Rule of Law Radio Archive Search Engine

Let me tell you about 18 U.S. Code 242. 18 U.S. Code 242 is part of the Ku Klux Klan Act passed in 1871. Most people are familiar with 42 U.S. Code 1983. That's also part of the Ku Klux Klan Act.

But that's the second part. 18242? Yeah, 18242. 42 U.S. Code 1983 is the one that makes a public official subject to civil suit if he violates the law relating to his office or fails to perform a duty he's required to perform and in the process denies a citizen full and free access to her enjoyment of right.

Yeah, I got that one, 42, 1983, 1985, 1987.

Well, generally, there's a 1983 constitutional violation, more often than not, a Fourth Amendment

an action invoking federal civil rights, which is what the 42 U.S.C. 1983 is, you're saying

The second half of the Ku Klux Klan Act is 42 U.S. Code 1983.

Most people have heard of 18 U.S. Code, I mean 42 U.S. Code 1983

42 U.S. Code 1983. But instead, he must bring such a claim in a habeas corpus petition.

18 U.S. Code 1983 is the civil side.

I filed that they have violated the 42 U.S.C., 1983.

Now, most people, when they hear the Ku Klux Klan Act, they think of 42 U.S. Code 1983, which allows you to sue a public official.

If you sue in federal court under section 1983, that is blowing them out of the water. Thomas

damages under 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of its employees. Yes, because that's outside of

And that's a problem a lot of people have when they file 1983 suits,

I mean, these foreign counsel, these people understand that, you know, this is federal lawsuit. This is 42-1983.

It's insane. But it's true. Anyway, Randy, real quick, what should I expect from these tort claims? Anything at all? Are you going to wait until I file a 42-1983 or what?

pleading, such as let's say a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C., 1983 or any case if

He sued them in the federal court, and all of a sudden, after they received a copy of my 52-page federal lawsuits, 42 years ago, 1983, against civil rights violations, the prosecuting attorney dismissed the case because the municipal officers were enforcing a state law that had not been codified into student law.

between 1976 and 1983, in which more than 30,000 people disappeared.

And it was pursuant to Title 42, Section 1983 and 88,

Also sending notices under Title 42, Section 1983, 86, and Title 18 and so forth.

And I'm going to sue them under 28 U.S.C., 1343 A, 1, 2, 3, and 4, and 42 U.S.C., 1983 and 1985.

We found the federal lawsuit, Title 42, 1983.

Well, it's a lot easier to file under 42 U.S. Code 1983 than it is to collect under it.

And 42 U.S. Code 1983 is pretty specific. Is this related to a mortgage issue or something else?

Right. It's simply that the only reason it's called 42 U.S. Code 1983 is because that's the one that

of my way, and you get the litigation guide and look up to U.S. Code 1983, and it'll tell you

Otherwise, 42 S. Court 1983 is just your normal lawsuit, except you're naming public officials.

So I can do a 42, 1983 or 85, whatever it is?

is there a 1983 lawsuit there for discovery violations?

That's a 1983 violation.

This goes directly to 42 U.S. Code 1983.

I mean, can somebody initiate a 1983 before your case has been adjudicated

Yeah, 1983, you can do that any time if your rights have been violated.

then you could go back after 1983, but I mean...

Section 1983, action in defense and whatever the state laws are regarding official oppression, abuse of official capacity, aggravated assault, the whole nine yards there in Missouri.

Go after him under 42 U.S. Code 1983.

Well, I had someone want me to talk about 1983 suit

and how suing someone under 1983 was different than suing them personally and individually.

because 1983 makes a public official suable personally for certain constitutional violations,

which is actually the last time that happened, I believe, was in 1983.

The civil aspect of the Ku Klux Klan Act has been codified into 42 U.S. Code 1983.

That's right. You can take them into a venue, a 1983

Constitutional would get you into the federal court under a 42 years code 1983 suit, but

process in 1983.

The second part was codified into 42 U.S. Code 1983, which rendered the public official

with these numbers is as follows. 18 USC section 242 and 1983. Okay. And 42 USC section 408,

Yes, actually 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, and 42 U.S.C. 1983 are both part of the Ku Klux Klan Act.

All right. What about, like, what about, can I cite, like, 1983 court case kind of stuff

offense does not apply because. Okay. And then if I'm bringing in like a 1983 suit

into this, but it's not a 1983 suit, if I'm going to cite that...

You do not bring any mention of a 1983 suit into something going on in state court. Got that?

All right. Is that something for appeal, or I mean, should I have done a 1983 suit?

1983 is a separate suit. In order to go 1983, you've got to show where the state actors

If you can't do that, you don't have a 1983 suit.

What if I can do that? Then you have reasons to make a 1983 suit,

violation, Title 18, Section 241, 242. Title 42, Section 1983 allows the claim on the commercial

The most people who look into law think that the Ku Klux Klan Act is 42 U.S. Code 1983,

That the 1983 statute says every person who violates a right,

There's 18 U.S. Code 242 and there's 42 U.S. Code 1983

You can't touch him with a 1983 suit or anything else

And then 42 U.S. Code 1983 and 18 U.S. Code 242 will go to the remedies for the failure

figure since 1983.

So when all this is done, they're all going to get a 1983 suit, and Judge Ovart's going

I guess I'm at that stage, along with a 1983 action, 42 USC, 1983 civil rights deprivation.

in the states and the federal courts under 1983 and 242 actions under Title 18.

Now, but that's the... Could I make that a 1983 in under the law federal court?

there was a jurisdiction challenge for the court, what are my chances for a 1983 suit

Do process, do process to get you a 1983, the fact that the judge refused to hear your

motions, that'll get you a 1983.

Also one thing you need to remember about a 1983 suit, 42 U.S. Code 1983 is the codification

So you need to do that as well, if you do the 1983, do the 18 U.S. Code 242 suit to get

to sue them in the federal court under 18 42 U.S. Code 1983. Those two statutes are the

Section 1983 and 242.

Yeah, 18242 and 421983, yeah.

That's 421983.

I used a figure of one in 5,000 in 1983,

Why did you not file this in Federal Court under 242 and 1983?

I'm filing my notice of removal of my civil falls imprisonment case to federal court and amending to put some 1983 stuff in there.

under Title 42, Section 1983, civil rights action for deprivation of rights. There's

he sued under Title 42, Section 1983. However, I don't know exactly the statute, but he sued

Well, and I've been warned they were that way here too but actually I went down and started looking through the files of court cases for some 1983 actions and I mean it looked promising a little bit.

a federal right, a constitutional right. That's the only way, I'm sorry, 42 U.S. Code 1983

under 42 U.S. Code 1983. But if they have violated any other federal statute, you can

42 USC-1983 or 18 USC-242.

again it's a violation of rights issue this is a 242 in a 1983 and 1986 action

what you're referring to is title 42 section 1983 and title 18 section 242

42 years code 1983 gives you the option of suing the public officials for the

Rico and you sue them under the 1983 and the 242 also in federal court right you

Also Title 42, Section 1983, Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights. And you could even go Title 18, Section 242, Deprivation of Rights under color of law. We'll be discussing some more of the legal remedies later this hour at this point in time.

