held that in the context of a journalist, who is not subject to the police activity, the First Amendment right to record police activity in public is clearly established. See Stolarik v. City of New York, 2017 WL 4712423, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2017); Higginbotham v. City of New York, 105 F. Supp. 3d at 380. However, the instant plaintiff was not a journalist or even a bystander; he was a subject of defendants' investigation and performance of their official duties. Accordingly, plaintiff's right to record police activity or to record a police officer engaged in his official duties was not “clearly established” within this Circuit at the time of September 11, 2015, so that a reasonable defendant officer would have understood from existing law that his conduct was unlawful. See Anderson v. Recore, 317 F.3d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 2003); see also McKenzie, 2019 WL 3288267, at *7; Rivera v. Foley, 2015 WL 1296258, at *9 (D. Conn. March 23, 2015) (qualified immunity granted on basis that right to record police officers engaged in ongoing investigation was not clearly established as matter of constitutional law)."
defendants' motion for summary judgment [doc. 76] is GRANTED as to count one and as to the First Amendment retaliation claim based on his asserted First Amendment right to record police activity
#74. To: Deckard (#0)
[Matt Agorist] The taxpayers, not the officers will be the ones to pay for the crimes.
10. Defendant John Barone was and is, at all time relevant to this suit, employed by the Division of State Police within the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, with the job title of trooper first class.
#75. To: nolu chan (#74)
short bus
#76. To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#74)
[nolu chan #74] No government entity is party to the lawsuit. The three officers are sued in their individual capacity. Just curious, but what is your legal theory of government liability.
[A K A Stone] The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.
But it has not heretofore
#77. To: Deckard (#76)
Henceforth, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Pp. 815-819.
B
#78. To: Deckard (#76)
Anderson v. Creighton et al, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) qualified immunity
#79. To: nolu chan (#78)
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#80. To: Deckard (#79)
Nice diatribe Perry Mason. You on Company time right now or are you off duty?
#81. To: nolu chan, Tooconservative (#80)
Is that your legal theory?
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#82. To: nolu chan (#77)
(Edited)
generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
#83. To: nolu chan (#78)
The state, faced with the expected testimony of child-protection experts and a social worker’s troubling case notes, has reached a $4.97 million settlement with the father of Athena Angeles, the 3-year-old Windham girl who was beaten to death in 2011 by her mother’s live-in boyfriend despite her bearing the black eyes and bruises of previous abuse and the warning calls of the staff at her pre-school.
#84. To: Deckard (#81)
strikingly Sisyphean (H/T: Tooconservative)
#85. To: A K A Stone (#83)
Connecticut Office of Legislative Research: TOWN'S LIABILITY FOR POLICE OFFICER'S NEGLIGENCE, 2006 In December 2005, a Waterbury Superior Court jury found an off-duty Seymour police detective negligent for failing to prevent an intoxicated driver who was drinking at a bar with him from driving. That driver veered off the road after leaving the bar, killing himself and two passengers and seriously injuring another passenger. The jury awarded more than $1 million each to the families of the deceased men, and $2 million to the crash survivor.
#86. To: Tooconservative (#85)
courts may assign liability to parties
#87. To: GrandIsland, nolu chan, A K A Stone, Deckard (#86)
(Edited)
I’d be cautious about how far you would support such a slippery slope... even if it is a police officer you would like to hem-up.
IMHO, when someone is able to walk to a vehicle, unlock it, sit in it, start it.... and drive it any kind of distance, and they willingly drank alcohol, there is only ONE person 100% responsible.
#88. To: Tooconservative (#87)
So do you know whether CT state police are considered legally on-duty 24 hours a day or not?
#89. To: GrandIsland (#88)
There is case law that state they can make arrests, off duty, provided they have the PC to make that arrest, and if they get hurt making that arrest, they are covered by work insurance.
INDEMNIFICATION
In the event that an officer is sued, the law provides that the municipality must indemnify the officer for damage or injury, not wanton or willful, caused in the performance of his duties and within the scope of his employment (CGS § 7-465). The statute allows officers “excused from official duty” to be indemnified as long as they are engaged in “the immediate and actual performance of a public duty imposed by law” at the time of the injury (CGS § 7-465). APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
Under Connecticut's comparative negligence statute, the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, apportions responsibility for negligence among the parties in the lawsuit (CGS § 52-572h(f)). The fact that the plaintiff's negligence may have been a proximate cause of the damage does not necessarily prevent the plaintiff from receiving compensation (CGS § 52-572h(b)). But if the plaintiff is found more than 50% responsible for the damage, then he cannot be compensated (CGS § 52-572h(b)).
#90. To: Tooconservative (#89)
And yet, in the CT case I cited, the jury did hold the town liable.
#91. To: GrandIsland (#90)
Pretty soon, we’ll be able to sue a taxi driver for going off duty 5 minutes before a drunk leaves the bar. Of course he could have prevented it.
#92. To: Tooconservative (#91)
You may be able to kill feral cats in all 50 states. But a cat or dog or other pet is pretty hard to consider feral, especially if they have a home base and lack hunting skills to feed themselves which is true of a lot of pets, some of whom may kill prey, like a cat killing a mouse, but won't eat it.
#93. To: GrandIsland (#92)
#94. To: Tooconservative (#93)
(Edited)
We do have a roaming cat problem in the neighborhood though.
#95. To: GrandIsland (#94)
#96. To: Tooconservative (#95)
(Edited)
I'm not mean enough just to kill them wantonly.
#97. To: Tooconservative (#95)
That's what the hose is for. They seem to understand quickly that they aren't welcome when you douse them with cold water.
#98. To: GrandIsland (#97)
#99. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, GrandIsland (#81)
#81. To: nolu chan, Tooconservative (#80)
#100. To: A K A Stone (#82)
[government officials performing discretionary functions] generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
#101. To: A K A Stone, Tooconservative, GrandIsland (#83)
There is a different case in connecictut and they settled and payed taxpayer money. So they do pay out and were held liable.
#102. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, GrandIsland, Deckard (#101)
When an individual brings a case in Federal court, the State may not be named as a defendant. The Federal government cannot award damages against a State.
Supreme.Justia.com: Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976) Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Case Commentary
#103. To: A K A Stone, Tooconservative, GrandIsland (#101)
Held: The Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution bars that portion of the District Court's decree that ordered retroactive payment of benefits. Pp. 415 U. S. 658-678.
But it has not heretofore
#104. To: Tooconservative (#102)
(Edited)
#105. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, GrandIsland, Deckard (#104)
#106. To: Tooconservative (#85)
SUMMARY
#107. To: nolu chan (#106)
#108. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone, GrandIsland (#102)
[Tooconservative #102] I think you owe Stone an apology. Apologize now. Thank you.
Held:
Opinion of the Court
We concluded that none of the statutes relied upon by plaintiffs in Edelman contained any authorization by Congress to join a State as defendant. The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, had been held in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 187-191 (1961), to exclude cities and other municipal corporations from its ambit; that being the case, it could not have been intended to include States as parties defendant. The provisions of the Social Security Act relied upon by plaintiffs were held by their terms not to “authorize suit against anyone,” 415 U. S., at 674, and they, too, were incapable of supplying the predicate for a claim of waiver on the part of the State.
Connecticut General Statutes
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]