TABLE OF CONTENTS | ||
---|---|---|
BACKGROUND | Page | |
---|---|---|
I. | The Parties | 8 |
II. | The Facts | 9 |
III. | The Causes of Action | 13 |
IV. | The Special Verdicts | 13 |
DISCUSSION | ||
---|---|---|
I. | Liability Under Section 1985(3) | 14 |
A. The Statutory Scheme | 14 | |
B. Applicability of Section 1985(3) to the District of | ||
Columbia and Its Employees | 16 | |
C. Applicability of Section 1985(3) to Federal Officers | 19 | |
D. Class-Based Discriminatory Animus | 20 | |
II. | Harlow V. Fitzgerald and Defendants' Qualified Immunity | 24 |
A. Qualified Immunity and the Harlow Standard | 24 | |
B. Application of the Harlow Standard | 25 | |
C. Pleading Unconstitutional Motive | 29 | |
D. Municipal Liability | 31 | |
III. | Statute of Limitations | 32 |
A. Fraudulent Concealment: Case Law | 33 | |
B. The Tolling Doctrine Applied | 36 | |
1. The Self-Concealing Wrong | 36 | |
2. Notice to Trigger the Statute of Limitations | 38 | |
C. Remaining Objections to the Fraudulent Concealment | ||
Instructions | 41 | |
IV. | Defendant Courtland Jones | 42 |
V. | Juror Contact | 46 |
VI. | Sufficiency of the Evidence | 50 |
A. The Conspiracies | 51 | |
B. Individual Liability | 55 | |
VII. | Damages | 57 |
VIII. | Arguments on Cross-Appeal | 63 |
A. Expungement of FBI Records | 64 | |
CONCLUSION | 66 | |
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING | 66 |
The purpose of this new counterintelligence endeavor is to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black nationalist, hate-type organizations and groupings, their leadership, spokesmen, membership, and supporters, and to counter their propensity for violence and civil disorder.11
that the nature of this new endeavor is such that under no circumstances should the existence of the program be made known outside the Bureau and appropriate within-office security should be afforded to sensitive operations and techniques considered under the program.17
We consider you [Rev. Moore, whose name appeared on the initial demand letter] and your kind as black bandits and the most dangerous of the elements eating away at the movement.... Suck on your bananas, brother, and someday you might learn how to make a fire or build a wheel.24
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws ... [and] in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.42
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.48
Unless there is a rationale, unknown to the past cases, for holding that federal officers are not “persons” under § 1985(3), there is no longer any reason to exclude from coverage federal officers acting under color of federal law. Since such a rationale is inconceivable, Griffin 's holding that § 1985(3) applies to any person requires that it apply to federal officers.
The central theme of the bill's proponents was that the [Ku Klux] Klan and others were forcibly resisting efforts to emancipate Negroes and give them equal access to political power. The predominate purpose of § 1985(3) was to combat the prevalent animus against Negroes and their supporters. The latter included Republicans generally, as well as others, such as Northerners who came South with sympathetic views towards the Negro.56
knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff] or if [the official] took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury.
If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. Nevertheless, if the official pleading the defense claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard, the defense should be sustained. But again, the defense would turn primarily on objective factors.
remains in ignorance ... without any fault or want of diligence or care on his part, the bar of the statute does not begin to run until the fraud is discovered, though there be no special circumstances or efforts on the part of the party committing the fraud to conceal it from the knowledge of the other party.
You are also cautioned that the nature of this new endeavor is such that under no circumstances should the existence of the program be made known outside the Bureau and appropriate within-office security should be afforded to sensitive operations, and techniques considered under the program.
The parties should consider whether, in the interest of efficiency and justice, First Amendment damages could be set by the trial judge on the record thus far adduced at trial.
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |