Thread: LETS SUE THE FEDS

does anybody know of an attorney that would love all the attention this case would generate!!!!!


1. failure to enforce the law?

2. failury to protect the american puplic from known enimies comming accross the sothern border?

3. dereliction of swarn duty?

4. on and on and on!!!!!!!

i think we could win, and even if we don't look at all the press for alipac.....and for our cause....

Originally Posted by gp

does anybody know of an attorney that would love all the attention this case would generate!!!!!


1. failure to enforce the law?

2. failury to protect the american puplic from known enimies comming accross the sothern border?

3. dereliction of swarn duty?

4. on and on and on!!!!!!!

i think we could win, and even if we don't look at all the press for alipac.....and for our cause....

Unfortunately all of the lawyers are in the back pockets of big business and the ethnic lobbies, but if you can find one that's on our side good luck. Well there is Kris Kobach who's suing in the federal courts to get rid of in-state tuition so there is hope afterall.

[quote="gp"]does anybody know of an attorney that would love all the attention this case would generate!!!!!

I sure wish it was that easy! But lawyers get bought too.
Good Luck.

I've discussed this with a couple of attorneys. One said the Border Patrol (now under homeland security) would have to be the target of the suit. I would think that suit could be brought based on a "taking". Loss of employement,essential services, neighborhoods to illegals.

Probably the best move would be to sue under the Endangered Species Act, which provides for ANY citizen to collect all attorney fees and sue the US government because of habitat of endangered species being destroyed by illegals, ie, border crossers, marijuana farms on national forest land. So far I've not been able to get inerest in such.

I've discussed this with a couple of attorneys. One said the Border Patrol (now under homeland security) would have to be the target of the suit. I would think that suit could be brought based on a "taking". Loss of employement,essential services, neighborhoods to illegals.




WHAT ABOUT LOSS OF HEALTH CARE, E.R'S CLOSING AT NECK BREAK SPEED......

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO THAT GUY IS THAT IS SUEING THE FEDS OVER " UNDER GOD " HE SEEMS TO HAVE THE PASSION......

O'Reilly discussed this idea and he was told it would not be a successful effort. Move it over to George and it would not be a successful effort again, but it would be delicious harassment. But you cannot sue the government.. the government made sure you could not sue the government. Know what I mean? But suites against individuals in government can be done occasionally, and at the discretion of the court.

GOD I HATE OUR CORRUPT GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!

Anybody read John Grishom's "The Firm"? Seems we need to get them on mail fraud. Of course I'd be happy to go for impeachment.

I'm an attorney and I discussed this issue with some attorneys I interned with while in school. My theory of the case was that by refusing to enforce the the borders, the government would be liable for an involuntary taking of the property of property owners whose land is trespassed on.

Loretto v NY Teleprompter held that a physical invasion of private property under government auspices, no matter how minor, is a taking and falls under the Fifth Amendment requirement for compensation.

The lawyer whose I spoke with, a very intelligent and connected woman in Washington, was intrigued by the notion. She saw the main problem as being in proving causation. For Loretto to apply, the state has to be acting in some way. The argument would have to be either that the government's acquiesence equals state action or that the government is acting in some manner to prevent property owners from protecting their property.

For this to work, we would probably need a public interest firm like Pacific Legal Foundation to take it. Another possibility would be for groups like FAIR and CIS to start a coalition to fund a legal effort.

Originally Posted by unhyphenatedconservative

I'm an attorney and I discussed this issue with some attorneys I interned with while in school. My theory of the case was that by refusing to enforce the the borders, the government would be liable for an involuntary taking of the property of property owners whose land is trespassed on.

Loretto v NY Teleprompter held that a physical invasion of private property under government auspices, no matter how minor, is a taking and falls under the Fifth Amendment requirement for compensation.

The lawyer whose I spoke with, a very intelligent and connected woman in Washington, was intrigued by the notion. She saw the main problem as being in proving causation. For Loretto to apply, the state has to be acting in some way. The argument would have to be either that the government's acquiesence equals state action or that the government is acting in some manner to prevent property owners from protecting their property.

For this to work, we would probably need a public interest firm like Pacific Legal Foundation to take it. Another possibility would be for groups like FAIR and CIS to start a coalition to fund a legal effort.

I would think the proper party for this might be FAIR. Have you contacted them at all with the research you have done?