US Supreme Court Rules Government Officers Liable
How many times have we heard that you can not sue a government official? We hear it all the time but is it true, of course not. Law applies to everyone.
One of the legal fantasies promoted by governments and officials is the idea of ‘sovereign immunity’… where they are not liable for their corrupt and illegal actions.
Unfortunately this lie of ‘sovereign immunity’ is also repeated unknowingly by people who have a real case against government officials and therefore do not pursue very valid claims.
A RECENT US SUPREME COURT DECISION CLARIFIED AND CONFIRMED THAT THE GOVERNMENT AND THEIR AGENTS CAN BE HELD LIABLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR WRONGDOING CARRIED OUT BY OFFICIALS IN ITS EMPLOYMENT WHILE ON THE JOB.
This should be a a no brainer but in the land of legal fictions and unaccountable government officials being protected by legal process…someone FINALLY took the issue to the US Supreme Court for a common sense confirmation which lower level courts are now bound by.
This is a fundamental principle of law that nobody is above the law including all government actors. The government immunity clause only applies to government actors when they are performing their actions of their office defined by their office in good faith.
ANY ACTIONS THAT THEY TAKE NOT DEFINED BY THEIR OFFICE OR ILLEGAL BY THEIR NATURE ARE CONSIDERED HAVE BEEN DONE OUTSIDE OF THEIR OFFICE THEREFORE DONE IN THEIR PRIVATE CAPACITY AND THEREFORE THEY ARE FULLY LIABLE IN THEIR PRIVATE CAPACITY WITHOUT ANY PROTECTIONS OF THEIR OFFICE.
So in effect the government is also liable for having employed them, their supervisors are liable for improper training and oversight and the actions carried out while they were employee and the individual is liable personally also.
In this particular case the complaint and Millbrook had been denied hearings for his claims that the lower courts and submitted a hand written, in pencil, complaint to the Supreme Court of the United States. Less than 1% of Supreme Court applications are heard by the court. I’m certain that this particular case was heard because it addresses a fundamental aspect of law and the only point of protection for a private person from the abuses of any government actor.
If you take the time to read the articles about the case you’ll find the disgusting actions of government lawyers and lower courts protecting the corrupt and abusive actions of government actors creating a series of faulty case law decisions that perpetuate the idea that violence and criminal actions by government actors is protected.
Millbrook filed a handwritten petition, in pencil no less, to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in a rare show of magnanimity, the Court agreed to hear his case and assigned a lawyer to represent him. Curiously enough, after the Court announced it could hear the case, the U.S. Justice Department—which had defended the government’s actions at every level of the judicial proceedings, including asking the Supreme Court not to take the case—did an about-face and switched its position to argue that the FTCA does apply to prison guards as law-enforcement officials.
Sadly much “case law” is biased garbage designed to allow corruption to continue as most people do not have the time, stamina or money to challenge bad decisions to higher and higher courts where the real law might be heard and decided.
This case ultimately should be a watershed decision to open the doors for all manner of complaints against abusive and corrupt actions by government actors, the legal profession and officials as it now clearly confirmed by the Supreme Court that they do not have protection for their illegal and unlawful actions.
MILLBROOK v. UNITED STATES ( )
477 Fed. Appx. 4, reversed and remanded.
- MillsvUSA-Articles - PDFs of below articles .zip 2.2 meg
- https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/millbrook_v_us_holding_the_government_accountable_for_misconduct_by_la
- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-10362
- http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019258111_apussupremecourtneedalawyer.html
- http://theweek.com/article/index/241977/how-one-prisoners-handwritten-petition-won-him-a-supreme-court-case
No comments:
Post a Comment