Biven's Decision

County assembly documents will be posted here and open for discussion
Post Reply
User avatar
Destry
Site Admin
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:38 pm
County: Oscoda
Your State: Michigan
Contact:

Biven's Decision

Post by Destry » Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:05 am

Biven's Decision
Bivens Decision.pdf
(557.81 KiB) Downloaded 58 times

AcquiringFreedom
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 11, 2018 12:11 pm
County: Miami County
Your State: Indiana

Re: Biven's Decision

Post by AcquiringFreedom » Fri May 11, 2018 12:25 pm

Hello, Destry or the one responsible for the creation of this file. Has anyone else had a problem downloading this file? It came up with 2 paragraphs at the top of the page I could read, and the rest is backwards printing and not even legible, very light. Please advise. :(

User avatar
Destry
Site Admin
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:38 pm
County: Oscoda
Your State: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Biven's Decision

Post by Destry » Fri May 11, 2018 8:16 pm

Recitation of the Biven’s Decision by: “This meeting is private. Bearing false witness, misrepresentation, and posting inflammatory rhetoric in public forums is forbidden and shall be addressed in an appropriate manner. To eliminate all conflict and false allegations, is there anyone in attendance at today’s meeting that is a member or agent of any law enforcement agency of the federal, state, county, city or township agencies present? (Repeat three times. or Is there any response to the Biven’s Decision for the first time, is there any response to the Biven’s Decision the second time, and any response to the Biven’s Decision for the third and final time)?”

LiteracyLady
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:48 pm
County: Watauga
Your State: North Carolina

Re: Biven's Decision

Post by LiteracyLady » Thu May 31, 2018 1:14 pm

Where does Biven's Decision come from - background?

bobbynorth1
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat May 12, 2018 11:34 am
County: Whatcom County
Your State: washington

Re: Biven's Decision

Post by bobbynorth1 » Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:29 pm

Constitutional Torts - Bivens Actions
The Supreme Court created a private damages action against federal officials for constitutional torts (civil rights violations), which are not covered by the FTCA. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Court held that the Fourth Amendment gives rise to a right of action against federal law enforcement officials for damages from an unlawful search and seizure. Since a Bivens action is brought against a federal official in the official’s personal capacity, it is not considered to be an action against the United States and therefore is not barred by sovereign immunity. Bivens is not a general tort law. The plaintiff seeking a damages remedy under Bivens must first demonstrate that constitutional rights have been violated.[Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) ]
Bivens suits have been acknowledged by the Court as having more of a deterrence effect against federal officials from committing constitutional torts than the FTCA. This is chiefly because a Bivens suit is a personal suit against the official, and punitive damages are recoverable. The government is substituted for the defendant in FTCA cases, and the FTCA does not allow punitive damages. Thus a Bivens defendant is at risk of personal liability, including punitive damages, while the government pays all damages in FTCA cases. Procedurally, a plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial in a Bivens action, but not in a FTCA case.[Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) ]
The main defense for a federal official in a Bivens action is official immunity from actions for damages. There are two types of official immunity available as affirmative defenses: absolute and qualified.[ Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978)] Absolute immunity is granted to judges, prosecutors, legislators, and the President, so long as they are acting within the scope of their duties. Qualified immunity applies to federal officials and agents who perform discretionary functions, but may be overcome by a showing that their conduct violated a constitutional right.[Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) ]

Post Reply

Return to “County Assembly Documents & Support”