Following a number of incidents in which individuals were arrested for videotaping police officers, a federal appellate court has ruled that filming government officials while on duty is protected by the First Amendment as most of the arrestees have claimed. Police departments across the U.S. have long asserted that citizens don’t have the right to videotape officers while they conduct official duties. The issue has become especially heated in the last few years because a growing number of law-abiding citizens have gotten booked for taping officers at work. One of the cases made it up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which recently ruled that cops can be recorded while they’re working. The case involves an attorney (Simon Glik) arrested and charged with violating a wiretap statute in 2007 for using his cell phone to record Boston police officers making an arrest. When a state court dismissed the charges against Glik, he filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court claiming that Boston Police officers violated his First Amendment rights by stopping him from recording and his Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him without probable cause. Boston Police asked the court to dismiss the case based on qualified immunity from lawsuits as officers acting within the scope of their duties.But a few days ago the federal appellate court settled the issue, ruling that the filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place fits comfortably within the principles of protected First Amendment activity. The court also noted that police officers are to expect to deal with certain “burdens” as citizens practice First Amendments rights.”Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs,” the three-judge panel wrote, adding that police officers should have understood this all along and that videotaping public officials is not limited to the press. ”Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw,” the court continued. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”
NOTICE TO COURT AND ALL COURT OFFICERS We the People of this still great country are Constitutionalists and require all public servants, including judges, to abide by their oaths in the performance of their official duties, including those before the court. This protects the American Citizens from government and court abuse.
Since the Constitution cannot conflict with itself, the limited powers delegated to government by the Constitution can never supersede the powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution to The American People. “Authority” is an extremely important word and concept. Government and the courts without Constitutional authority can conduct nothing lawful, and government has no authority to disparage your Rights. Keep “authority” in mind as you review the following statements and questions.
CHALLENGES TO THE COURT BEFORE PROCEEDINGS CAN START Feb. 14 2014
1. A. Your Honor and the prosecutor have taken oaths of office to support and uphold the Constitution of the united States of America and that of this state. Is that correct?
B. Pursuant to your oaths, you are required to abide by those oaths, in the performance of your official duties, including those before this Honorable Court. Is that correct?
2. I, Jeffrey Louis Gonzales, hereby notify this Honorable Court that I am a living, breathing, natural-born American Citizen, with, and claiming, all Rights guaranteed to me in the federal and state Constitutions, and with my name properly spelled in upper and lower case letters, not as it appears on the court documents.
Is there any objection to what I just stated?
3. This court abides by all the powers of and Rights guaranteed to American Citizens in the federal and state Constitutions, including due process of law. Is that correct?
4. I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the alleged charges, presumptions and assumptions in, by and of this court, unless proven guilty by a well-informed jury of my peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, based solely on verified evidence and proof. Is that correct?
5. A. “Proof” consists of verified and demonstrated evidence, and not opinion, especially opinion unsupported by fact, law and evidence. Is that correct?
B. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” consists solely of decisions and verdicts from a well-informed jury of my peers based entirely on proof that absolutely and conclusively confirms guilt, without any reservations or questions, whatsoever, from the jury. Is that correct?
6. Opinion from any witness or prosecuting attorney unsupported and unverified by fact, law and proven evidence is simply opinion, and opinion, as previously established, is not proof or factual evidence. Is that correct?
7. A. Since I am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that possible when you, the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney and all the witnesses against me work for and are paid by the state that is the plaintiff in this case, and my opponent? In this situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial. Is that correct?
B. Further, any data used against me is obtained from sources who, are also paid by the state, the same plaintiff against me. At minimum, conflict of interest takes place.
8. Since I am presumed innocent of the charges and all aspects, presumptions and assumptions of those charges and this court, I have challenged the jurisdiction of this court, which this court has not proven, on the public record. Therefore, since I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the charges and presumptions of the court, and since jurisdiction has not been proven, jurisdiction is simply a presumption of this court, of which I am presumed innocent. Furthermore, no official Oath of Office can be located anywhere, nor has one been put on the public record. Therefore, I move for dismissal of all charges and/or warrants for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to the foregoing, and to numerous federal and Supreme Court rulings, this case must be dismissed and any warrant recalled, with full prejudice, and I hereby move for dismissal of all charges and this case, with full prejudice.
CONSTITUTIONAL BUSINESS Published By Citizens' Justice Programs
Have you lost certain rights without a meaningful hearing or even an opportunity to be heard?