Now you filed under Title 42, Section 1983 last time.

You know, we've got all these statues, like you're saying in section 1983, so that he can take this into federal court because one of the downfalls of this, even though he won the criminal case against him, unfortunately this Illinois law is still in the books.

We're suing under section 1983 of Title 42 and section 241 and 242 of Title 18.

You can do a 1983 action against these individuals for attempting to update the state constitution in a manner that directly violates the federal constitution.

Okay, well, I'm probably going to follow a judicial kind of complaint maybe against this gentleman and maybe a 1983 action too.

Well, you may have to challenge the statute through the 1983 action to get it removed because if the statute itself allows the magistrate to act as both the prosecutor and the judge, then that is a legislatively defined denial of the right to due process.

That's true. You can do a 1983 suit.

Title 28 suit, 242 and 243. That's some of the statutes that we're suing under in my lawsuit. We're doing 1983. We're doing, which is Title 28, Section 1983, and we're doing Title 18, Section 242 and 243.

Okay, wait, just FYI, the case law says there are no civil claims under Title 18. Title 18 is entirely criminal. It can be cited only as the basis for the instigation of a Title 42 1983 suit.

that that gives you your civil tort, which you can then sue under Title 42, Section 1983,

It sounds like it's a tool sort of like 18 U.S. Code 240, like the Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 U.S. Code 1983 that authorizes you to file suit against the public official.

The 18 U.S. Code 242 and 42 U.S. Code 1983 goes to either acting as a public official or acting under the color of a public official in pretense.

Most people are familiar with 82 us code 19. I'm sorry 14 42 us code 1983

was unlawful under a lawyer versus Florida in 1983, the fruit of the poisonous chew doctrine

There's a whole slew of things that they're criminally done, all of which give us a cause of action at the federal level under Title 42, 1983.

Now there's a Title 42, 1983 suit waiting to be filed right there.

Title 42, 1983 suit, civil procedure suit here in Texas.

a section 1983 suit under Title 42, deprivation,

If you sue him in the federal court for a federal violation under 42 U.S. Code 1983,

And here's something I wanted to get your take on under, like, say, a 42-1983 suit in federal court.

I would sue him under Title 42, Section 1983, United States Code, in federal court, till I owned their boat and their house and their car.

because of 42 U.S. Code 1983.

So you've got a Title 18 under the Title 42, 1983 lawsuit.

But you're going to have to sue these guys in federal court under Title 42-1983 actions.

I'm actually suing the officer under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

In order for you to see how that, because I want to file under federal court under Title 42, section 1983,

Yes, effectively this is a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The other thing we discovered recently is that the whole troop that Defendant G. Foster is a part of was involved in a scheme wherein each police officer had incentives to initiate more stops and issue more citations.

and the vehicle that I chose was 42 USC 1983.

I mean, and 42 USC 1983 basically has to do with the deprivation of rights or liberties under color of law or statute or custom.

I'm talking about Glick. It was probably a Section 1983 case, civil rights violations.

We have to sue the entity under 1983 for civil rights violations.

Most of us are familiar with the Ku Klux Klan Act because of the 42 U.S. Code 1983 that allows you to file it to sue an officer or a public official

Can't I file a 1983 in conjunction with this?

18 U.S. Code 242, everybody's familiar with 42 U.S. Code 1983, but if a public official has given me a cause of action under 42 U.S. Code 1983,

You could do a Section 1983 suit as well

As far as federal court claims cases or the federal section 42-1983 civil rights violation cases, do you know what the statute of limitations is on those two?

deprivation of my rights under the Title 42-1983 lawsuit.

It reflects the first half of the Ku Klux Klan Act. Most people, when they hear of the Ku Klux Klan Act, they think of 42 U.S. Code 1983.

And if you even dare tell me that I cannot talk to my public officials and servants, I will sue you in federal court under 42 U.S.C. 1983

So the only issue was back in 1983. So the officer at the time was like 18 or 19. And now he is in the 1940s.

Most people, when they hear the Ku Klux Klan Act, they think of 42 U.S. Code 1983, which allows you to sue a public official if they exert a report to exert an authority they do not expressly have.

But, you know, like, 1983 statute for suits, false imprisonment, stuff like that.

Glick then brought this suit under 42 U.S. Code 1983, claiming that his arrest for filming the officers constituted a violation of his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments.

It's a Title 42, Section 1983 federal lawsuit.

A Title 42, Section 1983, deprivation of rights, sued.

And then I can technically go after him under 1983, but I'm not ready for that yet.

Mostly, you hear about the Ku Klux Klan Act under 18 U.S. Code... I mean, 42 U.S. Code 1983.

I'm sorry, 1983, since 1983. So we're talking almost 30 years, okay, 30 years.

Since 1983, over 1,300, between 1,300 and 1,400 people have died from lightning strikes.

Well, Randy, what about Title 42, Section 1983 suit over malicious prosecution?

1983.

And if he doesn't, it goes to you were speaking to Brady and Brady Action is filed under 42 U.S. Code 1983.

The second part was codified into 42 U.S. Code 1983.

Code, I mean 42 U.S. Code 1983. Under Brady you can sue them under 42 U.S. Code 1983. That's

I was wondering for a Title 42, 1983 civil rights lawsuit, do you know what the statute of limitations is on that by any chance?

And the judge listened to that, he listened, I quoted how in 1983 the California legislature

under 42-year code 1983, which makes a public official subject to civil litigation if they

But the part they forgot about was that 42-year code 1983 is the codification of the second

or 42 USC 1983 in New Mexico. But what we do have is the governmental conduct act,

the public officials, say the 42 U.S. Code 1983. The Ku Klux Klan Act was codified into 42 U.S. Code

1983, but that was the second half. The first half of the Ku Klux Klan Act is not what made

Well, 42 U.S. Code 1983. That's later. First, stay away from the civil until you finish the criminal.

It's called a federal lawsuit, violation of rights under color of law, Title 42, Section 1983.

Title 42, section 1983, federal lawsuit.

and all from starting back in 1983 when the Texas Property Code was revised

Gosh you know where that came from? I spent some time this week reading section 1983 title 42

officials, 42 US Code 1983. That is the second half of the Ku Klux Klan Act. The first part

1983, showing that you have a right to sue a judge or a other public official when they

and I talked to Eddie the other night, and he said to file a 1983 federal lawsuit against them, but I forgot to ask him how to determine the amount on the suit.

Well, if you're going to file a 1983 suit, you might consider a private attorney general suit.

It was a Title 42, 1983 case and he brought it for violating the 14th amendment. I heard

Okay, look. Now wait, you filed a 42-year-old 1983 suit in the state?

you know, the 1983 and the abuse of process that stood already.

I got him under 42 U.S.D. 1983 and abuse of process.

Would you go for a Tort Claims Act or would you go for a 1983 suit?

