Undue delay as to IFP in bivens action

[FlyingRon]

Thank you, by the way. They did not in fact have probable cause, in my opinion.

Alas your opinion isn't what matters. It is what a reasonable judge would consider.

I was allegedly under survailence for some time.
Given the controlled delivery to the homeowner contained an inert substance, they had personal knowlege that no illegal substance was in the residence.

Counterfeit controlled substances are still legitimate game for federal and Florida laws.

I specifically asked to see a search warrant, before they barged past me, claiming later in testimony(civil court), that they had permission to enter and search.

They only need to have been granted a warrant, they don't need to have to show it to you.

They then seized the firearm, and claimed that it was mine.(im a felon)

Ownership is largely immaterial to firearm possession law. You should not have had access to a firearm no matter who owned it.

The illegal search, and seizure, without a warrant, and with personal knowledge that narcotics are not in(my portion) of the residence, constitutes a very factual 4th amendment violation.

Your "portion" of the residence means little. The warrant (or the entry under exigent circumstances) almost certainly covers an entire single residence.

 

[NIV]

Boy, it sure seems like there is probable cause. However, that is not enough. To enter a home without a warrant, the police either need probable cause AND some exigency, or, consent. It seems they are claiming consent.

Why did they say that? What makes you think there was no consent?

 

[Bivens_savage]

Exactly, now that I have 7 more months legal knowlege. I believe I can state a claim under not only sec. 1983, but 1985 and 6 as well.

Citing the false testimony given, to further the conspiracy.

These federal actors are from another state, and state actors were investigated by internal affairs, finding no wrong doing, and thus if a successfully state a claim, it creates documented municipal liability.

This is a lot of logistics to interpret, and thus the judge must decide what claim proceeds against who.
That should account for the long delay, in my reasoning.

 

[Bivens_savage]

Your "portion" of the residence means little. The warrant (or the entry under exigent circumstances) almost certainly covers an entire single residence.[/QUOTE]

I have found caslaw that a lessee of a portion of a residence sued for unlawfull search of his portion of the residence.
Even though a warrant was on hand, it didnt specify the upstairs portion.

 

[Bivens_savage]

Boy, it sure seems like there is probable cause. However, that is not enough. To enter a home without a warrant, the police either need probable cause AND some exigency, or, consent. It seems they are claiming consent.

Why did they say that? What makes you think there was no consent?

I have signed affidavits by myself, my wife, and the homeowner that consent was not given, and at a civil court hearing, a special agent with the US Department of homeland security yestified agents obtained permission to enter, and search the residence.
Furthermore, they are the ones that alledly replaced the whatever, with an inert substance.

 

[Bivens_savage]

You should lawyer up now if you think you have any chance. The truth is, you've not said one thing that is the basis for any sort of lawsuit.

Provided they have probable cause, possibly exigent circumstances, they can enter your house.
Anybody can call child services, in fact, they ARE REQUIRED BY LAW to do so even if they faintly suspect a problem.
Law enforcement officers are allowed to carry guns.

We have no idea why your IFP claim failed the first time (though I suspect if you were able to "lawyer" up before, you have sufficient funds to do so now). While IFP doesn't require you to be completely destitute, it's not waived just because you find it inconvenient to pay the filing fees.

What relief are you asking for anyhow?

Frankly, it's not all that hard to find lawyers to file federal civil rights suits if you have a shred of a case. They're allowed to collect attorneys fees in such even if you get only a token award of damages.

Please avoid the insults and the profanity. We may not have told you what you want to hear, but that's not "smart a--" and you demonstrate your continued ill-temperment to go pro se in any court (let alone Federal where they will not put up with this nonsense).

Appoligies, the child services necessity is also true, however, it must be done in good faith.

In this case, it was done on retaliation. Furthermore, if I can disprove any statement made, or call it into question. They risk being charged with a felony perjury, and an intentional tort.

 

[Zigner]

You've really got no clue - but, hey, more power to you!

 

[NIV]

Exactly, now that I have 7 more months legal knowlege. I believe I can state a claim under not only sec. 1983, but 1985 and 6 as well.

Citing the false testimony given, to further the conspiracy.

These federal actors are from another state, and state actors were investigated by internal affairs, finding no wrong doing, and thus if a successfully state a claim, it creates documented municipal liability.

This is a lot of logistics to interpret, and thus the judge must decide what claim proceeds against who.
That should account for the long delay, in my reasoning.

If the underlying criminal trial had a hearing to exclude the evidence for an illegal search, there is a legal determination as to if there was consent or if the search was otherwise legal. What did the court hold? Did the firearm get in?

 

[Bivens_savage]

If the underlying criminal trial had a hearing to exclude the evidence for an illegal search, there is a legal determination as to if there was consent or if the search was otherwise legal. What did the court hold? Did the firearm get in?

As the felon they alleged unsafely stored a fire arm, the SAO, upon direct information decided to charge me with the misd. of unsafe storage, as opposed to felon in poss. A felony.

They did this, I believe either they are incompetent and stupid, or they tried to get me to plea to the misd. and hot me with the felony after, they offered me, no contest for court costs.
I turned them down and stuck with not guilty until they nollo prossed 2 days before jury trial.
In my suit, I claim malicious pros. and abuse of process, as they prosecuted the matter past the point they knew, or should have known they would be forced to nollo pros.

 

[Bivens_savage]

You've really got no clue - but, hey, more power to you!

Yo, Z dog. I have no clue, just facts.

 

[NIV]

Was there or was there not an evidentiary hearing in regards to the search? What was the result?

 

[Bivens_savage]

Was there or was there not an evidentiary hearing in regards to the search? What was the result?

No trying of fact, scheduled for jury trial, and 2 days before SAO announces nollo pros.

No warrant, and prosecuted past the point they knew the evedence was inadmissable, attempting to solicit an easy plea, with the hopes to hit me with a felony right afyer!

 

[NIV]

I am not a judge. But, if a judge asks you specific questions, answer them specifically. It is so important to you to get your story out to we random people on the internet that you are arguing with each post rather than trying to develop understanding of the facts. I'm not going to sift through your posts for the nuggets I sought. Suffice to say you have any of a number of huge problems in your suit. Good luck.

 

[Bivens_savage]

I agree, I am trying to solicit opinions, objective opinions that I may not have contemplated yet.

I am not trying to argue with anyone, just inform everyone who will listen about a very interesting subject, and learn in the meantime.

But I do value all points of view, and if I come off arrogant, well.... I probably am, mostly.

 

[LdiJ]

I agree, I am trying to solicit opinions, objective opinions that I may not have contemplated yet.

I am not trying to argue with anyone, just inform everyone who will listen about a very interesting subject, and learn in the meantime.

But I do value all points of view, and if I come off arrogant, well.... I probably am, mostly.

No kidding...and that is probably 99% of your problem.