Have you been deprived of any other constitutional protection? Have you been subject to Court action for the purpose of intimidating you from exercising an opinion, or practicing your faith?
Don't let them get away with it.
Although it is almost impossible to recover monetary damages from a judge (unless you can prove he or she acted ultra-vires beyond his or her legal jurisdiction) it is in fact possible to obtain relief in equity against a judge through civil rights actions. Equitable relief includes: a. declaratory relief - (rulings by another judge in the form of opinions establishing the constitutionality or lack of constitutionality of another judges actions.)
b. injunctive relief - a command or order to do something or refrain from doing so.
As a general rule, however, judges cannot be held liable for money damages for acts done in the exercise of his judicial function, within the limits of his jurisdiction, no matter how erroneous, illegal or malicious his acts may be. (48A Corpus Juris Secundum §86) A minority of decisions have held that if an inferior judge acts maliciously or corruptly he may incur liability. Kalb v. Luce, 291 N.W. 841, 234, WISC 509.
Federal Civil Rights statutes, and possibly Bivens actions, appear to offer the best path for redressing constitutional grievances with state and federal judges, respectively, in Federal Court. As a practical matter, such cases will usually be brought by pro se litigants. Neither the politics nor economics of law practice permits lawyers to pursue such cases nor makes them affordable except to a small elite of citizens.
However, lawyers who do successfully sue state judges in federal court in Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 cases can recover attorney's fees from judicial defendants provided they can show time sheets kept contemporaneously with their work.
The most important step you have to take in beginning your lawsuit is in writing the complaint that will be conforming to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (available in every Government Bookstore or from the Government Printing Office in Washington, DC.)
Properly drafted complaints need not be prepared by a lawyer. All that is required is a very fundamental understanding of a few basic constitutional principles and a typewriter and paper. Handwritten com plaints can also be filed in court.
Each federal court publishes its own local rules which can impose some additional requirements, but essentially there are only a handful of things you need to know. Each complaint has a caption reading "United States District Court, District of (name the jurisdiction e.g. Southern New York or Eastern California.) Each complaint includes a caption indicating the name of the plaintiff, and the name of the defendant. The words "individually and in his official capacity" should appear after the name of the defendant judge. The words "Verified Complaint" should appear on the right side of the caption. Your caption should appear like this: United States District Court District of (State) Civil Docket No. _______------------------------------)John Doe, ) Plaintiff ) )vs. ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT )Bobby Roe, individually and in)his/her official capacity as )Justice of the Superior Court )of [*****] County, ) Defendant )------------------------------
A couple of spaces below, you must begin to spell out your reasons for bringing your complaint to Court.
Make an outline of your case. First, state your "Jurisdictional Basis" in Paragraph I.
I usually write as follows: JURISDICTIONAL BASISI. Plaintiff claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III § 2 which extends the jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution.
Next you should write Paragraph II stating the precise Statutory Authority why you brought the case. If you are suing a state judge, you will state: II. Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 for violations of certain protections guaranteed to him by the First, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments (select which apply) of the federal Constitution, by the defendant under color of law in his/her capacity as a judge in the Superior Court of (****) County.
If you are suing a federal judge, state: "Plaintiff brings this action against (name), a federal judicial officer, pursuant to Title 28 U.S. Code § 1331, in claims arising from violations of federal constitutional rights guaranteed in the (fill in) amendments to the U.S. Constitution and redressable pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971)."
Be aware that the issue of whether federal judicial officers can in fact be sued under this authority is unresolved, but my opinion is that there is a strong implication in the affirmative based on the language in many cases.
Your complaint should then have a section entitled "Parties". The next two paragraphs would read:III. Plaintiff (Your name) is a natural person residing at (Your address), (County), (State).
IV. Defendant is a Judge presiding at (fill in.)
Following this you must now describe your claim in detail, giving legal and factual basis for your case. This portion of the case is entitled "Statement of Case"
What kind of factual pattern would give rise to a successful claim under the federal civil rights law? Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 reads as follows: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show that the defendant judge acted unconstitutionally or outside of his/her jurisdiction. If the judge engaged in an egregious discrimination against males in a divorce court, minorities in state criminal cases, members of an unpopular religious group in confrontation with government authorities and treated suspiciously in court or members of a "fringe" political group, these situations can give rise to a claim of denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
If a judge permits an ex parte attachment, i.e. seizure of real estate without giving you notice of a hearing in a state court proceeding, this is a deprivation of property without due process, violating the Fifth Amendment as well as the Fourteenth Amendment.