And in the process to deny the citizen full free access to enjoy mental right, that's a crime. You can also sue them for it. 42 U.S. Code 1983. But first off, it's a crime. So you get them to commit a crime.

has been codified into 42 U.S. Code 1983, which gave you the right to sue a public official if they

there have been violations of civil rights, that is a federal lawsuit, okay, section 1983

Ku Klux Klan Act was passed. You've probably heard of 42 U.S. Code 1983. That's the portion

cause of action out of it. You can claim a violation under 1983, but that has to do with

that they're not making proof that they are. But my question was, on my 1983 shoot against

wound up dismissed after the fact. Right. Now, would that still fall under 1983

against anyone. Okay, can I do that in a 1983 suit?

Going after them, I'm putting together a 1983 suit against the two deputies

Siding were violated by the 1983.

42 U.S. Code 1983 which allows you to sue a public official if they harm you if

And if you sue in a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit, that's the only thing you sue under,

42 U.S. Code 1983 is the second part of the Ku Klux Klan Act.

Okay, now, you're probably familiar with 42 U.S. Code 1983.

The Ku Klux Klan Act was codified into statute as 18 U.S. Code 242 and 42 U.S. Code 1983.

The 1983 is the one that authorizes that allows a citizen to sue a public official for official

42 U.S. Code 1983. 42 U.S. Code 1983 is for suing against public officials.

That part that makes a public official subject to civil litigation, 42 U.S. Code 1983.

Second half of the Ku Klux Klan Act was codified into 42 U.S. Code 1983.

That's 42 U.S. Code 1983.

The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 was codified into 42 U.S. Code 1983.

1983, the Ku Klux Klan Act, that makes it a crime for a public official to fail to perform

42 U.S. Code 1983.

42 U.S. Code 1983, the civil side.

And not sue you for under 42 years code 1983

codified into 42 U.S. Code 1983, and that's the one that says you can sue a public official

And when risk management denies, now you're set up for a 42 USC 1983 action against the state

You're set up perfectly for a federal action under 42 USC 1983

And when risk management denies the claim, now you have a tort action to file into federal court under the civil rights statutes 1983

Since it's a constitutional requirement, what about a 42-year code 1983 suit against the state?

It's not a federally constituted, so we may not be able to go 42 years code 1983 because that's specifically federal.

Steve, can you do a federal 1983 suit for deprivation of a state right?

And the Ku Klux Klan Act has been codified into law as 18 U.S. Code 242 and forty three U.S. Code forty two U.S. Code 1983.

Most of us are familiar with forty two U.S. Code 1983. That's the one that gives you the power to sue a public official.

Regarding the use of a social security number, you've got Title 18, Section 242 and 1983

42 USC Section 1983 further provides that a violator shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress

42 U.S.C. 1983. Given those facts it is hard to conceive of anything more constitutionally protected. The court may take judicial notice of facts from Hawks v. Butte County Ninth Circuit number 93-15346

Well, in 1983, they got rid of the indictment requirement, except for murder cases, which

Yeah. 1983, yeah.

Most people are familiar with 42 U.S. Code 1983, which allows you to sue a public official

of Gordon Call in Arkansas on June the 3rd of 1983 and of course they had tried to get

1983.

on Friday night, June the 3rd, 1983 in a moment, but the point I was about to make before the

messed up. Yeah, it's both. Got you. Okay, so. It used to be that way apparently in 1983

little fun with this? Let's say you're doing like a 42-1983 deprivation of

42-year-scope 1983 suit. Ah, okay. I'm not familiar with that one.

work with 42, 1983, 1881, 85, 86, you know? So anyhow, I just thought I'd touch on

Well, I was just wondering if the section 1983 or malicious, you know.

And then you turn around and do a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit on them.

And look at 42 U.S. Code 1983, see what you have to establish.

And I'm looking at a 1983 civil rights case.

Essentially, count one was 42 USC 1983.

So is there a provision in Connecticut similar to 42 U.S. Code 1983, where you could take

because in 1983, the voters went to the polls

klan act 1871 most everybody's heard of the second part of the kooklux klan act 42 u.s code 1983

that's the one says you can sue a public official 1983 45 and six

1983 that's the portion of the code that authorizes you to sue this individual

I got 42 U.S.C. 1983 and it says in there that injunctive relief shall not be granted

It's been codified into Code is 82 U.S. Code 1983 on the civil side.

But now the question is, you know, under U.S. 242 and 1983, which I know you're familiar

of evidence is a 1983 violation or not.

of civil evidence is a 1983 violation yet.

That withholding of civil evidence does or doesn't go to 1983?

Well, doesn't 1983 only go to public officials?

the United States Code, Title 42, section 19837.

That's section 19837.

That's 1983, question mark.

42 U.S. Code, 1983.

1983 when a panel waived statutory laws

Now will this hurt my 1983 USC lawsuit later on?

mean, 42 U.S. Code 1983 where you're able to sue public officials.

Obstruction of justice is a 42 USC 1983 volley.

then coming back to force the U.S. court in 1983.

Well, we're not actually going to 1983.

the order up or somebody typed it up and the judge hand wrote 1983 violation on it.

Whoa, that's, that's not a 1983 violation, that's an 18 U.S. Code 242 violation which

would invoke 1983.

1983.

And if the judge mentioned 42 U.S. Code 1983, he tacitly claimed a violation of 18 U.S.

Do you do a 1983 suit?

That's under 42 USC 1983.

Okay, but that goes to a 1983 suit.

Title 18, section 242, 1983, how about those?

42 U.S. Code 1983 is the civil side.

And the third question is when I read the title 1983 Supreme Court decisions

Okay, so do I need to file a claim in a state court first before I try to file a 1983 against these people?

You can't file a 1983 in a state court and anything you do they will attempt to get removed to the Fed anyway

Most of us are familiar with the Ku Klux Klan Act under 42 U.S. Code 1983.

42 U.S. Code 1983 makes a public official subject to suit

Right, because I'm involved in a federal case, 1983, deprivation of rights, and going through discovery and I'm at a loss.

Would I want to go Title 42, 1983, or just civil court?

Oops, I'm reading, I'm thinking that sounds like 42 S Code 1983, and that's exactly what that is.

And so, my first question is if I've got a Title 42, 1983 suit that I could possibly

Find some 42 U.S. Code 1983 suits. The things for which you can file this particular suit are somewhat restricted.

They'll have a fill-in-the-blanks lawsuit, a federal lawsuit, if not one specifically for a 1983 suit.

If you're filing in a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit, it should be even easier.

Now, do I want a 1983?

Suing under 1983 doesn't have these state restrictions.

That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national year of the Bible

Okay, well, I was looking over some of my work. I'm getting ready to do a 1983 on the

Yeah, well, I'm going to wrap all this up into 1983. I'm going to hit them with Rico

But I'm going to wrap this up into a little 1983 and, you know, figure out what all this is supposed to be worth.

In Mississippi, I'm looking at a Title 42, 1983.

and 42 USC 1983, and other parts.

In addition to something like a 42 U.S. Code 1983...

