Why Shouldn’t the FBI be involved in Monroe County, TN Corruption?

AREN’T CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS A FEDERAL MATTER WHEN A STATE REFUSES TO TAKE ACTION?

by Sharon Rondeau

Benjamin Franklin Butler wrote the 1871 "Klan Act," which became 42 U.S.C. 1983

(Dec. 19, 2010) — A few days ago when this writer called the FBI about the corruption in Monroe County, TN, the duty agent who took the call said, “There’s no need to contact us; these are state issues.  Contact the TBI (Tennessee Bureau of Investigation).”  While his response might not have been typical of other agents, it raises concerns about whether or not the FBI is taking notice of the federal civil rights violations which are taking place daily in Monroe County and other Tennessee counties as well as across the country.

The TBI has been contacted on numerous occasions and has responded that it cannot investigate a judge unless there is approval from the state attorney general. However, the Administrative Office of the Courts has told this writer that the Court of the Judiciary takes complaints against Tennessee judges.  It remains to be seen whether or not they will act on such complaints.

The 1950s and 1960s saw extraordinary upheaval in the United States due to the issue of racial segregation, particularly in the South, which prevented certain people from going to school and designated separate areas for “whites” and “coloreds.”  Segregation and discrimination were ruled unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education, and the modern civil rights era resulted in desegregation of schools and other public places, striking down the policy of “separate but equal.”

The FBI has the authority, as part of the U.S. Department of Justice, to investigate the many cases of reported brutality on the part of sheriff’s deputies, deprivation of medical care, grand juries assembled to produce a particular outcome, and depriving inmates of their mail, all of which are civil rights violations.  When judges are knowingly accepting verdicts from tainted juries, controlling the actions of the grand jury and denying defendants access to an attorney, civil rights violations have been committed. When jailers knowingly place an inmate in the same cell as an inmate whom they know intends to harm the other person, they have violated that person’s civil rights (see example below).

These issues could fall under 42 U.S.C. 1983.  Enacted on April 20, 1871 in response to atrocities that were occurring against blacks in the southern states following the Civil War and Reparations period, “The Act was intended to provide a private remedy for such violations of federal law, and has subsequently been interpreted to create a species of tort liability.”  The statute reads:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

In the 1960 case of Monroe v. Pape, Statute 1979, a subsection of Section 1 of 42 U.S.C. 1983, was invoked against 13 Chicago police officers for civil rights violations against a black family by depriving the father of his due process rights  after he was hauled off to jail and prevented from contacting an attorney.  They also cited a violation of their Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on account of the officers “emptying drawers and ripping mattress covers” in addition to other abuses.

The federal district court maintained that:

The statutory words “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory” do not exclude acts of an official or policeman who can show no authority under state law, custom or usage to do what he did, or even who violated the state constitution and laws. Pp. 172-187. [p168]

The family also claimed a violation of their rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment: “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law defines 42 U.S.C. 1983 as “the primary means of enforcing all constitutional rights.”

If a state is depriving its residents of “life, liberty, or property,” it would appear that invoking 42 U.S.C. 1983 could be the next avenue of redress for victims.  If the county sheriff is a criminal and there is no oversight from the U.S. representative from the district, the two U.S. senators, the state legislature or the governor, the federal code could provide redress.

Under an amendment to the statute made in 1979, the municipality employing the aberrant police officers might not be liable, but the individuals committing the civil rights violations would be.

Cornell University Law School states:

One of the purposes of this legislation was to afford a federal right in federal courts because, by reason of prejudice, passion, neglect, intolerance, or otherwise, state laws might not be enforced and the claims of citizens to the enjoyment of rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment might be denied by state agencies.

Attorney Ian D. Forsythe explains that under 42 U.S.C. 1983, “a state officer can be sued in his official capacity for prospective or injunctive relief[7] despite the fact that an [sic] suit against a government official in his official capacity represents nothing more than a suit against the government entity itself!…Individual employees of federal,[11] state[12] and local[13] government may be sued in their individual capacities[14] for damages, declaratory or injunctive relief.”

