Thread: Lawsuit

one thing you have to remember, lawsuits against the government will be in federal court

I don't think you can sue a government official operating in their official capacity, however, if they are NOT operating within the confines of the Constitution, the laws of the United States and their oath of office, they are not immune to prosecution or civil violations

I really don't know -

I do think there has to be a way, however.

A state can sue, I believe. I know TExas was going to sue years ago because many border school districts were being bankrupted by the illegal children with no increased tax base.

I don't now if it got passed the talking stage - but instead, our wonderful leglislature passed the Robin Hood Bill. They deemed that they would take from the more affluent school districts and give to the poorer school districts.

Now the chairman of the education committe was a man I had campaigned for and donated money to - he was the last politician to get a dime of my money - voluntarily.

nntrixie

Texas tried suing once. In overturning California's Proposition 187, Judge Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction pending trial based upon the decision in the Texas case, Plyler v. Doe. Judge Pfaelzer asserted

"Texas tried to deny public education to illegal aliens. The Supreme Court ruled for the illegals, based on two pillars: 1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and 2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994."

Well I think it can be done because;

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nine states have sued the administration of President George W. Bush for lenient automotive fuel economy standards that they say worsen an energy crunch and contribute to air pollution and climate change.

The lawsuit says that the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has failed to meet federal laws requiring government to determine the impact of regulation on fuel conservation and the environment.

And the link for the entire story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00704.html


So now the question is finding someone who has the guts and wants the publicity.

It has to be possible. Remember the family who sued the government for her son's death in Iraq. because they didn't send his group any of the new equiptment needed.

Therefore not protecting the troops to the best of their ability.

Originally Posted by American_made

Well I think it can be done because;

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nine states have sued the administration of President George W. Bush for lenient automotive fuel economy standards that they say worsen an energy crunch and contribute to air pollution and climate change.

I thought the question was about citizens suing.

A state can definitely sue the federal government and the governors of 3 states did ... they fought the closing of National Guard bases in their states, and surprisingly, the courts actually ruled in their favor.

Mamie, A citizen can sue under the federal tort claims act. Look up FTCA and you will see. There are restrictions to the act and like I said I am not a lawyer. I am a computer professional. My understanding is a Citizen or group may sue the US government if the criteria is met under the FTCA. You will need a Layer that is fluent in the Federal court system and Money, Lots of it.

The best lawsuit to file would be against the banking and other financial institutions. A class action suit alleging and proving fraud, and unfair business practices would bring them to their knees in a year. In California, we have a business and professions law 17200 that empowers those affected by unfair business practices to sue for their damages, and the general public. You can sue for monetary damages and injunctions as well.
I am following two leads on this on a personal level. I've posted here that some financial groups have had some involvement in issuing loans or other related aid to two, and maybe three different people using my identity, or were using it to obtain credit or presence to purchase real property. If I can obtain enough evidence that the lending companies, the real estate agents, and possibly even the recorders office ot notary also, I will attempt to bring a class action suit. The hope is, that during discovery, more people will come forward showing a pattern of disregard for identity theft in order to increase business.

You might check out this site, they might be able to help, Saw them on the O'reilly show a while ago, if they can't they might know someone who can help with a lawsuit.
http://www.civilrightsunion.org/

Originally Posted by American_made

Mamie, A citizen can sue under the federal tort claims act. Look up FTCA and you will see. There are restrictions to the act and like I said I am not a lawyer. I am a computer professional. My understanding is a Citizen or group may sue the US government if the criteria is met under the FTCA. You will need a Layer that is fluent in the Federal court system and Money, Lots of it.

I hadn't heard of that one, but let's not forget about R.I.C.O. vilations -- they can be filed in civil actions

FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT - The FTCA provides a limited waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity when its employees are negligent within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, the government can only be sued 'under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.' 28 U.S.C. S 1346(b). Thus, the FTCA does not apply to conduct that is uniquely governmental, that is, incapable of performance by a private individual.

28 U.S.C. S 2680(h) provides that the government is not liable when any of its agents commits the torts of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights. However, it also provides an exception. The government is liable if a law enforcement officer commits assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. The government is not liable if the claim against law enforcement officers is for libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract. Congress has not waived the government's sovereign immunity against all law enforcement acts or omissions.

Furthermore, the FTCA is limited by a number of exceptions pursuant to which the government is not subject to suit, even if a private employer could be liable under the same circumstances. These exceptions include the discretionary function exception, which bars a claim 'based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.' 28 U.S.C. S 2680(a).

In order to determine whether conduct falls within the discretionary function exception, the courts must apply a two-part test established in Berkovitz v. U.S., 486 U.S. 531, 536 ('8. See Kennewick Irrigation Dist. v. U.S., 880 F.2d 1018, 1025 (9th Cir.'89). First, the question must be asked whether the conduct involved 'an element of judgment or choice.' U.S. v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322 ('91) (quotation omitted). This requirement is not satisfied if a 'federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow.' Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536. Once the element of judgment is established, the next inquiry must be 'whether that judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield' in that it involves considerations of 'social, economic, and political policy.' Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322-23.

Absent specific statutes or regulations, where the particular conduct is discretionary, the failure of the government properly to train its employees who engage in that conduct is also discretionary. See, e.g., Flynn v. U.S., 902 F.2d 1524 (10th Cir.'90) (failure of National Park Service to train its employees as to proper use of emergency equipment was discretionary).

The FTCA specifies that the liability of the U.S. is to be determined 'in accordance with the law of the place where the [allegedly tortious] act or omission occurred.' 28 U.S.C. S 1346(b). In an action under the FTCA, a court must apply the law the state courts would apply in the analogous tort action, including federal law. See Caban v. U.S., 728 F.2d 68, 72 (2d Cir.'84); see also Richards v. U.S., 369 U.S. 1, 11-13 ('62).

Under California law, a California court would apply federal law to determine whether an arrest by a federal officer was legally justified and hence privileged. See Trenouth v. U.S., 764 F.2d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir.'85) (applying federal law in an FTCA action for false imprisonment to determine legality of arrest by Department of Defense officers in California); cf. Gasho v. U.S., 39 F.3d 1420, 1427-32 (9th Cir.'94) (applying federal law in FTCA false imprisonment action against federal customs officials to determine if probable cause justified arrest in Arizona).

A plaintiff cannot bring an FTCA claim against the United States based solely on conduct that violates the Constitution because such conduct may violate only federal, and not state, law. See FDIC v. Meyer, 114 S.Ct. 996, 1001 ('94).

The substitution provision of the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act (FELRTCA) provides that '[u]pon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose . . . the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant.' 28 U.S.C. S 2679(d)(1). The purpose of this amendment to the Federal Tort Claims Act was to 'remove the potential personal liability of Federal employees for common law torts committed within the scope of their employment, and . . . instead provide that the exclusive remedy for such torts is through an action against the United States under the FTCA.' H.R. Rep. No. 700, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (198

Under the FTCA, the U.S. is subject to liability for the negligence of an independent contractor only if it can be shown that the government had authority to control the detailed physical performance of the contractor and exercised substantial supervision over its day-to-day activities. See U.S. v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814-15 ('76); Letnes v. U.S., 820 F.2d 1517, 1519 (9th Cir.'87).