Saturday, July 16, 2011



Timeline results for wonderful wizard of oz book1900

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was published on August 1, 1900. The Oz book became one of the best sellers of all time.


In 1939, L. Frank Baum's children's book “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” became the movie we know as simply “The Wizard of Oz.” It has delighted ...

world war one posters

spelling mansion sells for $85 million

Thursday, July 14, 2011


Here's a list of scenarios in which directors and officers have liability:

•Continuing a wrongful practice after learning it's wrong

•Libel or slander

•Failing to pay HOA debts in a timely manner

•Improper management resulting in losses

•Receiving personal gain while performing as director or officer

•Making decisions based on adequate information and advised judgment

•Ignorance of HOA books and records

•Verifying content of official documents before signing

•Obedience to the governing documents

•Self dealing

•Aiding and abetting illegal actions of others

•Conflict of interest

•Carelessness in conducting business or legal matters

•Failing to see what could be seen by merely looking

•Inducing intentional or careless wrongdoing

•Ignoring statutory or regulatory requirements

•Insufficient oversight of officers or employees

•Nondisclosure of questionable or unlawful actions

•Willful wrongdoing

Because of all these traps and pitfalls a director or officer could fall into, D&O insurance should never be optional. No one should serve on a board without it unless, of course, you have absolutely nothing to lose. I personally don't know one person that doesn't. Do D&O.

board members and liability serving on a board

fix a dead camera

Friday, July 8, 2011


wonderful wizard of oz, 1899, first edition and first state in B binding...$10,000,000..SHAPIRO, WIZARDOFBAUM, FIRST EDITION, WIZARD OF OZ

smithsonian institute

california laws

intrusion of privacy

A suit can also be brought against conspirators who make a communication that invades or intrudes a plaintiff’s privacy. A conspirator is equally liable for privacy intrusion with a person who actually communicates the matter upon which an action is based[vi].

[i] Porten v. University of San Francisco, 64 Cal. App. 3d 825 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1976).

[ii] McBriety v. Baltimore, 219 Md. 223 (Md. 1959).

[iii] Cowing v. City of Torrance, 60 Cal. App. 3d 757 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1976).

[iv] Milligan v. City of Laguna Beach, 34 Cal. 3d 829 (Cal. 1983).

[v] Snyder v. Evangelical Orthodox Church, 216 Cal. App. 3d 297 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 1989).

[vi] Ferroggiaro v. Bowline, 153 Cal. App. 2d 759 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1957).




Search All of USLegal, Inc.


Ask A Lawyer Online!

An attorney will answer your question - normally within 24 hours.Enter your question here...





Thursday, July 7, 2011



bring your entire family to what will be saving george reeves spirit and thats why you connected to me and thought of me,,to keep a angel alive,,george was an angel for an angel is real for a angel is a messenger to humans to prosper and to love one another and enjoy the true fruits of being human,,,the spirit inside that has been transferreed from the oceans of the earth to the first time man stood upright,,130,000 years ago,,not that long in the world of space for that is where we came from ,,,the meteor that landed that destroyed earth paved the way for man through life brought via the meteor which was intentionally supposed to land here to bring life from space to a new planet,,thus when the meteor landed and killed alll the repitialian chain of command, of which we, from space, wouldnt stand a chance ,,so therefore we came from space in size of what a sperm is,,thus enabling life to hibernate until the seas and volcanic action below the oceans changed the land mass again becoming land which in turn created links..

first man who walked up right,, bear in mind,.,man also was in the ocean as I say

for humans argument to try and identify themselves with some image they have,,,humans have found bones tracing back to 130,000 years ago and even found one back to 2.3 million thus saying to all the scientific community, with people digging and scientisista all over the world trading information trying to figure out where we came from...spending 130,000 years wondering..

the answer is,,,,,


Wednesday, July 6, 2011

wizard of oz copyright ruling

sterling davis act..surfside homes by the sea,hoa, huntington beach, california

Developments: Director and Officer Liability.