Yeah, what they will say if you do a 1983 suit is that he has absolute immunity.

So generally I would say here it would probably be better to take them to a Title 42, a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit.

Now this is a whole, you can't tie this one to the other 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit.

So now I am trying to sue them in a Title 42, 1983.

And I have several 1983 suits.

Okay. Well, I've got two 1983 cases actually filed in the court.

and then you're going to want to write your 1983 claim,

Or you could use, you start in with Title 42 in 1983,

And that makes them liable to you under 42 U.S. Code 1983.

So you file a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit.

Well, I'm doing a Title 42, 1983 complaint and I'm trying to get this thing typed up.

Okay, I want to do it in federal court, and is that going to be in 1983?

And, yes, it would be a 1983 suit.

Yes, he's going to file a 42 U.S. Code 1983 in the federal court.

And so that's why I wanted to know if I could sue him in a 1983 or can I list him in 1986 as neglect, the court neglected to step in and help me.

Yes, but 1983 says that judges have qualified immunity, so I've been told that I'm not suing.

But also, it denies you in due process in that it denies you in the equal protection of the laws, and that'll get you into 42 U.S. Code 1983.

So you name him in a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit, that's really going to sting him.

You might look at 42 U.S. Code 1983.

I'm doing a Title 42, 1983 against these guys.

I filed my Title 42, 1983 against the university for throwing me out because of the gun charge.

I did a Title 42, 1983. I've called a couple of times.

I'm still doing my Title 42, 1983.

Well, this set of statutes was originally enacted under the 1983 Senate Bill 604, 1983 Wisconsin Act 243,

Title 42, 1983 or 84 or anywhere up there, depending upon what your claims are.

So when I go for this 1983 lawsuit, all the things that I could get them for is to go and meet that one lawsuit.

Article 1, Section 3, Equal Protection Clause, Nelson v. Crewson, 678 Southwest, second, 918, Texas, 1984. Haynes v. City of Abilene, 659 Southwest, second, 638, Texas, 1983.

Hayjek v. Mill, Malbray Motors, Inc., 647 Southwest, second, 253, Texas, 1983.

One of the parties that I'm suing in my Title 42 1983 suit has answered my complaint and

It looks like the heck doctrine goes to a 1983 suit.

in 42 U.S. Code 1983.

The United States Supreme Court has described the purpose of 1983 as interposing the federal

Particular problem situation may arise, however, when a 1983 plaintiff has a criminal conviction

He subsequently files 1983 action against the officer who arrested him, claiming his

If the plaintiff were to succeed on his 1983 claim, he would have to demonstrate that his

results regarding the same set of operative facts if such a collaterally attacking 1983

in finding collaterally attacking 1983 claims noncognizable is magnified when the plaintiff

1983 claim brought by a non-habeas eligible plaintiff is cognizable.

Okay, well, I filed a Title 42, 1983 suit.

And then you're going to need to know how to file a Title 42, 1983 lawsuit for deprivation of rights under color of law.

We're talking about 1983 suit.

Title 42, 1983.

Code 1983 suit.

Well, in, let's see, Title 42, 1983, intentional tort is not one year.

I'm just talking about Title 42, 1983 in that if you're suing the officials...

I'm mixing up RICO with 1983.

1983 is a federal court claim, and the state has nothing to say about that.

But I would tell Charles in Georgia to go Google Title 42, 1983, and notice and torque, use those different words.

I'm sure he knows how to do some word searches using the quotation marks for Title 42, 1983, et cetera, things like that.

You're talking about a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit. That's federal.

The whole point of a 1983 suit is about suing the state for acting improperly.

Are you thinking of a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit?

But back to this idea of suing under 42 U.S. Code 1983 or a private attorney general suit,

It's like the 1983 suit that I found where I could fit her in and other people.

It's a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit.

That's what the 42 U.S. Code 1983 is, is a procedural due process.

Oliver, a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit is always a procedural or substantive due process suit.

Well, if you're filing a 42-year code 1983 suit, you can't bring that in the state.

Or if you make the claim under 42 U.S. Code 1983, that would necessarily be federal.

But all of the causes of action that are in a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit

according to Code 1983, civil rights violations of... and then you jump to another line.

Eighteen forty two U.S. Code 1983 almost exclusively goes to procedural due process.

Eighteen forty two U.S. Code 1983.

Forty two U.S.C. 1983.

Almost all of the forty two U.S. Code 1983 suits are procedural due process.

I believe I want to stay away from the 1983 because that only has to do with civil rights.

1983 is almost exclusively procedural due process.

Because in the Fed, the 42 U.S. Code 1983 is procedural due process, and the Constitution

Now, I pulled up a case recently where the plaintiff invoked under his, in his 1983 supplemental

Those are the three and the 42 U.S. 1983 suit.

So you could make the same claim in a 1983 suit,

Title 42, 1983.

Okay, well I submitted a Title 42, 1983 case in Mississippi and the judge dismissed it

I got lucky and found an explanation of Title 42, 1983 by some attorneys

For those who don't know, 18 U.S. Code 242 and 42 U.S. Code 1983, both of those are the

have, and also made them personally liable by lawsuit, 42 U.S. Code 1983.

outrageous conduct, inter-respective condemnation, and civil rights violations under 1983.

in Pennsylvania to defend your 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit against them.

It is my Title 42, 1983 case.

under 1983.

I can sue a college or officials of a college under 1983.

That would probably be easier than filing say the 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit, although one

18 U.S. Code 242. I'm sorry. 42 U.S. Code 1983. Ku Klux Klan Act.

So you can charge them under 18 U.S. Code 242 criminally, then you can sue them under 42 U.S. Code 1983 civilly.

Yeah, the 42 U.S. Code 1983.

federal complaint in 1983 against police officers but one of them did die so she

persons for 1983 and you totally agreed however my question is is if we take

42, 1983 trial in the Western District of Arkansas.

I think I have a good Title 42, 1983 lawsuit that I think is pretty solid.

I'm doing a Title 42, 1983.

The defendant is not subjected to 1983 because he did not act under the color of law.

I think I have a good Title 42, 1983 lawsuit that I think is pretty solid.

I'm doing a Title 42, 1983, and so I'm giving my heads up on what may be coming his way

1983, which allows you to sue a public official.

Number one, just for the listeners to go back with my case, I've filed two 1983 cases against

these guys or a 1983 suit, now you can show where you've walked the code on them.

And 18 U.S. Code 242 is the Ku Klux Klan Act, so is 42 U.S. Code 1983.

For those who don't know, 42 U.S. Code 1983, that's the statute that allows you to sue a public official.

No, but I think I've seen something like that in 1983.

Well, I thank you. And just one last question. When you was talking to Olivia, you mentioned something about 83 suits. I know I didn't catch the last of that. Okay. 42 U.S. Code 1983.

It says that he committed a theft, but it doesn't say how he can be federally sued under 1983 for it.

42 U.S. Code 1983.

1983, how about the 242 and 241?

The civil side of the Ku Klux Klan Act is 42 U.S. Code 1983.

