Civil Disobedience Evolution Fund

[Russell Kanning]

The way I see it is they are like guns: Dirty, smelly, noisy and, often, ugly and heavy, but sometimes you gotta use them.

one of the reasons i use neither

If the lawsuit approach was a good choice some hot shot lawyer would do it for a cut of the award... if they don't have faith that it will pay off why should anyone else?

I'm hoping the right person steps up and encouraging the amateurs.  As I've said in the past, we have to throw everything at them if we want to win.

how about we just throw lawyers into the gears instead of paying them to advise us

seems that the use of force in the form of lawyers separates some of us from others along very important lines

who has proven their worth in our movement ... the lawyers or the anti-lawyers

[Russell Kanning]

we just watched one of their shows called
Disorder in the Court

[Lance]

Well, they're not exactly making money out of thin air, so taking money away from the state minimizes the amount of damage that would otherwise be done with those funds.  So that's something.

Nothing prevents a plaintiff in any case from donating any money awarded by a jury to any cause they deem fit.  Nothing forces a plaintiff to require payment of money damages in settlement of any claims.  Letters of apology or promises to train employees in a certain way are frequently conditions of settlement.

If the state's rules say that the state shall pay money to people when certain fact patterns arise, then I think that the people who have the standing to bring suit in those cases should do so if such action has a fair chance of accomplishing a net gain for that person and for the freedom movement.  But to each her own.

Forgiveness only adorns a serpent who has venom, It does not behoove the toothless, poison-less nor the imbecile. -Ramdhari Singh Dinkar

[FTL_Ian]

I understand the pessimism and expected Sam to get screwed by his attorney, and he did.

That said, this is a new tactic for THIS movement.  I'm not concerned by what failures more politically oriented groups have had in the past.  This was Curtis' idea originally, and it's a good one.

Lance gave of his own time and expertise to help Aubern during Kurt's caging and I think this tactic of hiring him full-time could be quite useful for the movement.

Imagine if there's a slow period where he isn't actively defending an activist - he could reach out to regular victims of state aggression and encourage them to take their cases to trial.  That alone could cause some major problems for the govt people.

Perhaps they'll tie him up in red tape and this will bomb out, but I support the idea.  As of yet, no liberty activist I know of has ever appealed a conviction or countersued the state.

[tremendoustie]

I would not accept any moneys for what the city of New London, the state of Connecticut and US Federal Government has done to me by arresting my wife for trying to attend a City Council meeting that was throwing people out and stealing their homes.  They kept her locked away and prevented me from any contact with her.  Those actions caused the annihilation of my belief in Government.  It made me suicidal, continues to make me self destructive and prevents me from meaningful employment. 
Since then I have seen my friends abused, threatened and jailed by the Government for the most petty things.  Things that a rational person could not imagine to be an offense, but things the Government deems to be the most egregious of acts. 
Remaining Silent
Standing in a public place
Handing someone a piece of paper
Saying Unapproved Things
Participating in unregulated activity
Asking Bureaucrats to explain themselves
smoking harmless weeds

While the Government institutionalizes theft, instructs it members on lying, and murders with little question.
I know Government to be full from it's top to the base of it's pits with liars, thieves and murders... and I am powerless. 

Hate filled contempt is what I feel for the US Justice system.  I can not be made whole by any supposed justice the US government, or any other government, could offer... much more give.

I don't think the fact that you succeed in extracting money from them constitutes an agreement that the money comes close to compensating you for the harm.

Something is better than nothing. I don't think criminals should get off scot free just because full restitution is not possible.

[tremendoustie]

seems that the use of force in the form of lawyers separates some of us from others along very important lines

Why do you believe using a lawyer to sue the state constitutes a use of force?

[tremendoustie]

OK!   You and Kat go stand in a bus stop with signs the next time President Bush comes to Manchester.
Someone got $80,000, for getting arrested for exactly what you did.

$80,000 that the government stole from somebody.  I don't want stolen money.

But, the money would be the government's otherwise. The purpose of refusing stolen goods is to help the victim of the theft, and not help the perpetrator. Letting the government keep the money does neither, plus it increases the government's capability to harm more people.

You could give the settlement back to random taxpayers, after obtaining it. This would do something positive for the victims of the theft.

[AntonLee]

I had no idea that Lance was or is one of the persons (lawyers) involved.  I like the idea more now.

[Jim Johnson]

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.

[Lloyd Danforth]

You and Lauren should get 'bout a Million Dollars for every day you have been separated.

[highline]

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.

I just posted about this on the FK Forum, but, there are numerous situations where an individual state/federal actor can be sued personally and not be protected by their employing agency.

An egregious rights violation (quite similar to what happened to Mike T. in Manchester) is a good example of when.  A government employees actions are dictated by policy and if they stray from the policies they are "off-the-reservation" if you will.

Going after individual state actors and having them feel personal consequences for their malicious actions is something that would send shock-waves through the state system.  CDEF attaching the home of an officer/agent who stepped outside of the already far too wide lines would be HUGE.

[Lloyd Danforth]

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.

[Russell Kanning]

Why do you believe using a lawyer to sue the state constitutes a use of force?

well .... the government would not want to voluntarily give me money ... so i would be hoping that someone makes them do it

[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.

[tremendoustie]

Why do you believe using a lawyer to sue the state constitutes a use of force?

well .... the government would not want to voluntarily give me money ... so i would be hoping that someone makes them do it

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.

Besides, the money was stolen in the first place, and they do not legitimately own it.

I suppose if there were a settlement finding personal liability with a government employee, that might entail the use of force by government against that individual. Do you not believe in using force to obtain just restitution?