Statute text

(a) A volunteer officer or volunteer director of an association, as defined in subdivision (a) of

Section 1351, which manages a common interest development that is exclusively residential, shall

not be personally liable in excess of the coverage of insurance specified in paragraph (4) to any

person who suffers injury, including, but not limited to, bodily injury, emotional distress, wrongful

death, or property damage or loss as a result of the tortious act or omission of the volunteer officer or

volunteer director if all of the following criteria are met:

(1) The act or omission was performed within the scope of the officer’s or director’s association


(2) The act or omission was performed in good faith.

(3) The act or omission was not willful, wanton, or grossly negligent.

(4) The association maintained and had in effect at the time the act or omission occurred and at the

time a claim is made one or more policies of insurance which shall include coverage for (A) general

liability of the association and (B) individual liability of officers and directors of the association for

negligent acts or omissions in that capacity; provided, that both types of coverage are in the following

minimum amount:

(A) At least five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) if the common interest development consists

of 100 or fewer separate interests.

(B) At least one million dollars ($1,000,000) if the common interest development consists of more

than 100 separate interests.

(b) The payment of actual expenses incurred by a director or officer in the execution of the duties of

that position does not affect the director’s or officer’s status as a volunteer within the meaning of this


(c) An officer or director who at the time of the act or omission was a declarant, as defined in

subdivision (g) of Section 1351, or who received either direct or indirect compensation as an employee

from the declarant, or from a financial institution that purchased a separate interest, as defined

in subdivision (l) of Section 1351, at a judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure of a mortgage or deed

of trust on real property, is not a volunteer for the purposes of this section.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the liability of the association for its negligent

act or omission or for any negligent act or omission of an officer or director of the association.

(e) This section shall only apply to a volunteer officer or director who is a tenant of a separate

interest in the common interest development or is an owner of no more than two separate interests in

the common interest development.

(f) (1) For purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the scope of the officer’s or director’s

association duties shall include, but shall not be limited to, both of the following decisions:

(A) Whether to conduct an investigation of the common interest development for latent deficiencies

prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.

(B) Whether to commence a civil action against the builder for defects in design or construction.

(2) It is the intent of the Legislature that this section clarify the scope of association duties to which

the protections against personal liability in this section apply. It is not the intent of the Legislature

that these clarifications be construed to expand, or limit, the fiduciary duties owed by the directors or



(1988 ch. 1188, 1992 ch. 866, 1996 ch. 185)

Section 1365.9. Tort Actions Arising Out of Ownership Interest in Common

Area of Common Interest Development Brought Against Association

- Insurance Requirements.

Statute text

(a) It is the intent of the Legislature to offer civil liability protection to owners of the separate

interests in a common interest development that have common areas owned in tenancy-in-common if

the association carries a certain level of prescribed insurance that covers a cause of action in tort.

(b) Any cause of action in tort against any owner of a separate interest arising solely by reason of an

ownership interest as a tenant in common in the common area of a common interest development

shall be brought only against the association and not against the individual owners of the separate

interests, as defined in subdivision (l) of Section 1351, if both of the insurance requirements in

paragraphs (1) and (2) are met:

(1) The association maintained and has in effect for this cause of action, one or more policies of

insurance which include coverage for general liability of the association.

(2) The coverage described in paragraph (1) is in the following minimum amounts:

(A) At least two million dollars ($2,000,000) if the common interest development consists of 100 or

fewer separate interests.

(B) At least three million dollars ($3,000,000) if the common interest development consists of more

than 100 separate interests.


(1994 ch. 833, 1995 ch. 199)

Section 1366. Levy of Assessments - Purposes - Delinquency.

Statute text

(a) Except as provided in this section, the association shall levy regular and special



Tuesday, July 5, 2011


An Article


Mother Goose Tales of How Your HOA Could Get Stuck With Big Bills!

March 20, 2004

By Grande. Ganzo (View author info)

Laguna Niguel, California -

Here is a grim fairy tale for board members and homeowners to consider. The following is a scenario, one that is expensive for the homeowners, an inconvenience to the membership, and exterminates animals, all unnecessarily. This story only serves to line the pocket of the association's management company and the vendors with whom they do business. A tale that you could not imagine, actually did happen, one that seems so preposterous as to be inconceivable. That, unfortunately, is how this system really operates!