So I need to sue him underneath 1983.

because I don't think I wrote up 1983.

Okay, the complaint is not 1983.

When you file a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit, you don't have to call it a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit.

And the courts will say, oh, that's a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit.

If you file a suit that makes a claim against a public official that falls within 42 U.S. Code 1983, it's a valid complaint.

that's a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit.

Then I found the error and I went back and corrected it because I do remember seeing it in 1981, 1982, and 1983.

The police officers were sued on 42 U.S. Code 1983, and they claimed that the right to film

I'll have to go back and re-research 1983 suits,

but I believe you should be suing the legal entity for a not under 1983,

A 1983 suit is intended to be directed at individual human beings for their personal bad behavior.

Yeah, well, if it needs to be a 1983 suit,

it will be a 1983 suit whether you say it's a 1983 suit or not.

But if you say that you're making your claim under 1983,

and 1983 is directed at individuals and not at legal entities, then they may want to strike it.

No matter how you sue 1983, however you sue a public official,

1983 goes to procedural due process.

But 1983 goes to procedural due process violated by a specific human being.

1983 was worthless until the, was it the Brady?

And they were sued under 1983.

1983 hadn't been used.

1983 allows you to sue them for that crime.

But on the heels of that, 1983 was opened up.

and he's telling me that I probably should just file in 1983.

Otherwise, your 1983 suit's going to get thrown right back in your face.

So would I bring it up in the 1983 as lack of jurisdiction?

That's what a 1983 is.

And he was served bright and early on a Tuesday morning with a 42-USD 1983 lawsuit for conversion

there Olivier has at least one 42 years code 1983 suit he may have more I

For those that don't know what the FTCA is, it's Title 42, 1983, Federal Rights Violation

But if you do the 1983 suit

You can do the 1983 in the form of a private attorney general suit

but the she said this is an accurate form for a 1983 suit you have to go file this in federal court

did your judge just tell him to go file a 1983 suit for the public

and a 1983 suit is a really big deal for these guys right rico's even bigger

a 1983 student she's like she's like this is perfect language like you got him i'm included in here

Yes, it was part of the 1983 section.

under Title 42, 1983 because they're private actors.

There's a case here that says to be a state act or subject to liability under 1983 defendant

And we wrote the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction as a clear and direct threat that we intend to file a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit or perhaps a RICO suit.

I mean, 42 U.S. Code 1983, the right to sue a public official.

Okay, my second question is I put in Title 42, 1983.

The second question was I filed a Title 42-1983 case.

See, the problem, the problem's yes, and you can use all of those as judicial determinations that the trial court essentially did what you accused them of in a Title 42-1983 case.

So this is a fundamental problem about due process, and it opens up their litigation under, obviously, Title 42, 1983, but there's a fine in the ointment there because there's apparently in the local federal courts

done a federal lawsuit, a Title 42 type, 1983.

Would that be a 1983 suit?

No, just a, this is a, they don't, you don't need 1983. You sue them in their personal capacities.

Title 18 is a penal code. This gave them a remedy, a Department of Justice remedy that is analogous to 18 U.S. Code, I mean 42 U.S. Code 1983, where you have the authority to sue these guys.

42 US Code 1983 suit. Or in RICO verbiage, Predicate Acts Toward an Ongoing Criminal

42 US code 1983.

42 USD was in 1983 or something.

Actually, Bivens led to the reinvigoration of 1983.

42 U.S. Code 1983 is part of the Ku Klux Klan Act passed in 1871.

The second part was 42 U.S. Code 1983.

it's violations of state laws and the Constitution or rights. I mean, is it a 42 U.S. Code 1983

blah, blah. Go for the 42 U.S.C. 1984. 3. 83. Okay. Yeah, but filing a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit

Absolutely. So we just go back with the 1983 suit. Hang on, be right back.

federal court with a 1983 or with a declaratory judgment suit.

What I have is Title 42 in federal court, Title 42, 1983. In federal court, I was arrested

Most people know about 42 U.S. Code 1983.

other, right? Well, the closest one I found was someone was stopped in 1983 for

only one I know that was in 1983. Okay. Because the officer didn't have probable

but, you know, he was kind of questioning what you're doing with the, with the 42 and the 1983.

They're actually involved. This department alone is involved in four Title 42-1983 cases

I sued two years ago, in which the officer did violate my rights and is in violation of the United States Code Title 42, 1983.

Most everybody knows about 42 U.S. Code 1983. 42 U.S. Code 1983 authorizes you to sue a public official.

is a questionnaire that will build you a 42 is code 1983 suit.

And then on to a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit against them for denial of due process.

He's been convicted, but he's filing a 1983 suit against the state to keep them from prosecuting the statute and further prosecution against them and his wife for, because of deprivation of their federal right.

So if I sue him in a Title 42, 1983, what kind of defense could they come back with,

It was in 1983 that was stating that... Well, what I just mentioned, that there is no expectation of privacy in the public of the license plate that thrust itself to the public eye.

And that was in 1983. And that was the only case law that they had cited. It was on the Supreme Court case law.

For the most part, it's referenced under 42 US Code 1983.

42 U.S. Code 1983 is the criminal side.

but that essentially tells them that you're preparing a 1983 suit.

me, they said, I think that's Title 42, 42 U.S. Code 1983. 83. But they said, are you

If you can't find it, then we can always fall back to 42 U.S. Code 1983.

So charge him in the Fed with 42 U.S. Code 1983.

and it's a class action 1983 case, so that's going to have all the format you need for 1983 case.

It was codified into the code under 18 U.S. Code 242 and 42 U.S. Code 1983.

42 U.S. Code 1983 is the civil side.

and typing up a Title 42-1983 complaint against this judge. And what had happened is I won

of background. The 18 U.S. Code 24, 18 U.S. Code, my brain got fumbled. 42 U.S. Code 1983

U.S. Code 242 and 42 U.S. Code 1983. They're part of the same public law that was filed

You might look at a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit.

I'm sorry, not 42 U.S. Code 1983.

Most people have heard of the right to sue public officials, that's 42 U.S. Code, 1983.

And when they don't do, oh, 18 U.S. Code 242, 42 U.S. Code 1983, that is a statute under

laws into statute in 42 U.S. Code 1983.

under 42S Code 1983.

Code 1983.

42 U.S. Code 1983 is the second half of the Ku Klux Klan Act, and it allows you to sue

a public official when he commits an act against you and defined by 42 U.S. Code 1983.

Well, I'm suing them under 1983.

the courts and would not be subject to a 1983 suit.

The other is available through the US, sorry, the other is available through 42 US Code 1983

on appeal or otherwise declared invalid before his 1983 claim can proceed.

Federal judges hearing 1983 claims must determine whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff

Courts have used the heck rule to dismiss a substantial number of 1983 cases brought

of yet, you know, and I'm at a point where I'm going to probably, I do a 1983 civil

and file that as 4-2 U.S. Code 1983 suit

4-2 U.S. Code, yeah, 1983.

And under 4-2 U.S. Code 1983, you can sue him for that act.