Ex parte restraining orders forcing men or women out of their homes based on abuse allegations in state courts are a primary and rampant example of violations of constitutional rights today, and certainly actionable in federal court.
The first ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are self explanatory. Violations of any of the rights described in these amendments give rise to causes of action, both against state judges under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and arguably against federal judges in Bivens actions.
Pro se litigants should give a clear and concise description of what happened in chronological order, identifying the judge, the date, time, and place of his or her action, and specifying which acts violated which constitutional amendments.
The complaint finishes with a section entitled "Prayer for Relief." In such a case you can ask for an injunction ordering another judge to so something, or to refrain from doing something. Successful use of these suits has been made to nullify attachments, end incarcerations, declare laws or court practices unconstitutional and scare the heck out of black robed tyrants with gavels. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1983).
I often phrase my prayers for relief as follows: Wherefore plaintiff prays this Court issue equitable relief as follows: Issue injunctive relief commanding defendant to . . . Issue declaratory relief as this Court deems appropriate just. Issue other relief as this Court deems appropriate and just. Award plaintiff his costs of litigation. Respectfully submitted, (Your signature) Your name printed Your address City, State, Zip Code Telephone No. Statement of VerificationI have read the above complaint and it is correct to the best of my knowledge. Your signature
Complaints are filed in the Civil Clerk's Office in the United States District Court for your district.
Federal rules now allow for service of process by certified mail. You will be required to serve the defendant judge and also your state attorney general if you are suing a state judge.
The pro se road will be easier if you study the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, obtain a Black's Law Dictionary and familiarize yourself with legal research methods. You must also read the Local Rules of the Federal Court where you are suing, and learn Constitutional law fast.
Using a lawyer as a coach is helpful. Bear in mind that your lawsuit is disfavored because it is against a judge. Nevertheless, our system of "justice" is in such tough shape that suits against judges are a socio-political necessity.
Complaints should be photocopied, disseminated to the legislature, the media and political action groups.
Perhaps the cumulative impact of these suits will bring a healthy radical change for the American people.
Copyright Protection Copyrightprotection is automatic for any creative work the moment it is created and set down in a “tangible form of expression,” including a work that can only be read with the aid of a device such as an e-book reader. The copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the e-book for public sale, rental or lending, or to make the book available for free. Without express permission, others cannot reproduce and distribute copies of the e-book. ========================= The Key Issues For 2014 Are! Woman's Rights, Freedom of Speech, Publisher Right's, Marriages Right's, Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Sex, Mandatory Reporters, United States Constitution and Bill of Right's, Lovers, Court System !
Judicial immunity is a general legal doctrine that prevents lawsuits against judges. It does not preclude injunctive relief or awards of attorney's fees allowed by statute.
Three United States Supreme Court cases form an appropriate starting point for analyzing borderline questions of judicial immunity. In Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719, 736 (1980), the Supreme Court held that judicial immunity did not bar injunctive relief against the Virginia Supreme Court and its chief justice. Plaintiffs brought a facial challenge to an allegedly unconstitutional bar rule and sought to enjoin defendants from prospectively enforcing it against attorneys. In upholding the injunction, the Court distinguished between the various capacities in which the state's supreme court was authorized to act under state law. Thus, in conjunction with administering bar matters, the state's highest court engages in adjudicative duties (determining moral fitness of attorney applicants), legislative or rule-making duties (promulgating bar admission rules [degree] and procedures), and enforcement duties (applying the bar rules against attorneys or bar applicants), but judicial immunity would not per se apply to the latter two functions. In Consumers Union, the Court held that plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief without regard to the defendants' status as judicial officers because the lawsuit arose out of their role as "enforcers" of the bar rules. Thus, like any state official who enforces laws, injunctive and declaratory relief were available notwithstanding that defendants were judicial officers. Id.
Four years later, in Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984), the Supreme Court held that judicial immunity did not prohibit declaratory and injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in his or her judicial capacity. In Pulliam, plaintiff had challenged the constitutionality of a state judge's practice of incarcerating persons awaiting trial for nonincarcerable offenses--acts clearly taken in defendant's judicial capacity. Thus, in the wake of Consumers Union and Pulliam, judicial immunity did not apply to acts taken by judicial officers in their enforcement capacities and was not a bar to declaratory and injunctive relief for acts taken in the judge's judicial capacity.
