What does "I litigate FOR MULTIPLE ATTORNEYS" mean? You litigate FOR attorneys, but cannot spell the word ADVICE? LOL Attorneys LITIGATE---you don't litigate FOR them. What is "court preparation"? Dusting, vacuuming? Too funny.....Oh, and what about this quote: "personal experience as to reduce any tension and sleepless nights due to unknown factors in the system. I am in IT management". You went from reducing tension related to "unknown factors in the legal system" (whatever that means), to "litigating for multiple attorneys". LMAO You should be on a stage, seriously.

Thankfully, one of us doesn't need any more "information to assist the forum". Good grief, the original poster wrote an epic. LOL

You have yet to reference a single law or precedent and have, in fact, given incorrect advice as a matter of law. Attack you? I am not attacking you-(unlike you who finds my HAIR note worthy LMAO) ----I am clearly taking ISSUE with the WRONG advice you are giving, like telling the poster to contact the Department of Corrections to see if he has been appointed an attorney. You are providing legally inaccurate advice and if you do so, prepare to be corrected. You say I am negligent ( which, as it pertains to law is impossible since no attorney/ client/fiscal/legal relationship exists between anyone in this forum)--yet YOU are telling people to contact the DOC to see who their public defender is? LOL Elementary. Very basic. And you missed it.

You need "more information" to assist the poster? LOL you said you already HAD assisted the poster outside of this forum--seriously, dude, get it together.

You might need to "know more" to provide general legal information ( which is the purpose of this forum---not to address and provide situation specific "do this, do that" dictation), but thankfully I don't have to know more than what is posted to state what the posters rights are---because Section 1983 is CIVIL law on a federal level, and does not vary from state to state. Therefore the posters rights are the same as yours or mine would be.

If you knew what Section 1983 was, you wouldn't need more information to explain it for the benefit of the posters ( as I have done numerous times on this very forum). You could, even, post some dialogue regarding Monroe v. Pape 365 US 167 (1961). You do know about Monroe, don't you? Of course you do. (chuckle)

LISTEN AND LEARN, GRASSHOPPA.

In Monroe, the court articulated three reasons to justify Section 1983, the gist of all three being to provide on a Federal Level, a remedy for state violations of civil rights where the state laws, while in theory were adequate, were actually lacking in application.

This means that if a Plaintiff wishes to bring a prima facia case ( Constitutional tort ) against the government, he must prove:

1. That the official in question was acting under color of the law (i.e. within the scope of his or her duties as a state employee) and

2. Deprived of some constitutionally protected right.

This means that while Section 1983 does not confer (give, transfer)substantive (definable )rights, it allows a Plaintiff to bring a cause of action against the government in the event that the he is deprived of already established constitutional (legal, statutory) right. This narrows down to three basic types of claims, the first two dealing with due process---specifically violations of the substantive elements of the clause and violations that fall under the procedural element of the due process clause. (Note: specific components that fall under these two areas are detailed and complex) The third type of claim deals specifically with those items that related to the deprivation of some right afforded citizens via the Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment).

In relation to the original posters question, the only possible cause of action under Section 1983 would be under the substantive element of the due process clause--since this area deals with violations of family, home, seizure, etc. BUT, the poster would have to prove that the officers were acting unreasonably--which, given the facts, would be hard to do, especially since contraband was found in the posters home.


So then, what exactly did you need to know before explaining all of that to our gentle readers in this forum? Was there something of LEGAL import that you wanted to add? (besides the color of my hair?--I am flattered you'd even notice LOL LOL )

No, I don't need a resume, but at least ONE legally and factually correct relevant answer would be nice.