The KKK Act of 1871


PNNscholar1 - Posted on 08 August 2010

The KKK Act of 1871

An explanation of the racist and classist laws that inform U.S. policy.

Marlon Crump/PNN
Wednesday, July 2, 2008

"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."

All city governments throughout the U.S require a person that brings forth a civil lawsuit against a city government for their employee or employees unlawful acts to use this federal statute: Title 42 U.S Code Section 1983, or as I have renamed the KKK Act of 1871.

The very problem with this federal statute is that it places the full weight on someone to prove to the court that local city governments were liable in an unlawful act involving their employees, particularly police officers.

AmeriKKKa created this federal statute that allegedly allows a party to sue local governments, but it shields itself from immunities and damages in court. This law was originally supposed to protect Americans, predominately African-Descendants during the "Reconstruction Era" in 1871. This "law" allegedly protected blacks from those that shielded themselves from the ultra-hate group white supremacy terrorist organization, known as the Ku Klux Klan who terrorized and burned their communities.

Whenever someone files a "claim against the city" for the misconduct of one of its public employees that results in their injury, they're said to be filing a Monell Claim. A local city government and state official are "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state or territory."

This U.S Title Section guarantees a person to be compensated in damages for civil and constitutional violations of an injury by a city government official's unlawful conduct, "shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

Without absolutely any legal representation, I filed a tort civil action suit against the City and County of San Francisco at the United States District Court that is based here in San Francisco, California. I did this after my civil and U.S Constitutional rights were stolen from me by Officer Angel G. Lozano, Raymond K. Lee and a dozen members of the San Francisco Police Department on October 7th, 2005, in my Single Room Occupancy (S.R.O) Hotel. I filed this action in response to their alleged "mistaken identity claims" to justify their brutality against me.

A year after my case was granted, it was dismissed due to a technicality of "failure to provide evidentiary documents in support of my claim in a "timely manner" during a motion for a summary judgment filed by Deputy City Attorney, Mark Lipton. ( A summary judgment is a motion filed by one party saying that the other side has virtually no evidence or merit to go to a civil trial. In doing so, that party would lose.)

Despite the overwhelming evidence I had provided to the court that proved the officers involved unlawful conducts, and regardless of my citation of this U.S. federal title, my case was thrown out, sadly due to a technicality.

Title 42 U.S Code Section 1983 that is "required" by a party who sues a local municipality, was originally the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871! U.S Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts who was nominated by President George Bush in 2005, even spoke briefly of this very act, regarding an abortion case in an interview.

In March 1871, President Ulysses S. Grant requested from Congress legislation to address the rampant problem of KKK violence, which had grown steadily since the group's formation in 1866. Congress responded on April 20, 1871, with the passage of the Ku Klux Klan Act, originally introduced as a bill "to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and for other purposes."

The act also banned KKK members and their allies from serving on the jury. Local and state law enforcement officials, including judges, were often sympathetic towards the KKK or were subject to intimidation by the group, as were the trial witnesses. The Ku Klux Klan Act would allow victims of Klan violence to take their case to a federal court, where it was "official" that they would receive a "fairer trial."

In reality, this "act" actually injures a person's right to bring forth accountability to a local municipality, due to that official's misconduct. It is ultimately like saying that a car is more responsible for an accident instead of the driver.

Over a century later, a landmark case called Monell v. City of New York Department of Social Services, a court case that was decided in 1978 by the United States Supreme Court, that municipalities did not qualify as "persons" under Section 1983, and thus retained their "right" of governmental immunity from the misdeeds of their public officials and employees.

Today, every local city government uses this very case in citation of their own defense, along with U.S Title 42 U.S Code Section 1983. Police brutality cases, such as the 1991 Rodney King beating, the 2002 Fajita-gate scandal, the 2001 unjustified use-of-deadly force against Idriss Stelley, Cammerin Boyd, Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, and the near-death/racial profiling of myself in 2005, raises a significant question of who is really responsible for liabilities against municipalities?

As a result of this confusing and contradictive "act" many cases, such as these are either thrown out or ruled against the victim. Nowadays, a city attorney might settle with the victim of misconduct, but will still argue that there was "no liability by the city."

Nothing has really changed from 1871, except the removal of the white sheets of white racists, and the replacement of the blue shield of many races, the replacement of torches with sophisticated firearms, with AmeriKKKa and " state local governments" being the string pullers shamelessly hidden behind a "U.S Title."

To unseat this federal statute, sign the petition by following the link below.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/peopleunitedagainst1983/?e

"The very problem with this federal statute is that it places the full weight on someone to prove to the court that local city governments were liable in an unlawful act involving their employees, particularly police officers."

Are you proposing a "guilty until proven innocent" standard, under which a plaintiff can win a lawsuit without proving his case? What is your point here?

"A year after my case was granted, it was dismissed due to a technicality of "failure to provide evidentiary documents in support of my claim in a "timely manner" during a motion for a summary judgment filed by Deputy City Attorney, Mark Lipton."

I don't know what yuu mean by your case being "granted," but if you mean a year after your case was filed, is it unreasonable to expect that you would have submitted your supporting documents by then? Exactly what was "the overwhelming evidence I had provided to the court that proved the officers involved unlawful conducts [sic] ?"

In response to that first question of "guilty until proven innocent" standard, no. I was educating to the world how useless/imperialistically covertly-cl assist/racist this law truly is, but most are often oblivious of its true intentions.

That's why not only as a victim but as journalist, I did my job as a journalist to conduct my research and explain the history of this law.

The "overwhelming evidence" was documents in support of my claims. That's what I meant by "evidentiary documents."

I hope my answers to your questions were helpful?

You've convinced me! Let's begin a drive to abolish Section 1983. Are you with me Marlon?

Its a people process to remove a law. We'll see what happens.

...The KKK Act of 1871 was/is apparently the ANTI-KKK Act of 1871. Are you sure you want to get rid of it?

PNN RADIO

Sign-up for POOR email!