A homeowners association has a community swimming pool located at a park facility. The homeowners' assessments pay for its maintenance. The management company supplies the various vendors and contractors who service the community.

One day in the fall of the year, mallard ducks are spotted paddling around the community pool. Some mallards lay eggs, and no more then a half dozen ducks decide to make this community pool their temporary home. One must remember mallard ducks are migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the state of California. The Treaty states that taking or disposing of these migratory birds is against federal and state regulations.

Regardless, once the pool maintenance contractor observes ducks, he notifies the management company (who we were told shares 70% of his accounts), and immediately padlocks the pool facility. Having possession of the only key, the pool contractor is effectively denying use of this common area to the members.

The membership is locked out of their pool facility which also houses community amenities such as the park's bathroom facilities, etc. Simultaneously, the pool maintenance contractor immediately halts cleaning the pool, which he was hired to clean. With everyone locked out of the pool area, the ducks are left to flourish without intrusion, and suddenly what was a handful of mallards leave a mess worthy of an immense flock of ducks. The ducks, left to their own devices, produce feces covering the pool decking, inside the pool, and eroding the plaster. This goes on for weeks.

Suddenly, by creating a duck-friendly environment, and discontinuing cleaning services, the board is presented with a community emergency! THEY MUST DO SOMETHING about those darn ducks that are creating an unhealthy environment at our pool, so they are told!

'Who you gonna call? DUCK BUSTERS!' To the rescue comes the association's management-friendly pest management company. Here are the 'heroes', they have a license with the state (the only one in existence) to exterminate ducks, since the ducks are damaging property. They make their pitch to the board and the community.

For a substantial fee they will provide a permit (which they already have, and cost them $25) to bait the mallards. Once caught, they will charge the association over one thousand dollars. This endeavor carries a hefty price tag!

Keep in mind - while this emergency is being created - the association's management company continues to pay the pool maintenance vendor his monthly fee, even though he has abandoned and locked the pool (this locked pool facility creates an attractive nuisance to the association, a true liability).

For the next several months pest management employees place tainted duck bait around the pool area in efforts to catch these temporary guests. In doing so, they are placing poisons where children once played. The poisons leech into the water, polluting the pool. All this creates an environment unsafe for the community and the resident's beloved pets.

Finally, after diligent efforts, the pest management company is successful. On a late morning in mid March the drugged ducks stagger and fall in front of homeowners and their children. The pest control employees put the drugged ducks in their truck, telling several versions of the ducks' fate. Regardless of their stories of relocating the ducks, the ducks are exterminated.

Concerned homeowners are labeled "PETA fanatics" by the management company. The management warns the pest control company to be aware of these fanatical homeowners who could give them problems (there are no known PETA fanatics in the community). Regardless, the damage has been done.

On an inspection of the community pool facility, the county health agency declares that the pool is filthy and the plaster needs replacement. Another big bill for the association! Not to mention the fact the pool needed intense cleaning after months of neglect. More money on top of the neglect the homeowners financed.

By the time one adds the charges of maintenance not performed, removal of the ducks, and plastering the pool, the association is hit with considerable charges, hitting the budget with charges that were utilized to solve a contrived emergency and a self-serving industry. If everyone had done their job professionally from the start, there would have been no need for these charges or the extermination of protected water fowl.

This illustrates how a management company and their vendors can work in concert to create a money generating proposition, taking association funds for this collaborative effort.

Who loses? Everyone, especially the ducks. Who benefits? No one except management, the pool contractor, and the pest management company!

Does this sound familiar or resemble a practice you have observed within your association? Next time you observe a community condition, consider the possibility of vendors and management working in concert to create billable situations, eroding your assets erroneously.


View Comments (11)
Post a comment

Search AHRC

Login required

Make selection ---------- AHRC and affiliates - News - Communications - Courts - Government - Resources - Business - Forums


Advanced Search

Article Images

"Hello Grande Ganzo! What a lovely pool ...thanks for letting us drop in " said Mallard

" Love the sunny brach and ocean vu here too", said Ducky.

