-Caveat Lector- Listers: I have been researching different court decisions through a great URL on the Net called Findlaw -- actually most of the U.S. body of law and decisions (which define the laws in greater depth) are available on the Net now. This particular decision may be of interest to mind control victims who want to attempt litigation in a federal court against the FBI -- or even other govt agencies. I put a sample brief, which could be used by victims (H. Girard's brief from a year ago) on the Net a while back -- but the Bivens decision is pretty well known. I am not sure what decisions may have preceeded this decision -- and may be more important, but victims should know of this bit of pre-Watergate law. Now FBI agents are not often "seen" breaking and entering homes with out sufficient cause or action, they find OTHER ways to assault victims, and Bivens may be one of the reasons. See below -- Judith _____________________________________________ BIVENS ACTION BIVENS ACTIONS Damages remedies for constitutional violations committed by federal agents were not available until 1971. Althouth the Supreme Court had long held that federal courts had the power to grant relief not expressly authorized by statute as well as the power to adjust remedies to grant relief made necessary by the particular circumstances of the case at hand, it was not until the Court's decision in Bivens v. 6 unknown named agents of the FBI 403US388, 91SCT1999, 29LE2d 619(1971) that a violation of a specific constitutional amendment by a federal agent was recognized as giving rise to a cause of action for money damages. In Bivens, the plaintiff alleged that federal agents had arrested him and searched his home without a warrant or probable cause in violation of the 4th amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court upheld the sufficiency of the complaint in the face of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and rejected the argument that a state tort action provided an adequate and exclusive judicial remedy. Even though there was no specific authority for such a civil action in the Constitution, the Bil of Rights, or any federal statute, the Court recognized a judicial remedy on the basis of the historic power of the federal courts to redress personal injury through the particular remedial mechanism of money damages. These judicially created causes of action, known as BIVENS ACTIONS , provided merely remedies, not substantive rights. Despite the absence of any federal statutory or constitutional basis for such a cause of action, the historic use of damages by federal courts as an ordinary remedy for the invasion of personal liberty interests led the Court to conclude that a plaintiff should be allowed to redress a violation of the plaintiff's 4th amendment rights by the federal agents with a monetary award. Since the very essence of civil liberty consists of the right to protection of the laws of the federal government, the Court reasoned that the issue is not whether the availability of money damages is necessary to enforce the 4th amendment. Nor is it enough to rely on state law as aprotection because the interests of state laws regulating trespass and the invasion of privacy and the interests protected by; the Forth Amendment may be incosistent or even hostile to one another. Rather, the Court's concern was the lack of real relief for constitutional violations. Compounding this concern was the Court's perception that a federal agent acting unconstitutionally in the name of the U.S. possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual exercising no more authority than his or her own. A damages remedy for plaintiffs injured by federal officials and agents thus became a means to vindicate A plaintiff may establish an actionable Bivens claim based on conspiracy by showing: (1) the existence of an express or implied agreement among the defendants to deprive him of const. rights, and (2) an actual deprivation of those Constitutional rights resulting from the agreement. BIVENS v. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 403 U.S. 388 >From FindLaw DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
