Civil Disobedience Evolution Fund

[tremendoustie]

Again.  Sam was not released from jail until shortly after someone from Grafton sent each member of the City Council a letter explaining their personal Liability over some prisoner that their cops were holding.

Thank you for reiterating that.

CDEF would not be interested in simply sending a letter to warn people about what Constitutional violations may be going on under their "authority" ... we want to send them a lawsuit and a notice of attachment of personal property.   

There is a big disconnect between what an individual law enforcer/elected official does "on-the-clock" and what they do on their "own time."  Why do you think Eli Rivera went so ballistic when people made it personal with him?  If a group of people had done that to me I would have probably reacted the same way.

When the two worlds are skewed and the individual feels the responsibility for things that they have done as an "official"........... there will be significant change.

Absolutely right. I think many do not realize the degree of rear covering in government. The mere possibility of liability -- most especially personal liability -- is an absolute game changer. The sense of invulnerability, and the sense that one is operating as an "agent of the state" rather than a mere human being, is a direct cause of most abuse.

[Lloyd Danforth]

CDEF would not be interested in simply sending a letter to warn people about what Constitutional violations may be going on under their "authority" .

It is easier to threaten on someones behalf than to actually, institute a Lawsuit

[highline]

Again.  Sam was not released from jail until shortly after someone from Grafton sent each member of the City Council a letter explaining their personal Liability over some prisoner that their cops were holding.

Thank you for reiterating that.

CDEF would not be interested in simply sending a letter to warn people about what Constitutional violations may be going on under their "authority" ... we want to send them a lawsuit and a notice of attachment of personal property.   

There is a big disconnect between what an individual law enforcer/elected official does "on-the-clock" and what they do on their "own time."  Why do you think Eli Rivera went so ballistic when people made it personal with him?  If a group of people had done that to me I would have probably reacted the same way.

When the two worlds are skewed and the individual feels the responsibility for things that they have done as an "official"........... there will be significant change.

Absolutely right. I think many do not realize the degree of rear covering in government. The mere possibility of liability -- most especially personal liability -- is an absolute game changer.

And the sincere promise that they will be receiving litigation would be a game changer in itself.........  even before the CDEF attorney begins sending paperwork everywhere.  There will be no correspondence more disliked by the state than a letter with our letterhead on it.

Once we have our attorney on-board......  the fun would begin. 

[Lloyd Danforth]

There are things that non lawyers can do, too. 91-a  actions are a wonderful thing!

Learning what day potential jurors have to show up at county, state and federal courthouses and politely, passing out F.I.J.A. and American Jury Institute flyers might go a long way towards limiting guilty findings for victimless crimes.

Off on a little tangent.there

[Russell Kanning]

The government would have to give up the money only out of fear of losing the facade of legitimacy. There is no outside force that could compel the government to do anything at this point, and if some treasurer somewhere refused to write a check, the worst that could happen to them is that they'd be fired.

So if they gave up the money or changed their actions because they are afraid of losing their legitimacy, then you really didn't have to start the legal action in the first place. The pressure is coming from society.

[tremendoustie]

The government would have to give up the money only out of fear of losing the facade of legitimacy. There is no outside force that could compel the government to do anything at this point, and if some treasurer somewhere refused to write a check, the worst that could happen to them is that they'd be fired.

So if they gave up the money or changed their actions because they are afraid of losing their legitimacy, then you really didn't have to start the legal action in the first place. The pressure is coming from society.

Unfortunately at this point a good portion of society will not demand they give up the money unless a court rules so. The government claims to follow the rulings of courts, so if a court went against them, they'd have to obey the ruling, or destroy the facade.

Also, even if an action does not succeed, it would generate a great deal of press, bog down the system, and make many bureaucrats think twice before they abuse people in the future.

[highline]

The government would have to give up the money only out of fear of losing the facade of legitimacy. There is no outside force that could compel the government to do anything at this point, and if some treasurer somewhere refused to write a check, the worst that could happen to them is that they'd be fired.

So if they gave up the money or changed their actions because they are afraid of losing their legitimacy, then you really didn't have to start the legal action in the first place. The pressure is coming from society.

Also, even if an action does not succeed, it would generate a great deal of press, bog down the system, and make many bureaucrats think twice before they abuse people in the future.

Precisely one of the goals of the CDEF

[stanford]

Tactically speaking, it would not be good if the "other guys" thought that they could do anything they wanted to a Freestater and not be liable.

In addition, the argument that, "they" should not be sued because the tax payer bears the burden, is specious.
"They" are funded by the tax payer and supposedly doing the tax payers bidding, therefore the tax payers are ultimately responsible. 
The tax payers should be made to suffer greatly and then "they" will start behaving because the tax payers will demand that "they" behave.

Jim, this is exactly my position. I used to think that those bastards who sued city hall were taking my money.

But I thought about it, and the real bastards are the ones that taxed it away from me in the first place. I'd rather a bag lady who slipped on the ice in front of city hall have the money than the bureaucrats inside.

One of the goals of the Fund is educating people who think they are not ultimately liable for the actions of their "public servants".