Related Articles


The Tale of Two Hats - Peter Amherst

Mrs. Swindle loses House over $205 Delinquent Assessments - AHRC News Services

Orange County Pair Might lose home for $120 in Missing Dues - Ronald Campbell

The American Home- A Thing of the Past - AHRC News Services


Board OKs two budgets; surplus due - Laura Vozzella


Violence begets violence - AHRC News Services

Homeowners, beware the associations - Alisa Ross

Home • News • Government • Business • Forums • Communications • Courts • Resources

American Homeowners Resource Center (AHRC)

PO Box 97 • San Juan Capistrano • California • 92693


© 1990-2010 • AHRC News Services

Disclaimer: AHRC is an interactive information WEBSITE. The information contained here is that of the users. It is not the opinion of AHRC. AHRC does not WARRANT the accuracy, reliability or timeliness of any information and shall not be liable for any losses caused by such reliance on the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of such information. See guidelines for publishing

Powered by AHRCwebsites



By John McLaughlin, Ad hoc Pool Committee member

By now most of you know that we have had a serious problem with female Mallard ducks swimming and “camping out” at our pools. Their droppings have upset us to the degree that we closed the East Pool (for three days) and have called on Galaxy Pool Cleaners to make extra trips here.

They have cleaned and shocked the pool with chlorine several times, and the cost of maintaining the pools is quickly rising.

We have taken several steps to alleviate the problem, to a small degree of success. First, we have strung monofilament (fishing line) near the bottom of the fences surrounding the pools. We also have strung “noodles” of differing colors across the pools to dissuade the ducks from swimming there. Then we bought an alligator head to float in the pool (alligators prey on ducks), and eventually bought two large blowup toy alligators to float in the pools. Finally, we took PVC pipe and strung monofilament from the pool house to the other ends of the East Pool.

This morning, after more than a week of problems with the ducks, the pools were clear of duck droppings. Did they go away? No. Did we stop them from doing their mischief at the pools? Probably not.

For the next (short) while, I believe we should continue to string the noodles and floating alligators in the pool every late afternoon. Hopefully, their presence will cause the ducks to alter their living patterns enough to keep them away from the pools.

Unfortunately, the cause of this problem appears to have been someone feeding the ducks at the pool, a clear violation of Longwater Chase Association pool rules, and possibly a violation of state statute. Many people are unaware that their feeding Florida birds causes harm to the birds (they become dependent, and when not rewarded with food as usual, will cause damage to lanai screens). Feeding ducks on Association property is clearly against the rules, and we have seen what the consequences are… financial and life-style of our residents. I am including a piece found on the Interenet:

If you have mallard ducks landing in your pool are the duck droppings harmful?

Droppings and Health

We have the same problem this year so I've been researching this, also. According to the Massachusetts Audubon Society site, the droppings are not a health hazard if you maintain an adequate level of chemicals (by which I assume they mean chlorine or the non-chlorine products like Baquacil). This is the only reference I've found so far.

You should not trust Baquacil to fully sanitize and protect you from the duck poop if using it for pool water sanitation. Only chlorine can provide this protection. But be sure to remove the poop from the pool and shock often with a residual from 5-10 ppm.

According to the local Massachusetts health department, the pool or jacuzzi should be drained and cleaned with bleach.

Duck droppings are not harmful, but should be removed. Chlorine is the most effective sanitizer, but be sure you check the water balance prior to super shocking your pool. I would not recommend draining the entire swimming pool each time you have droppings. You could try using a Solar Cover when the swimming pool is not in use and not only would it keep ducks out, but help retain the sun's heat in your pool.



From: TheWizard

Subject: health endagnerment to entire project and guests

To:, "david rainer"

Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011, 2:34 PM

Board of Directors

By allowing homeowners to use the south pool the fourth of july weekend without cleaning the pool from duck feces and urine over the past six months, the Board of Directors is hereby in violation of health codes regarding safety for human life in public pools.

The Board created the pool problem by allowing two chicks and their parents to use the pool freely while locking out 330 homeowners, who own the pool and pay dues for the upkeep of the pool.

If man can go to mars,,he can remove ttwo chicks and parents over a wall into their natural habitat.

Howver, the board consisting of lay people who dont go by rules but their own emotions, decided to protect the chicks since they are called "protected" by law.

Therefore, in this boards rationale,,nobody can use what is theirs if a bird poops on their car or head for that matter..

As absurd as these owners have acted under the umbrella of their own mistaken ideas,,those who live by the sword,, die the said jesus.

Once the health department closes the pool, which will be shortly, the board will have to show what precautions they took for the homeowners to make sure the pool was safe for humans.

place in board packet

i have documentation, as you know. check youtube

also, why doesnt my fob work, i have asked over and over and got no response..



narrativeSee also: Kiss of Judas

The Capture of Christ by Fra Angelico, c. 1440, depicting Judas and Peter, cutting the ear of the Malchus, the servant of Caiaphas.According to the Canonical Gospels, after the Last Supper, Jesus and his disciples travel to Gethsemane, a garden located at the edge of the Kidron Valley, thought by scholars to probably have been an olive grove. Once there he is described as leaving the group so that he can pray privately.[1][2]

The synoptics state that Jesus asked God that his burden be taken from him, and requesting not to need to undergo the events that he was due to, though giving the final choice to God. Luke states that an angel appeared and strengthened Jesus, who then returned to his disciples. The synoptics state that the three disciples that were with Jesus had fallen asleep, and that Jesus criticized them for failing to stay awake even for an hour, suggesting that they pray so that they can avoid temptation.[2]

At this point Judas appears on the scene, accompanied by a crowd that includes the Jewish priests and elders and people with weapons. When the band of men enters the garden in search of Jesus, he steps forth and asks them, "Whom seek ye?". They answer that they were indeed seeking Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus replied and spoke, "I am He", at which point all members of the arrest party fall back and on the ground.[2][3]

At this point Judas gives Jesus a kiss, as a pre-arranged sign to those that had accompanied Judas as to who Jesus was.[2][3] Having been identified, the crowd arrests Jesus, although one of Jesus' disciples tries to stop them by using a sword to cut off the ear of one of the men in the crowd.[2][3] The Gospel of John specifies that it had been Simon Peter who had cut off the ear of Malchus, a servant of Caiaphas, the high priest.[2][3] Luke adds that Jesus healed the wound. John, Matthew, and Luke state that Jesus criticized the violent act, insisting that they do not resist Jesus' arrest. In Matthew, Jesus makes the well known statement: all who live by the sword, shall die by the sword.[2][3]

Monday, July 4, 2011


Every person who commits an assault with a deadly weapon

or instrument, other than a firearm, or by any means likely to

produce great bodily injury upon the person of a school employee, and

who knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a school

employee engaged in the performance of his or her duties, when that

school employee is engaged in the performance of his or her duties,

shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three,

four, or five years, or in a county jail not exceeding one year.

(b) Every person who commits an assault with a firearm upon the

person of a school employee, and who knows or reasonably should know

that the victim is a school employee engaged in the performance of

his or her duties, when the school employee is engaged in the

performance of his or her duties, shall be punished by imprisonment

in the state prison for four, six, or eight years, or in a county

jail for not less than six months and not exceeding one year.

(c) Every person who commits an assault upon the person of a

school employee with a stun gun or taser, and who knows or reasonably

should know that the person is a school employee engaged in the

performance of his or her duties, when the school employee is engaged

in the performance of his or her duties, shall be punished by

imprisonment in a county jail for a term not exceeding one year or by

imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

This subdivision shall not be construed to preclude or in any way

limit the applicability of Section 245 in any criminal prosecution.

(d) As used in the section, "school employee" means any person

employed as a permanent or probationary certificated or classified

employee of a school district on a part-time or full-time basis,

including a substitute teacher. "School employee," as used in this

section, also includes a student teacher, or a school board member.

"School," as used in this section, has the same meaning as that term

is defined in Section 626.

breaking and entering

Sunday, July 3, 2011










1925 DAYS TIMES 24 HOURS.....46, 200

46, 200 HOURS TIMES 60 MINUTES=   166,320,00 MINUTES

166, 320, 00 TIMES 60 SECONDS=

99,792,000  moments

how old is maN

Friday, July 1, 2011

suing the government

            It has been said that a right without a remedy is no right at all.  It is important that citizens have a proper way of enforcing their constitutional rights against the government in the courts.  Constitutional rights may be asserted both offensively and defensively.  The most common defensive use of constitutional rights is by criminal defendants. Persons may also assert constitutional rights offensively, bringing a civil suit against the government or government officials for a variety of relief: declarative, injunctive and monetary.

