Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A clue on how to motivate officials :-)

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    We also note that the potential liability of § 1983 defendants for attorney s fees, see Civil Rights Attorney s Fees Awards Act of 1976, Pub.L. 94-559, 90
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 14, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      We also note that the potential liability of § 1983 defendants for attorney's fees, see Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, Pub.L. 94-559, 90 Stat. 2641, amending 42 U.S.C. § 1988, provides additional -- and by no means inconsequential -- assurance that agents of the State will not deliberately ignore due process rights. See also 18 U.S.C. § 242, the criminal counterpart of § 1983. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) n. 11.

       

      I don’t have a simple way figured out to find the attorney that is going to bring a civil rights suit on this statute. If you know a way besides elbow grease, please tell us. Bear

      Phone Contact: 720-675-7230

      Best times to call: 8:30 am-9:00 pm MST

      Bear's Pages: www.irsterminator.com www.legalbears.com www.legalbearsblog.com

      www.irslienthumper.com www.irslevythumper.com www.irs-armory.com www.freedivorceforms.net

      www.cantheydothat.com (a free lien evaluation) www.trafficrocketblog.com Send an email to:

      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com to join Tips & Tricks for Court Group

       

    • Frog Farmer
      ... Here s what jumped to my mind: 1: How is it that we need attorneys to appear in these courts? They must be inferior courts! How could *I* take an
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 14, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Legalbear wrote:

        > We also note that the potential liability of � 1983 defendants for
        > attorney's fees, see Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976,
        > Pub.L. 94-559, 90 Stat. 2641, amending 42 U.S.C. � 1988, provides
        > additional -- and by no means inconsequential -- assurance that agents
        > of the State will not deliberately ignore due process rights. See also
        > 18 U.S.C. � 242, the criminal counterpart of � 1983. Carey v. Piphus,
        > 435 U.S. 247 (1978) n. 11.
        >
        >
        > I don�t have a simple way figured out to find the attorney that is
        > going to bring a civil rights suit on this statute. If you know a way
        > besides elbow grease, please tell us. Bear

        Here's what jumped to my mind:

        1: How is it that we need attorneys to appear in these courts? They
        must be inferior courts! How could *I* take an attorney to represent
        me?! I could accept one (who could pass muster) as co-counsel, but not
        more.

        2: I would use Writs whenever law was threatened to be broken. You
        don't need any attorney, and they are powerful.

        Regards,

        FF
      • Jake
        Frog Farmer axed, regarding Legalbear s comments on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 litigation, How is it that we need attorneys to appear in these courts? Assuming you re
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 15, 2010
        • 0 Attachment

          Frog Farmer axed, regarding Legalbear's comments on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 litigation,


          "How is it that we need attorneys to appear in these courts?"


          Assuming you're the Plaintiff, the case never gets to the oral argument or trial phase (very few do) & you're really good @ following the procedural rules, you don't need an attorney.  But if the case ever goes to trial, unless you have a LOT of voir dire (jury selection) & trial court experience in that court, you'd be an idiot to try the case yourself.


          Why?  Because the attorney(s) for the Defendant(s) WILL have a lot of experience in that court & even if they don't you must presume that they do.  Just because you happen to be right on your subject-matter issues doesn't mean much - you have to know how to pick a jury, how the judge in that court does things, etc.  And for example, you'll find that the local rules of federal courts typically require that a party represented by an attorney have @ least one local attny. who practices in that court on a regular basis - he (she) may not be the lead attny. & may never even say a word during the trial, but they DO know how things are done in THAT court & if you don't, you're "toast".


          Like it or not, the practical application of the law is far more about PROCEDURE than it is subject-matter & if you have little or no trial court experience, when you go up against someone who does, they can "beat you like a red-headed stepchild" no matter how strong your case is.  


          Another point comes from 4th Circuit Court of Appeals local rules I recently read - if a Pro Se Plaintiff's case is called for oral argument, an attny. will be appointed - for the same reasons - the Pro Se does not know how to present his case in that court, so an attny. who does will be appointed to handle the oral arguments.  Don't make the very serious mistake of thinking you can do it yourself - unless you've got a LOT of experience in the particular court you have to go to. 


          ~ ~ ~


        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.