Civil Rights Division Home Page CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS Summary: Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241 If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Civil Rights Division Home Page DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW Summary: Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Originally Posted by tikk

The flier does not name anyone so it can't be defamatory toward any individual. It does, however, name a group, namely Anonymous and "disaffected members." The law generally prohibits defamation cases against groups. There is an exception to this general rule, however, where the law recognizes defamation cases against small groups in which the individuals are readily identifiable. And the flier's description of the group it calls Anonymous actually targets local anons and "disaffected members." This argument is strengthened by the fact that she met with individual members, and used as leverage the potential publication, before distributing the fliers.

Discrimination and establishment clause cases are two different animals, and neither apply here, for too many reasons to fully explore. In short, with regard to discrimination, "Anonymous" is not a group or class that would be recognized--it's not a group defined by race, gender, age, or creed. The establishment clause prohibits any law that tends to establish a religion, and the hurdle here is the absence of any law to be challenged, unless you're referring to the creation of Mckee-Stovall's office itself, which, as a practical matter, would definitely not be viewed as an establishment clause violation (there are dozens if not hundreds similar offices throughout the U.S.).

More generally, I do think the government favors religion when it creates municipal offices such as Mckee-Stovall's that inevitably side with religious groups in any debate between the group and its detractors. Religion doesn't need help from the government except to the degree it needs to protect religious adherents' right to practice the religion, which right is actually encroached perhaps once for every hundred times religious adherents claim. But as a practical matter, a civil suit claiming that the creation of Mckee-Stovall's office violates the establishment clause is quixotic and futile, given the present state of the law and political atmosphere.

The only realistic civil suit I see in these fliers is a false light tort, which again, should not necessarily be pursued in court but definitely should be related to the county board, because the county would be a defendant in such a suit. I also think that Mckee-Stovall's use of the fliers as leverage in discussions prior to their publication compounds such liability, and at least was so improper as to require her removal from her office, irrespective of the accuracy of the flier's content.

Originally Posted by tikk

True statements aren't defamatory, but again, could be actionable under false light tort if they intend to mislead with malice; to address Herro's statement, I don't think not being specifically named necessarily precludes a defamation claim, but it would affect damages (you're less injured than you'd otherwise be if you were named).

A civil rights claim (I'm assuming that's what the arrested Anon is pursuing) against the police is incredibly difficult, no matter what the facts are.

Keep in mind that I'm not advocating anyone suing anyone; I'm merely offering my opinion on the circumstances, and suggesting that the liability exists which should be brought to the board's attention.

I think McKee-Stovall recklessly abused her authority as a public official and in first threatening to publish a potentially defamatory flier in exchange for certain individuals targeted by the flier to cease exercising their first amendment rights, and then publishing the flier when members of the group declined her offer. The flier intentionally misleads to cast the protesters in a false light and the protesters are accordingly injured.

Originally Posted by tikk

I recall seeing, but cannot find now, mention of the fact that this flier was distributed earlier in time; I'm trying to track down the genesis of the flier's contents. I also recall, although less vividly, mention that the flier was written by Scientologist John Allender. Any pointers would be appreciated. I'm trying to write something helpful with regard to the legal situation.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Just my 2 cents and sorry I have not been following this as close as I could have.

Could maybe the applicable laws that show that even tho this is a group it appears individuals have been targeted from the letter etc. be added ? Showing that this letter opens possible litigation against the county ?

Originally Posted by BigBeard

I noticed the 2010 flyer has things in it that appear to be lifted directly from Allender's e-mail that were not in the original 2008 flyers. Expecially the BS regarding the so called "sex offender."

BigBeard

Originally Posted by TinyDancer

Logically, the Allender email could have in it things lifted from the 2010 flyer. The email post-dates the draft flyer.

Originally Posted by tikk

Thanks to TD for earlier material.

I've another request. I can't seem to find the post where one of the SJ Anons mentioned a discussion with McKee-Stovall where she admitted that she based her information re the school bus fire on speculation in a police report. Maybe I can't find b/c I'm misremembering the details.

Also, I'm curious whether any of the SJ protesters were ever outed, if anyone knows.