Two years ago, 1983 suit and ask for a stay of all action in this case or ask them to ask for a stay against the plaintiff from moving against your property until these federal due process claims are adjudicated.

Okay, this has to do with the 1983 suit that I filed against the sheriff's deputy for a Fourth Amendment violation and falsehood.

I've got a 1983 lawsuit. I filed a 1983 lawsuit. This is back in 2016.

One of them is 42 U.S. Code 1983, you've probably heard of that.

you know, I was researching doing a 1983 suit and the... What were you reading that allegedly

What the fed would allow you to file of that 1983 suit?

Well, that's the thing. If you're filing a 1983 suit, you're limited to what the fed's going to

do because the fed is where a 1983 suit goes. But this is the fed that's saying they go by

Oh, in a 1983 suit.

So you filed a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit. Have you also

officials of 42 U.S. Code 1983.

The second part of the Ku Klux Klan Act is 42 U.S. code 1983.

And for those who don't know a 1983 suit, that section allows you to file to sue a public

Most everybody knows about 42 U.S. code 1983.

And that would go to 80 US code to 42 US code 1983.

You may have enough if you do a 1983 suit against these guys.

in 1983 suit once he set all the officials up for shielding this officer and getting

So I'm looking at USC of California 42, 1983.

I mean, 1983, 1984, and all depends on what you're trying to make a claim as to what they did or didn't do.

Read 1983 and 84 and see which one is more applicable, if not both.

So I was one put in a 1983 lawsuit.

It's because some of it is just overdone. All right. As a preliminary matter, the Constitution 1983

act of violation of state law alone is not cognizable in a Section 1983 claim.

You were Senator in 1983 for giving us asset forfeiture.

back in 1983.

think of it in terms of 42 U.S. Code 1983

The second half of the Ku Klux Client Act was codified into 18 U.S. Code 1983.

And the Ku Klux Klan Act has been codified into law under 42 U.S. Code 1983, but that's the second half.

It seems like there would be a clear cause of action for a Title 42 Section 1983 suit.

But when I filed on the Title 42, 1983 suit, a couple of my claims were dismissed

of the Ku Klux Klan Act, the second part, has been codified into 42 U.S. Code 1983. And

under 42 U.S. Code 1983.

There's a RICO suit and a 1983 suit

Yeah, I've been noticing that doing research that a lot of these highbrow attorneys, they'll give these seminars and such on, you know, even the 42 USC 1983 and stuff.

about 42 US code 1983. That says that you can sue a public official. Well, that is the second half

Second half is 42 U.S. Code 1983 lets you sue public officials.

Yeah, well, that's what I'm trying to figure out, too. I've been reading up on 1983 suits and...

I'm sorry. 42 US code 1983. That makes it gives you the right to sue them. Most people

don't realize that the first part of the Ku Klux Klan Act. 42 US code 1983 is the second

the Ku Klux Klan Act includes 42 U.S. Code 1983.

the term driver's license did not appear in Texas law until 1983.

When it was originally added in 1983, this is how it was defined by Texas law.

United States versus Manti, 1992. When interpreting statutory language, the court must first look to the plain meaning of the language, citing North Dakota versus United States, 1983.

The civil side of the Ku Klux Klan Act is codified into 42 U.S. Code 1983. That's where you can sue public officials in the federal court.

But most anything you can use 42 U.S. Code 1983 on, you can charge them criminally under 18 U.S. Code 241 through 46. There's several different things in there.

The civil side of the Ku Klux Klan Act is codified into 42 U.S. Code 1983. That's where you can sue public officials in the federal court.

But most anything you can use 42 U.S. Code 1983 on, you can charge them criminally under 18 U.S. Code 241 through 46.

42 U.S. Code 1983. And it goes on addressing this primarily, this one goes to 42 U.S. Code 1983, but a violation that would be actionable under 42 U.S. Code 1983 would almost necessarily be criminally actionable under

18 U.S. Code 242 makes it a crime, 42 U.S. Code 1983 allows you to sue them for that crime.

So this is a dissertation or a treat, treat us on how to sue a public official into 42 U.S. Code 1983.

I think this would be a 1983 due process violation, and you, the case would be, you would challenge,

Okay, 42 U.S. Code 1983,

42 U.S. Code 1983

42 U.S. Code 1983

1983. It gives you the right to sue a public official for the violation of a

most people are familiar with 42 us code 1983 that's the statue that allows a citizen to sue

that reflects 18 us code 242 so first it's a crime second 42 us code 1983 says if they

violate 18 us code 242 under 42 us code 1983 through advances in technology our lives have

And Josh, I'd like to do a mock court on a federal suit, 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit against

We look at a 42 U.S. code 1983 suit.

What do I need to write this guy a 1983 suit?

And 99% of all the information in any 42 U.S. code 1983 suit is going to be the same.

the system spits you out, a 42 U.S. code 1983 suit completed to your facts and your circumstances.

If you've been listening to the show very long, you know what statute that goes to 1983.

That's the second half 1983 is the second half of the Ku Klux Klan Act 42 US code 1983.

And in the case of a violent criminal violation of one of these statutes, 42 US code 1983 is the second half.

against me for which I have authority to sue you under 42 US code 1983. And my property,

And then you can file a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit or, which is a lot easier, just file

under 42 us code 1983

Constitutional tort is defined and a 42 U.S. Code 1983, that statute was written to address

out the causes of action for a claim under 18 U.S. code, I'm sorry, 42 U.S. code 1983,

the ku klux klan act we all are familiar for the most part with 42 us code 1983 that's the one that

The second half was codified into 42 U.S. code 1983.

So he said that the petitioner would have a claim while the petitioner filed a petition for declaratory judgment, petitioner would have a claim under 42 U.S. Code 1983

However, in a claim under 42 U.S. Code 1983, his pleading was insufficient. He failed to state a claim on which recovery can be had because he had exceeded the statute of limitations and he dismissed the case as fearless

Wait a minute Bubba. Ouch. He didn't file under 42 U.S. Code 1983. Even if he had, the statute of limitations is not a bar to prosecution. It is an affirmative defense and in the rule

It's been codified into law as 42 U.S. Code 1983.

And most people are familiar with 42 U.S. Code 1983.

Do I have to insert 1983, the portion of the food court plan,

But Randy, I think he's talking about whether or not he should include the full text of US Code 1983 as his claim for relief.

US Code 1983.

42 US Code 1983.

is responsible for enforcing the challenge statute, and his 1983 complaint cannot succeed

So, when I put in my lawsuit, I put a Title 42, UST 6 and 1983 Civil Rights Act into Deprivation

right now, and it is racketeering. It's the 42 U.S. Code 1983 and RICO, kind of rolling those

your mind? Well, you mentioned that you were working on a 1983 action. Is that 42 U.S. 1983?

of the day. For a while it was difficult to be able to do some of these 1983 suits, right? But

that they violate Code 42 US Code 1983 but I did make a mistake in that one it was better to say

42 US Code 1983 suit you got a response in the form of a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss for failure

42 US Code 1983 is a specific statute that authorizes you to sue government officials.

Code 1983 suit that's just a federal lawsuit. If you file a 42 US Code 1983 suit that only goes to

your 1983 suit does that make sense but there may be another way of doing this Leslie I've been

establishment? Let me put it in front of you. So it is mainly 42 years code, 1983,

of rights, 42 years code 2008, 42 years code 1983, harassment, post imprisonment and later

I filed a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit against the police

1983 specifically, that's the one everybody uses, allows you to sue public officials if they deny you a due process.