According to Wikipedia, one of the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983 was to make available  “a federal remedy where the state remedy, though adequate in theory, was not available in practice.”

How many inmates have had their civil rights violated at the Monroe County jail by the sheriff’s department, by crooked judges, grand juries, and “defense” attorneys?  How many victims have been told, “Well, maybe your civil rights were violated; maybe they wasn’t” after they reported such things as:

Next thing I know, my door is yanked open; they pulled me out of the car by my shirtsleeves with enough force that it tore the sleeves off of my T-shirt, slammed me on the ground, threw me in handcuffs, and then he went to beatin’ on me, callin’ me a hippie and all sorts of names.

Before I got to the jail, they tasered me over and over, repeatedly, and I counted to get my mind off of it.  I counted “one-Mississippi, two-Mississippi, three-Mississippi…” and there was one time I counted to 23-Mississippi sittin’ there being shocked.

There is a videotape of me being booked.  Matthew Rogers is in possession of it, but he wouldn’t let me have a copy.  But he does have the tape.  My mother and my stepfather have seen this tape, not just me.

Because Matthew Rogers is an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Tennessee and he allegedly denied his  client a copy of a videotape showing that the client had been beaten and abused, would that not invoke a remedy from the federal level, including from the FBI?

And what about this:

…they tried to rip off my left ear.  I don’t know how much of it is left.

Wikipedia states:

Now the statute stands as one of the most powerful authorities with which State and federal courts may protect those whose rights are deprived. Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act provides a way individuals can sue to redress violations of federally protected rights, like the First Amendment rights and the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

According to Attorney Maureen Markey Middleton of the law firm Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP, “Typical Section 1983 claims” include “conditions of confinement” in jails and prisons and specifically, “improper medical attention” under the standard of “deliberate indifference.” The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “deliberate indifference” involves a jailer’s knowledge of “an excessive risk to inmate health or safety” and disregards it, such as that which Walter Fitzpatrick reported to The Post & Email on December 16.  According to Middleton, that could constitute an infringement of both Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, which “prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments.”

The case of a Pennsylvania state prisoner who filed a pro se lawsuit and recovered damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 is here.  The inmate/plaintiff also was awarded “reasonable attorney’s fees” under 42 U.S.C. 1988.

Walter Fitzpatrick has been fined $3,000 for two misdemeanors, plus court costs of $1,776.  Is that excessive under the Eighth Amendment?

If not one attorney practicing in Tennessee wishes to pursue a case in the interest of restoring constitutional governance in his state and gaining restitution for a client who has been deprived of his civil rights, victims of abuse could seek out an attorney who specializes in 42 U.S.C. 1983 cases in either state or federal court.

11 Responses to "Why Shouldn’t the FBI be involved in Monroe County, TN Corruption?"

  1. TexasVoter   Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 10:22 PM

    Where’s the ACLU on this?
    —————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Many have contacted them. No response.

  2. Eddie Diamond   Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 9:24 PM

    David-Wynn: Miller (note the colon when addressing him) sounds great. Judging by his site he seems to have a stranglehold on the BS language uppity lawyers use to try to sound smart and it seems like he could easily turn the illicit Grand Jury of Monroe ass over heels!!
    If a lawyer was named, more people might get on-board to donate to a defense fund.
    E.D.
    ——————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I think we have to think outside the paradigm of a lawyer. While it would be great to find a constitutionally-minded attorney who would champion Walt’s cause, lawyers have also done a lot of damage to this country because they don’t follow the Constitution and don’t care about it. All they care about is the money they can make by chasing ambulances. When it comes to real civil rights violations and abuse, it seems there is no one who will stand up. Whether or not Walt retains a lawyer for what comes next, I would urge people to give whatever they can to the defense fund, as he is going to need it.

