Posted on 12/03/2004 10:23:37 AM PST by drc43
Section 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
(a) Applicability of statutory and common law
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the
district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the
Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United
States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be
exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United
States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into
effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object,
or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable
remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as
modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State
wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal
cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to
and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the
cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of
punishment on the party found guilty.
(b) Attorney's fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections
1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of
Public Law 92-318 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.
2000cc et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), or section 13981 of this title, the court,
in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the
United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs,
except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an
act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such
officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including
attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such
officer's jurisdiction.
(c) Expert fees
In awarding an attorney's fee under subsection (b) of this
section in any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of
section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion,
may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee. "We are being sued with our own money!!"
Conversely, some people are suing to GET their own money back!
There should be lawsuits filed by individuals around the country against the ACLU for what they've been pulling.
The Thomas More Law Center is a pro-bono organization set up to defend Christians against attacks.
http://www.thomasmore.org/
The Thomas More Law Center is a not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. Our purpose is to be the sword and shield for people of faith, providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square.
Yep. Betcha it is the same sort of setup in the other liberal legislate-through-litigation organizations too.
"Loser pays" would be great, as long as our system is consistent in dispensing justice. It seems like the obvious problem would be that anyone with the means to hire a Dream Team of lawyers would forever be insulated from little guys like me. No matter how good my case might be in truth, I likely couldn't afford to take the risk of losing.
Some people think our justice system already belongs to those who can afford the better lawyers. Unless I'm missing something, it seems like "loser pays" could provide some justification for that opinion.
I guess the Brits have it to some extent. If it works, I wonder how.
In this case, ACLU recovers their expenses and fees and salaries under a Federal Code intended for Civil Rights infractions.
Win or Lose.
The ACLU, like any other litigant who sues for violations of civil rights laws, only gets attorney's fees if they prevail.
The alternative would be for persons to violate civil rights and get away with it because litigants could not not afford to litigate.
Wrong, only if they "substantially prevail".
Ok, I guess I heard wrong.
Thanks
Why can't you eliminate an organization whose political ideology you dislike? Is that a serious question?
Try "this is America, we have to tolerate organizations with political ideologies we dislike".
No prob. I've fought, and won, several civil rights cases myself.
The law should be designed not to discourage honest lawsuits but should make it quite easy to assign attorney fees in the case of a genuine dispute, and nearly automatic in the case of a frivolous lawsuit. The most important part of a loser pay system is that it not be automatic, but rather subject to judicial review. I'd also like to see the attorney fee award appealable, separate from the primary decision.
Re #31 -
"No prob. I've fought, and won, several civil rights cases myself."
Well, OK... but whose side are you on there, Podnah? }B^{!~
UJ, wondering in ME
I think this is a good example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences".
When laws regarding civil rights were drafted, who knew that years later, the Boy Scouts, the Ten Commandments, hints of the word God, a Cross, Christmas, a Nativity Scene, or other parts from the fabric of our society would be considered threats to our Civil Rights?
I don't have time to read through this entire thread, but is there a petition being circulated to call for Congress to repeal this law?
He could NOT believe the law could be twisted in this manner.
Except the taxpayers do not get reimbursed if the ACLU is defeated in one of their lawsuits of adventure.
The IRS should determine whether the ACLU----through its Foundation----is properly accounting for all of its tax-funded activities, whether it is inflating legal costs, and whether the ACLU is using tax dollars for the purposes stated.
As part of the Tax Exempt Compensation Enforcement Project, the IRS announced it intends to examine non-profit organizations (NPO's) and foundations, to learn more about the practices nonprofits follow as they fill out Form 990, the main public disclosure documents for NPO's, including charities and foundations, and whether accounting fraud and tax evasion is taking place, and whether the compensation of specific individuals is excessive and, and whether instances of questionable compensation practices may evade IRS, and US banking laws.
We need to know whether the ACLU is engaged in Enron-style accounting and spending practices using our tax dollars, and whether the ACLU is cooking the books.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.