No, no, corporations are private entities and you wouldn't need 42 U.S. Code 1983,

And we file a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit in the Fed.

On my federal case, I have both ADA and 1983 for a 14th Amendment and I think what's going to happen is the 1983, since we were convicted and were under appeal, I don't think the federal court can address the 1983s.

Yes, but it depends on what the 1988-1983 claim is.

A prisoner had filed 1983 damages for how he was arrested and the U.S. Supreme Court said that as long as there's a 1983, it's not simply usable as long as there is a proceeding in a state court.

Yeah, I'll not assure you. I guess I'm just, I'm still trying to figure out the argument that I can do in 1983, if it still stands, because there's six circuits, which is what we're in.

So what I'm hearing you saying or kind of driving towards would be a Federal 42-1983?

What would the cause of action be for 1983?

I think I can do it, but the original 1983 had no statute of limitations, and then the

the one they're using for the 1983 claim.

Have you heard of the statute of limitations on 1983 claims outside of personal injury?

OK, did you have any any tips on what I should do for the statute of limitations on the 1983

Before 1983, a tow company has been ruled by a Supreme Court

However, in 1983, they passed this act in Illinois that makes it automatic.

And so I just, in my mind, they were co-conspirators in a Title 42, 1983, deprivation of rights under color law

For the 1983 suit, those are just for the government officials, right?

The only time you can name a private individual in a 1983 suit is if they have acted under the color or pretense of an official capacity.

If a sheriff deputizes a citizen and that citizen does something improper, you can include them in a 1983 suit.

1983 is a special provision that allows you specifically to sue public officials or anyone acting under the color of any official capacity.

But if someone didn't have an official capacity and they acted like they did, you can sue them in either their individual, you can sue them either in standard civil court or under 1983.

But 1983 wouldn't be necessary in that case because you can sue them anyway if they're not a public official and they're not acting under the direction and control of a public official.

Yeah, I don't think you're going – you don't need 1983 for this.

No, wait a minute. Come on, come on, come on. You can do this all night. If he is a public official, you have to use 1983. If he is not a public official, you can't use 1983. You don't need it.

So for the 1983, I did put the city instead of the police department, in your opinion, is that the way to go?

So also the other parties entering the 1983 would be the DA's office.

You can sue them under 42 U.S. Code 1983.

Well, I want to put the criminal complaints for sure. I've already filed a 1983 case, but I want to get the criminal complaints out because I've run into a wall. Nobody would take my complaint.

It's not her fault. I mean, it's her fault that I have to stick going in 1983 and also on the Superior Court level.

And I just met someone through 1983 who's suing the city as well as the DA.

I have a 1983 suit against the liars, the officials, the police chief, the detective who lied, making a declaration from IRS

So the suit, the 1983 suit, is being screened by the magistrate judge in L.A.

So now what we have is what I think it would be a 42 1983 lawsuit and we're going to jump

complaint filed against me, in which case it would have still ended up as a 1983 action

and then he certainly obviously does not want 1983 claims in here.

1983 allows you to sue a public official.

then it's going to be hard to bring them in under a 1983 claim.

You don't need 1983 to sue them.

1983 is for special circumstances when it's a public official,

But he also put in a subnote that even if I did have a claim under 1983

in terms of 1983 claims

Because the other thing, and my end goal is the 1983 suit, which I'm pretty far from being ready,

But it's not really what my end goal is, which is my 1983 lawsuit for the mask.

The other questions I have that are more broadly about the 1983 suit, and I know you have other callers, so maybe I'll call back a different time to just discuss the suit itself.

So the Title 42, 1983, that is not for my purposes for a store discriminating?

42 years code 1983 is a special statute that allows you to sue public officials.

Since you're not naming a public official, 42 years code 1983 does not apply.

or, you know, suing them for, you know, not necessarily in 1983, but potentially wire fraud

42, US code 1983, that is to get state actors in trouble for violating your federally protected

So, filed a section 1983 suit in federal court in Texas, and of course, my opponent did the motion to dismiss.

and correct me if I'm getting something a little wrong here, but I understood Guy to be saying that he filed a 1983 suit in the Fed in Texas,

Here's what should happen next. If you filed a 1983 suit in the Fed, did you serve the opposing party?

I took her, you know, to the court under Title 141983.

I had a bad back and I'd been studying the molecular structure of the aging phenomena since 1983.

So when in 1983, Dirk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, two of them, PhDs.

As I mentioned, in 1983, Dr. Dirk Pearson and Dr. Sandy Shaw from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,

I need to file a 1983 against some rogue officials here in my county.

Well, my question was, if you knew of someone who would or could do a 1983, like I said, I've never done one.

Well, have you taken a look yet at winning Title 42 USC 1983 suits?

then you might be in a situation to just copy and paste those same facts into your 1983 suit.

Unfortunately, I didn't start that study, I should have started 1983 studying probably much sooner,

We wanted to see if there's anybody that could do a 1983 lawsuit for you.

US code section 1983, which is where you, you point out that crimes were committed by

Code 1983 that we have recently been hearing so much about.

1983 suits are for state actors or local officials who violate the private rights.

Is that like a civil right on 42, 1983?

They are, it's mostly a 1983 suit because I've got state actors that are violating rights

And I have not finished refining the, this is going to be a 1983 suit and he's one of

I take it since 1983.

And then I say, you know, the violations 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 13th, and 14th Amendments, you know, and of course, 42 U.S.D., 1983, 85, 1991

it makes sense, but they didn't file for 1983 or something. What they did was just challenge the

to suspend them on 1983. And then now I track them. That event has already happened. The action has

ball this time. So I went to find out the federal, for 1983, there cannot be no notice requirement

because 1983 is a federal vehicle and it can be used in the state court. And they have state

where the court ruled that there is no, there is no notice requirement for the 1983?

How about the 1983 I was reading that and in the expression of it, it says that you

Okay, so then that would be the Title 42, Section 1983.

And again, that's why I want to get a 1983 out there because I don't want to deal with these states anymore.

You can't get to 1983 unless you go through the steps and get all the violations that get you to a 1983.

you can't appeal. So what I want to do is I want to bump it up to a 1983 RICO claim. So the RICO

But yeah, you want to do a 1983 suit? There's me saying, well, I'm sure I'm glad we got him

Yeah, I do. I've been working on 1983 stuff and I'm not great at it, but I understand enough

out of this and just do a federal 1983 RICO claim and try- Okay, then look at this particular angle.

Okay, Eric, what have you done to set them up for a 1983?

probably need to file a federal case in 1983.