Finally, in Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988), the Court again recognized the importance of properly categorizing a judicial officer's acts for purposes of determining whether judicial immunity applies. In that case the Court found judicial immunity inapplicable where a state judge had been sued for sexual discrimination in employment-related matters. Id. at 229, 108 S. Ct. at 545. The Court noted that there is no immunity for "acts that simply happen to have been done by judges" when those acts are not judicial acts. Id. at 227, 108 S. Ct. at 544. Rather, the "immunity is justified and defined by the functions it protects and serves, not by the person to whom it attaches." Id. Although the Supreme Court had never articulated a precise and general definition of the class of acts entitled to immunity, the Court recognized the "intelligible distinction between judicial acts and the administrative, legislative, or executive functions that judges may on occasion be assigned by law to perform." Id. at 227, 108 S. Ct. at 544.
Consumers Union, Pulliam, and Forrester demonstrate that the question of judicial immunity in any given situation can only be answered with reference to the relief sought and the capacity in which the judge had acted. It is also clear that the Supreme Court in crafting judicial immunity over the years did not consider every act taken by a judge to be in his judicial capacity merely by virtue of the officer's status as a judge.
In 1996 Congress enacted the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996 which amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to provide that "in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." Pub. L. No. 104-317, 110 Stat. 3847 (Oct. 19, 1996) (emphasis added). The Senate report indicates that the amendment "restores the doctrine of judicial immunity to the status it occupied prior to [Pulliam]" because Pulliam had departed from "400 years of common law tradition and weakened judicial immunity protections." S. Rep. 104-366, at *36-27, 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4202, 4216-14.
Suing Judges Case law and advice on suing judges
We NEED more of these to start happening to get the attention of the gov't and federal court.
Let's pull together a generic suit and get 10-20 of these filed!
Before Pulliam, it was flatly impossible to sue a judge. But Pulliam made it possible to sue for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Punitive Relief. One could even recover financial damages.
This happened in 1984 or so. And it was a revolutionary change. Afterwards, according to "our friend" Sen. Thurmond, the result was that hundreds of judges were ("frivolously") sued, supposing tieing up courts in "nonsensical, wasteful" litigation by disgruntled, guilty litigants. To eliminate the "outrageous" assault of judges, Sen Thurmond sponsored the Court Reform Act of 1996 which restricted the ability to sue judges as I outlined. By the way, the Act passed 100 - 0 and Clinton signed it into law. This new law effectively modified Pulliam.
This tells me we have no friends in High Places.
Subject: Re: Suing Judges
I am aware of few successful cases in filing against Judges for any significant damages. At best nowadays you get the Judge a warning he should not do it again. He gets a second chance to wreck another life. See Pulliam v Allen which motivated the second chance federal law. This is next county over from me.
PULLIAM v. ALLEN, 466 U.S. 522 (1984)
466 U.S. 522
PULLIAM, MAGISTRATE FOR THE COUNTY OF CULPEPER, VIRGINIA v. ALLEN ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
The filling fee is not the problem. The clerk can waive the fee if you file a form In Forma Pauperis. The REAL problem is that the judges are ALMOST legally impregnable. It takes a LOT of study of Case Law in order to find cases that support an argument why a judge's immunity doesn't apply to your case. Most of us lack both the time and intellectual acumen to pull it off. And, you MUST have The Right Case, a case that's good as a matter of the facts. I speak as one who has sued more than one judge, and who was one of the co-plaintiffs on the big lawsuit against the Trial Judges of the Commonwealth in 1999. There are two ways to sue a judge. One way is to demonstrate that what he did to you was in the CLEAR ABSENCE of jurisdiction. For example, if a judge calls you child into a his chambers and molests the child, he clearly acted outside his jurisdiction. But this is very hard to sustain. The other way is to demonstrate one of two things. One can demonstrate that the judge is in violation of a previous DECLARATORY judgment. Do this and you can win. Failing that, ask a higher court to DECLARE (Declaratory Relief) that a judge committed certain errors of law in his official capacity. If you can get a higher court to do this, and if the judge then persists in violating the law, then you can go after him for other more meaningful forms of equitable relief. Of course, this all could take years -- which is exactly what Congress wanted when it enacted the Court Reform Act of 1996.