            One example may be used to show the various ways that the same right may be asserted.  Let us assume that the state of Maine has a law making it illegal to carry certain symbols of hate (i.e., a swastika) in a parade on a public street.  Such a law would be a violation of the First Amendment.  The Ku Klux Klan announces that they will display swastikas in a march in Portland, Maine the following week. The mayor announces that if they do, they will be arrested.  The Klan goes ahead and holds the march and some members are arrested.  When making the arrests, the police use excessive force (a violation of the Fourth Amendment), and several of the marchers are injured.

A.  Declarative and Injunctive Relief

            The first question is whether the Ku Klux Klan could have done anything before the march to prevent their arrests.  The answer is yes.  They could have brought suit to have the state law declared unconstitutional and also to have the city authorities enjoined (prohibited by court order) from enforcing the statute against them.  Persons may bring suits to have a law declared unconstitutional (declaratory judgement suit) if they can establish standing, by showing there is an actual dispute. 

Persons may not merely choose a law they think is unconstitutional and sue to have it declared unconstitutional.  They must first establish that it is likely that they will violate the law and also likely that they will be prosecuted for it.  The Ku Klux Klan could make the necessary showing in this case.

Plaintiffs, if they believe it necessary, may also go further and ask for an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing the law, if it has been declared unconstitutional.  In order to obtain an injunction they must show that they will suffer irreparable harm.  This means that they will suffer some harm that cannot be completely remedied by money damages afterwards.  Loss of their rights of free speech could be considered irreparable, and they should be able to obtain an injunction in this case.  If the injunction is issued and city officials try to enforce the law, they may be found guilty of contempt of court, which may result in fines or a jail sentence. 

Such a declaratory or injunctive lawsuit could be brought in either federal or state court.  Most often, however, it would be brought in federal court, with the hope that a federal judge, who was appointed by the President, rather than by the state’s governor or elected by the public, would be more willing to declare a state law unconstitutional.

B.  Defending Criminal Charges

Now let’s assume that they did not bring suit beforehand (which they are not required to do) and instead held the march and were arrested.  They may bring their constitutional challenge defensively at their criminal trial. The state judge presiding over the case would be obligated to hear the constitutional claim, and if it were found valid, to dismiss the criminal charges.

Taking this route is riskier than asking for an injunction because, if the statute is found to be constitutional, the defendant may be held criminally liable and subject to prison or fines.  Also, in the criminal case, the defendant’s constitutional claim will be heard, at least in the first instance, by a state, rather than federal judge.  A state judge, who might have to run for re-election, might be less likely to hold a state statute unconstitutional and rule in favor of such an unpopular defendant.

C.  Suing for Damages

If  members of the Ku Klux Klan were arrested or prevented from marching because of the unconstitutional statute, they could also bring a suit for damages against the city.  They would do so under a statute passed originally to protect African Americans after the Civil War, 28 U.S.C.§ 1983 (commonly referred to as Section 1983).  This statute allows a person whose constitutional rights have been violated to sue the responsible public official or governmental body for money damages.  In this case, the Klan members could receive money damages from the city, since the arrests were made by authority of the mayor and thus constituted city policy.  One problem for the plaintiffs in this case is that the amount of damages might not be very great.  Although the right of free speech may be very important, it does not have an intrinsic monetary value.  They would have to show some additional, more concrete harm as a result of the arrests.

If, during the arrests, the police used excessive force that caused them physical injury, they might be able to sue the police officers individually for violation of their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure.  They would, of course, prefer to sue the city itself, because it would probably be able to pay a larger damage award than the individual police officers.  A city, however, will not normally be responsible for the constitutional violations of its employees, unless they were acting in accordance with government policies.  In this case, if the police officers were acting in violation of city policy when they used too much force, then the city could not be held liable.