Oh yeah, 1983 and yeah, we're going to sue them all for 1983.

1983.

Would that be a 42-1983?

And 18 U.S. Code 242, a violation under that, gives you access to 42 U.S. Code 1983, which you mentioned.

Well, in 1983, Dr. Dirk Pearson and Dr. Sandy Shaw wrote a book called Life Extension,

and they said, and that was 30 years ago, they said, stay alive, about 40 years ago, in 1983,

Otherwise invalid before a 1983 claim can process.

Fellow judges here in 1983 claim must determine whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff

all prisoners ineligible for habeas corpus with damages under 1983.

trying to get 1983 relief and he...

He was trying to get 1983 release.

He was challenging the conviction in his 1983 suit and the Seventh Circuit was saying that

of having a certain conviction overturned in the state before he could seek this 1983 relief.

And I throw a 1983, wow, complaint against them.

You can't get this there through a 1983 suit.

Or another way to look at that is if he's in the Fed trying to get damages via a 1983

that in the Fed, he has to base that 1983 suit on the reversal or invalidation of that

My plan originally was to bring a 1983-42 USC civil suit against them.

Most everything is under my Section 1983 lawsuit.

You need to specify that right, call it a Title 42, U.S. Code 1983,

However, this Section 1983 is a very cool, special,

And this 1983 suit, yes, it is a civil action, but it is based on the crimes

the pieces that make this into a nice airtight 1983 suit,

and that's the civil one, 1983, that would be a civil action, but it's based on those crimes.

Look at Brady, get the Brady case and look at 42 U.S. Code 1983.

But the three specific questions I have for you guys tonight is one, I want to file a 42-1983 case in the state circuit court because all of these guys that I'm filing against are federal employees.

And if you're filing under 42 U.S. Code 1983, that's fed.

U.S. Code, Section 1983, then you're saying that in your suit you're saying some state actors deprived your federally protected rights.

I took him to the district court with a Title 42 section 1983 civil rights lawsuit

1983 deprivation of rights because, you know, violation of amendment 4, 5, 6, 7, you know,

And then they come back and they say, well, we got absolute immunity from a 1983 suit

Or to do a federal 1983

Well, you'd sue them using OJU U.S. Code 1983, but RICO, there is a RICO statute.

So basically what I'm trying to do is potentially set them up for just kind of like a 1983 lawsuit

But if we do the reset, my question is, is it worth the reset? Because we already have them in 1983.

This is a 1983 civil rights case talking about this guy committed state crimes and deprived

And so if we amend, won't that reset everything? And should we do that? And just go ahead, because we have really good claims, you know, 1983.

So I'm not sure if that's going to fall under 1983 because how are they acting in official

Under 42 US Code 1983. Yeah, just has to be objectively unreasonable.

So I was accusing them of in violation of 18 U.S. Code 1983.

The only claim was the 18 U.S. Code of 1983. So now someone sent me the Young Doctrine holy mackerel.

They didn't exactly argue against the 1983, but they referenced it.

of the laws and the equal protection of the laws in violation of 18 U.S. Code 1983.

In order to sue someone, a public official in the federal court under 42 U.S. Code 1983,

Obviously, I can't adjudicate my case, a $2 million case of deprivation of rights, 1983,

USC 1983, et cetera, et cetera, in a district court because I've already followed it as

to be included among those persons to whom 1983 applies.

Local governing bodies therefore can be sued directly under 1983

In order to be subject to a suit under Section 1983,

for the conduct of their employees under Section 1983,

In other words, the county is subject to liability under 1983,

because Monell held that a local government is not liable under 1983

Moreover, although the touchstone of the 1983 action against the governmental body, a government body,

And apparently, I can't do that. I can't do that in 1983, and they called me on it.

court under 18 US Code 1983 I'm sorry 42 US Code 1983 and under the federal law

I said, a municipality is liable under 42 USC 1983 if the acts that violated amends

1983 claim for a mask issue.

1983 claim for what?

And if you sued them under 42 U.S. Code 1983

The attorney said in order to plead a prima facie case under section 1983.

He says in order to plead a prima facie case under 1983, the plaintiff must meet two essential

So I accused them of violating a federal law, 1842 U.S. Code 1983.

So I threw in my case for the 1983 for getting wrongfully arrested,

It's a 1983 suit, but I did put those in because I alleged the same.

That'll work if you used 18 241, 242 in support of a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit, then you're cooking.

I will caution you though, Alex. I'll caution you that we have seen where courts will throw out the suit, a 1983 suit,

Well, so you've brought this 1983 suit.

We get to sue them under 42 U.S. Code 1983

Really? Even if I allege the deprivation of rights under 1983?

The assault suit that I have already filed, the 1983 claim.

going to get there so okay so i'm trying what i'm doing is my 1983 action or civil suit and i'm

but if i bring in 1983 and you can we can sue her for breach of the ada and that would get

Like 42 U.S. Code 1983.

42 is the section, U.S. Code is the book, 1983 is the page it's on.

42 U.S. Code 1983.

Monetary damages is exactly what 42 years ago in 1983 is for.

or cannot proceed with the 1983 aim by alleging criminal statute.

So this is almost identical to the 1983 suits.

The difference is when you're when you're writing up a 1983 suit, it is specifically about state actors.

So Bivens sets the bar for that to be the same as we have in Title 42, Section 1983, holding state actors accountable.

42 U.S. Code 1983 is the second half of the Ku Klux Klan Act.

That's exactly what 42 U.S. Code 1983 was for.

The thing is also, if you read the language of 42 U.S. Code 1983, it clearly allows judges to be sued in the same scope as all other actors,

Did you go for 1983?

Yeah, if you don't go off into the criminal stuff, you can just stick straight with that 1983,

If I make the 42, 1983

Because I filed in 1983 against judges

And also it was actually mentioned when you follow the 42 USC 1983

out of the statute of 42 USC 1983. And that had the mentioning of common law in it,

of the language of the 1983 statute, it said notwithstanding to ordinance, blah, blah,

leave to amend and this was a suit 1983 against judges and um i am facing a lot of doctrines that

to put in there and then the the actual the um the 42 1983 uh they in their case law and i don't know

um does say that uh the the 42 usc 1983 um does apply uh judicial immunity and and that um criminal

statutes cannot be used to get remedy in a civil 1983 suit so

241, 242, and 1983 and 1985

I think this goes back closer to 1983

I just felt if somebody is acting on behalf of a 1983 violation for a government agency

You might be right, because 1983 is specifically for state actors

Section 1983, civil rights suit.

I think you mean something besides declaratory judgment, like maybe a 1983 suit.

I'm struggling to find the framework of what I want to argue, what I want to say in terms of is it just with any kind of a 1983 suit or civil rights action?

with the Title 42, Section 1983. That's for the state actors. And this Bivens suit is the

Or you can sue him because that's 1983.

it to the fed and you want to turn it into a due process uh like a 1983 suit or something then

And and if you want to take it federal then that's a 1983 suit from the state actors depriving him