Federal Civil Rights Claims Several federal statutes (laws) allow people whose civil rights have been violated to sue the violator(s). The statute (law) under which most civil rights actions are brought is 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Section 1983 can only be used to sue: for intentional violations; regarding federally protected rights; and someone acting as a state or local official.
Section 1983 does not allow for you to sue federal officials or private persons. You may only sue people who are acting as agents of a state or local government. It also does not apply to accidental or negligent violations of rights. One common type of 1983 case is a suit for damages resulting from the use of excessive force by a police officer.
There are other federal statutes that authorize law suits for violations of civil rights:42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, prohibits intentional racial discrimination in making or enforcing contracts, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1982, prohibits intentional racial discrimination in property transactions, such as the sale or lease of real estate or even personal property (such as automobiles).
Federal civil rights litigation is a highly complex area of law. It would probably be a good idea to hire a lawyer to represent you in such a case.
Remedies A "remedy" is what you hope to accomplish by filing suit. Remedies allowed under federal civil rights statutes include monetary damages, injunctions (court orders requiring the defendant to do something or to stop doing something), and declaratory relief (a statement by the court that your claim has been investigated and you have been found to be "in the right" and the defendant has been found to be "in the wrong," legally speaking).
Filing Suit Where - You have a choice between filing your federal civil rights suit in federal court or filing it in state court. State Court - If you will be suing a state or local government, you might fear that a judge in state court will be biased against your claim. Federal Court - However, if you sue a state in federal court, the state may claim that the suit is "barred" (prohibited) by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Many courts have found that the Eleventh Amendment to bar (prohibit) suits for monetary damages by individuals against states in federal court.
When - Figuring out how much time you have to file your suit can be tricky. Civil rights claims may be barred by a "statute of limitations," a law that says you can no longer sue for something that has been done to you after a certain period of time has passed. Whether a civil rights claim is barred by the statute of limitations is a mixed question of state and federal law, regardless of which type of court you file in. Federal law determines when the clock starts running for determining how long you have to file; state law determines how long you have to file once the clock starts running.
Immunity from Suit Some government officials have immunity from law suits arising out of their official activities. This means that you cannot sue them as long as they were acting in their official capacity. Government officials are not immune if they are acting as private citizens.For example, judges who are sued under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 are completely immune from individual liability for monetary damages resulting from their "judicial acts." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Judges are not immune from 1983 suits seeking some kinds of injunctions. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984). Whether something a judge does should be considered a "judicial act" depends on "whether it is a function normally performed by a judge." Stump, 435 U.S. at 362. Officials who act only to enforce court orders may also be immune from liability for damages. Other officials who may be immune to damage suits in certain circumstances include legislators, prosecutors, and parole and probation officers. This immunity depends on whether the person was acting in his or her official capacity and whether s/he had any reason to know that his or her action would violate an individual's federally protect rights.
A WARNING FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT! In the words of former Chief Justice Warren Burger, "75 to 90 percent of American Trial Lawyers are incompetent, dishonest, or both."
If this statement is true, shouldn't you consider learning a little about law yourself, if only to keep your lawyers in line? CONSTITUTIONAL BUSINESS
When legal problems are in front of you, and if you don't know your rights, you might as well not have any.
Lawyers are advantaged in that they know how to find the law in the library. This knowledge is not an occult mystery.
The laws are supposed to be made by the people and for the people. They are not supposed to make lawyers and bureaucrats a privileged ruling elite.
That's why the newsletter Constitutional Business was created, to put knowledge into the hands of the general public and to teach you how to find the law.
Lawyers are often not only overpriced, but also are frequently tough to deal with.
Too many do not listen to clients, do not do enough research and do not pay enough attention to details ... and that can cost you.
You have the right under the Constitution to act as your own attorney.
And if you don't know the Constitution, both of this country, and your state, then you are at a great disadvantage. Many politicians, police and bureaucrats don't want you to know what is in these documents.
Our newsletter is designed to put you on a more level playing field with lawyers and adversaries.
You'll be better able to negotiate, argue and plead. Your results cannot be guaranteed, but we can guarantee that after reading Constitutional Business you will know more about law.
And once you've become our reader, you will know how to reach for justice.
And then you can teach others what they need to know.
It's the American way! DID YOU KNOW:
That Bar Associations have been sued for monopolistic practices?
That legal malpractice claims are at an all time record?
That pro-se litigants are forcing revolutionary changes in our justice system and that the best is yet to come?
Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;
(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 938.)
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §74 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §31, 36 Stat. 1096).
Other provisions of section 74 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in sections 1446 and 1447 of this title.
Words “or in the part of the State where such suit or prosecution is pending” after “courts of such States,” were omitted as unnecessary.
Changes were made in phraseology.
28 USC Sec. 1443 01/16/96
TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART IV - JURISDICTION AND VENUE
CHAPTER 89 - DISTRICT COURTS; REMOVAL OF CASES FROM STATE COURTS
Sec. 1443. Civil rights cases
Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions,
commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the
district court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the
courts of such State a right under any law providing for the
equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all
persons within the jurisdiction thereof;
(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law
providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the
ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 938.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Sec. 74 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch.
231, Sec. 31, 36 Stat. 1096).
Other provisions of section 74 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are
incorporated in sections 1446 and 1447 of this title.
Words ''or in the part of the State where such suit or
prosecution is pending'' after ''courts of such States,'' were
omitted as unnecessary.
Changes were made in phraseology.
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Application of rules, see rule 81, Appendix to this title.
Continuation of section under rule 81, see note by Advisory
Committee under rule 81.
Stay of State court proceedings, see section 2283 of this title.
SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This section is referred to in section 1447 of this title.
Citizens Court Watch + & Thank You For Taking The Time To Read This Websites
I Hope That This Websites Can Help You & Others With Your Court Cases / Laws.
You Can E-Mail US AT firstname.lastname@example.orgYou Can Also Write To Us at Rommel P. Westlaw @ P.O. Box 18010 Spokane, Washington. 99228-0010 U.S.A. P.O. Box 960 Newman Lake, Wa. 99025 or P.O. Box 1144 Bonners Ferry, ID 83805
Phone Messages Call Us at (Washington D.C. Offices) At # 202-670-LAWS (5297) Florida # 561-90-PRO-SE (7-7673) Spokane, Wa. # 509-701-5683 or 509-465-4528 Wisconsin # 920-39-JUDGE (5-8343) Texas # 512-887-8779 All Calls Are Welcome
You May Help Others By Making $$$ A Small Donation Or Help With Your Time. PLEASE REMEMBER DO NOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS 911*
Disclaimer and Fair Use Pages For Westlaw Books + See Full Disclaimer Page + Its Five 5 Button Down From The Top Of This Website + You Can Click # Button + To Read The Whole Disclaimer For This Website and My Other Website's Info. !
Disclaimer of Warranties and Liabilities: This site does not warrant the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, safety or merchantability of fitness for a particular purpose of the information contained in This site nor in any way endorse the individuals or institutions listed in This site.
In No Event Shall Westlawbooks.com, or Any Other Web Address Etc. or Domain from Westlaw Books or its staff, its sponsors, its contributors or its ISP be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, direct, special, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages, or damages for lost profits, loss of money or revenue, or loss of use, arising out of or related to the westlawbooks.com or Any Other Web Address or Domain from Westlaw Books or my other internet Web Site or the information contained in it, whether such damages arise in contract, negligence, tort, under statute, in equity, at law or otherwise.
If you have a Complaint About Westlaw Books Dot Com or My Other Domain's ? Content of this Website, how about telling the webmaster first? You can Contact the Webmaster In Writing At P. O. Box 18010 Spokane, WA. 99228-0010 U.S.A.
Disclaimer: + This is A Disclaimer from the Owner of this Website + Please Read ! + Nothing Here Is To Be Construed As "Legal Advice". We Are Not Lawyers, And We Are Not Pretending To Be Lawyers. This manual and website and information is intended purely as a communication of information in accordance with the right of free speech. It does not constitute either general or specific legal advice. Anyone who is seeking any legal advice should consult a competent professional.
The following is provided for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. Westlaw Books is not engaged in rendering legal or other Info. & professional advice, and this form is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.
Permission to quote statements we make and use our graphics is hereby granted without obtaining permission. We do Not copyright our quotes or graphics we create, which we Want to be widely dissembled to further the cause of Liberty and Justice for your Families and For All Families. If you use our materials, we certainly would appreciate being informed. Thank you ! Disclaimer and Fair Use Pages For Westlaw Books + See Full Disclaimer Page + Its Five 5 Button Down From The Top Of This Website + You Can Click # Button + To Read The Whole Disclaimer For This Website and My Other Website's Info. !