There are several additional impediments to recovering damages from certain defendants for constitutional violations.  Although damages may be recovered against a city for enforcing an unconstitutional law or policy, the same is not true for state governments.  States are protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity from having to pay damages in most cases.  They may only be sued for injunctive relief to prohibit constitutional violations, not afterwards for any damages caused.

There are also problems recovering damages from individual government officials.  All government officials receive some form of immunity from damages.  A few officials, most notably judges, legislators and prosecutors, are completely immune from damages, no matter how bad their behavior.  For example, a prosecutor who knowingly presents false testimony that wrongly convicts an innocent defendant may not be sued for damages.  This protection is given to them so they can exercise their best judgment without fear of lawsuits.  In some cases, however, this leaves injured citizens with no legal recourse.  These officials may be subjected to criminal prosecution in cases of truly illegal conduct, but this happens quite rarely and does not help the injured persons.

Most other government officials and employees are given only partial, or qualified immunity.  This means that they may be held liable for damages for violating someone’s constitutional rights, but not in all cases.  The injured party must show that the right that was violated was “clearly established” by the courts before the official took the action.  This rule is imposed because it would not be fair to hold government employees personally liable for their actions unless they could know, in advance, that the actions were unconstitutional.  In our case, since the right not to be subjected to unreasonable force during an arrest has been established by the courts in the past, damages could be awarded against the individual officers.

D.  Class Actions

The examples used so far have all involved a small group of persons suing to enforce their constitutional rights.  Most lawsuits are brought on behalf of one or several persons and the results affect only those few people.  There are times, however, when unconstitutional government actions affect large numbers of persons.  For example, if a state is running an overcrowded, unsafe prison system, this may violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”  The rights of thousands of prisoners may be affected.

In such a case, a small number of prisoners may bring suit against the government on behalf of the larger class of all “similarly situated” persons.  Such lawsuits are known as class actions.  Any relief obtained will be granted to all members of the class, not just the few who brought the suit.  Class action lawsuits are difficult and expensive to bring, but are often the best way to make large, institutional changes.  Lawsuits to integrate southern schools, to force police departments to hire women and minorities, and to close down antiquated mental hospitals are just a few examples of some important class action lawsuits.

E.  Attorneys’ Fees

It is sometimes very difficult for persons to find attorneys willing to bring suits to enforce constitutional rights.  In the United States, attorneys are paid by the party who hired them, either by the hour, or with a percentage of any money recovered.  This may not be sufficient to attract attorneys to take civil rights cases.  Consider the example of the suit to reform an unconstitutional prison system.  The prisoners will not have the money to pay their attorneys by the hour, nor will there be any money awarded to share with their attorneys even if they are successful with their case.  Yet this will be a long, difficult, expensive, and unpopular case for any attorney to take on.  While there may be a small group of attorneys who have dedicated their lives to helping minorities, the poor, prisoners, and others needing legal representation, there are not nearly enough.  In many other countries, the losing party in a lawsuit may be ordered to pay the winning party’s attorneys’ fees.  This is not the normal rule in America, however.  In a typical lawsuit, each party must pay its own attorney, win or lose.

To help with this problem, Congress passed the Attorneys’ Fees Awards Act.  Under this Act, courts normally award attorneys’ fees, to be paid by the defendant, when plaintiffs bring a successful suit against the government for violating their constitutional rights.  The purpose of the Attorneys’ Fees Award Act is to allow deserving plaintiffs to attract competent lawyers to represent them in constitutional litigation.  It has been successful in doing so, but has been criticized for encouraging frivolous litigation.  This probably is not true, since the attorney will only recover the fees if the lawsuit is, in the end, successful.

smoking magic


being served a search warrant

what to do when police show up

donald duck


§ 102-74.390 What is the policy concerning disturbances?

All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from loitering, exhibiting disorderly conduct or exhibiting other conduct on property that—

(a) Creates loud or unusual noise or a nuisance;

(b) Unreasonably obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers, lobbies, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, or parking lots;

(c) Otherwise impedes or disrupts the performance of official duties by Government employees; or

(d) Prevents the general public from obtaining the administrative services provided on the property in a timely manner.