  3. Sternmist   Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 8:37 PM

    Mrs. Rondeau — Brother Huckabee is punking you. This David Wynn Miller character pretends to be a judge, but he is a judge on in his own mind. Which appears to reside on another planet. (Use the Google on the Internets and you will see.) He believes in some magic language which is total nonsense.

    Lieutenant Commander Fitzpatrick needs a real lawyer. If not Orly Taitz, how about having Charles E. Lincoln III write the papers and having Mario Apuzzo file them. (Orly Taitz can then come in and argue and dazzle the court with her charm.)

    In any event, please be careful not to get punked again. Check these people out first. I, at least, have suggested some real lawyers, with track records. And Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ. is a constitutional lawyer.
    —————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: But of course I knew that, and Brother Huckabee will not be posting here again!

  4. Brother Huckabee   Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 4:50 PM

    Sternmist:

    Unfortunately Dr. Orly has said that she does not want to work with Walter. A better choice might be Judge :David-Wynn: Miller. He is actually a plenipotentiary Judge, which gives him authority over any jurisdiction. There is probably a picture of him somewhere in every courthouse in the country.

    Mrs Rondeau:
    His number is 714-703-8800.

    His rates start at 100$ so it would probably be very easy for him to draw up a document in proper language that declares all the charges against Walt to be void and meaningless and vacates forever all judgements against him instantly and retroactively.
    ————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Thank you very much.

  5. Sternmist   Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 1:24 PM

    It is clear we need to hire a lawyer for Leiutenant Commander Fitzpatrick. Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ needs to be drafted. Does anyone know her telephone number or how to get a hold of her? She could then hire Sheriff Joe Arpaio as her expert witness on humane jail conditions and bring a Civil Rights Acton against the h*ll hole that is the Monroe County jail.

    Please, Mrs. Rondeau, put out a call for Orly Taitz and LET HER FINISH!
    ——————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I can contact her.

  6. bill   Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 12:37 PM

    You can muzzle this if you like but I still say that not holding accountable the Lame Stream Medias for not reporting the facts, the complete facts and nothing but the facts there isn’t a snowballs chance in hades that anything will be accomplished. While Lt. Col. Lakin suffers his outrage, LCMDR Walter Fitzpatrick sits in jail and receives help from no one, while we blog. Swell!
    ——————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I share your frustration. However, we can channel that frustration into action. LCDR Fitzpatrick will get the help he needs, and I suspect Lakin will, too. You’re right; blogging normally doesn’t do a lot except let off steam, but if it is turned to a purpose, that of informing your neighbors, friends, relatives, etc. of what is really going on the country, then it is very constructive. Print off The Post & Email’s articles and distribute them to those without computers so they can begin to become informed. Also, getting involved in your community at the local level is important. Become a member of a zoning board, county commission, or school board. If there is no constitutional candidate running for local office, run yourself. People can also testify in their state capitols about pending legislation, good or bad. Establish a relationship with your state senator and representative. If we’re going to change things, it will start at the local level as it is in Monroe County.

  7. Ron C.   Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 11:42 AM

    YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS IF YOU’RE WHITE.

  8. Sternmist   Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 11:38 AM

    Make a big public plea for Orly Taitz to handle Leiutenant Commander Fiztpatrick’s case! She is fearless and will take on any case, no matter how frivolous. Have a front page editorial beschreeching Dr. Taitz and I am sure she will not disappoint. You should also set up a special trust fund to finance Orly Taitz’s efforts. I am sure she could help you send up the tax exempt foundation.

    Orly Taitz is the answer to all the questions. The FBI and the TBI are ALL IN ON IT!

    Please!

  9. johnny says   Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 9:18 AM

    the fbi may be protecting obama. lt. cdr. fitzpatricks case in monroe county evolves around obama. another agency protecting the criminal and usurpur. they will not involve themselves.

  10. Robert Laity   Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 5:02 AM

    Any Public official or agent who abrogates the law is guilty of dereliction of duty and malfeasance in office.

  11. Robert   Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 4:19 AM

    “Civil Rights” Laws under Eric Holder’s DOJ apparently cover only Black Marxists and Muslims.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.