What the federal laws protecting defendants against violation of their civil rights?
122107
i suggest you go to http://clik.to/tylersschool
649098
People that break the federal laws.  Escapies are a threat to every community.
622942
What civil rights do we have today?
645587
One good feature of our laws is that they can be changed. Even the Constitution can be amended. The "Bill of Rights" which guarantee Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press etc are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.  \n\nAnd there is the Supreme Court decision in "Brown v. Board of Ed" which ruled that "separate is not equal" and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against discrimination.\n\nThen there have been laws for social programs which help people like Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" and the legislation that created the Social Security program.  And there are laws for fair labor standards and establishing the minimum wage. \n\nThere are also anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies although these seem to be mostly ignored these days.\n\nFurthermore, a law can be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court so if a locality feels their local law is wrong, they can appeal it. \n\nAlthough in our time laws like the Patriot Act are being used against the people, it was not always so.
358364
It doesn't sound like you have a case. Police officers acting under color of law can't be held liable unless they violate your civil rights, and it doesn't sound like they did. They had a reasonable belief that there was a warrant for your arrest, as incorrect as that belief was.
192803
Laws which safeguard the national integrity and protect the rights of its citizens.
230780
My friend is a public defender.  Even guilty people have a right to a competent defense.  They need an attorney since the other side has one.  Someone who helps them get a fair deal or plea bargain.  Someone who can help them evaluate the evidence against them and decide if they should plead or go to jury trial.  They have a right to legal advice.  It's a part of our justice system.  You can disagree if you want.  That's just how our laws have evolved.
196933
Federal Law enforcement generally falls under the interstate commerce clause of the US constitution.  That gives Congress the ability to create them.  The FBI and ATF are good examples of this.  The commerce clause has been stretched pretty far so that almost anything can be investigated by the FBI.  This started when Hoover wanted to hunt down an escaped convict.  The FBI wasn't allowed to look for him because it didn't involve interstate travel.  Hoover said that the prisoner was in violation of the Selective Service Act, which mandated that all males over 18 had to inform Selective Service when they changed residences.  The convict didn't inform the SS of his change of address, which was a federal crime, so the FBI went after him for that.  As funny as it sounds, it worked and today the FBI and ATF don't even bother to make excuses.  They know that they can always come up with something if they are challenged in court.
60295
An interesting question.\n\nFirst: I might be completely wrong, and if I am I hope someone comes along and clears this up.\n\nBut: I don't think there is a law that specifically prohibits entrapment.  \n\nHowever: there is a successful defense to a crime if the government enticed the defendant into committing a crime the defendant would not have normally committed.  So, by virtue of the fact that you would be found not guilty if you can prove entrapment, there is, for all intents and purposes, a "law" that prohibits it.\n\nI can't tell you what that's based on, but I don't think the Constitution specifically addresses it.  I think it's probably more just a matter of fairness (courts are not going to let the government entice citizens into committing crimes).
172464
Neither constitutional law nor state court eviction proceedings are my bag, but here's a suggested area to look at from what I gathered.  \n\nUSC 28.89.1443 discusses removal of civil rights issues from state court to federal court.  Technically, you aren't asking for removal.  However, it sounds like the fed courts are treating the eviction proceeding as a closed state decision and, thus, your counterclaim (ie - your filing) is precluded. I don't remember the specific statute, civ pro rule or case, but federal questions can be raised at any time.  If the violation encompasses a federal question, I'd go back and essentially say 'ok, so this is a removal request because a federal question of jurisdiction over a civil rights matter that I am claiming on exists.' There might be a case under USC 28.89.1443 to support it such a removal request.  \n\nWith no knowledge of the actual complaint, opinion, etc to examine arguments, this is about all I can think of.  Best of luck.
214809
the 9th amendment protects ALL other rights that aren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights. the people of the US aren't limited to JUST those rights, and all their other rights must be upheld in the court of law\n\nthat article explains it very well!
400151
The only way Constitutional laws apply to your case is in theory, by the spirit of natural laws contained in the First Amendment, if you equate the situation you are in with a form of "due process" or "petitioning" to redress grievances and to establish justice. \n\nThis same First Amendment that proclaims the freedom of speech, or of the press (written or spoken communication) also protects the right of the people "peaceably" to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances.  So any abuse of freedom of speech, press or religion to cause disruption or "breach of the peace" actually violates the same set of laws that naturally check and balance each other when considered together in context.  \n\nThis inherent balance between First Amendment rights can be seen in Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous example, that you cannot abuse freedom of speech to the point of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.  My point is that since this would cause an undue disturbance or breach of the peace, it abridges the right of the people "peaceably" to assembly in the theatre, and thus violates the very same law used to invoke free speech.\n\nToday, more specific legislation has been written concerning hate\ncrimes and harassment, which also concern this same natural check on personal freedoms.\n\nOnly if both parties in a dialogue agree to abide by the same rules and respect the peace while they "petition" each other, can these Constitutional laws be used to protect you from invasion or infringement of your equal right to peace and freedom and protection.  If the other party does not seem to respect your rights equally, you can peacefully "petition" to do so by addressing them directly as a peer to correct the problem between you as amicably as possible, and advising them that failure to resolve this civilly will force you to report this to authorities as a criminal threat issued over the internet.  If the person has published false or damaging statements about you, to do so in spoken word is slander and to do so in written word is libel; and both are unlawful and are grounds for lawsuit.  However, given the expense of a lawsuit, I would rather pursue mediation instead.  It tends to resolve the issue more effectively, without the high cost or risk of legal action, and restores the dignity to both parties.\n\nIf this person has any respect for the very same Constitutional laws by which we invoke freedom of speech and press to communicate, he or she should be compelled to answer your petition as long as you are equally answering their grievances.  Indeed, since the First Amendment reflects natural laws that govern all human nature, I have found most people do respond favorably when asked to help correct a grievance peacefully out of respect for the very laws that they enjoy exercising so freely.\n\nBoth sides would have to agree to stop the threatening behavior and to restore civil communications; or the resulting breach or disruption of the peace is, itself, infringing on the rights and freedom of both parties to petition each other peacefully, through spoken or written word, as equally respectful human beings.
651203
Civil Law encompasses the issues of tort claims, money, probate, common law, divorces, family law and issues where law enforcement is not involved. Traffic accident claims, insurance issues and things that do not involve crimes. Civil actions do not usually involve jail. They involve settlements for stuff like personal injury, juvenile law, adoptions, divorces and the like. \n\nCriminal law involves the treatment of people who break the law and are victims of crimes. Robberies, murders, burglaries, and anything else you can go to jail for and be charged with are crimes and are under the jurisdiction of criminal law.
117368
It's in the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:\n\n"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."\n\nIf a person is found guilty of a crime, but later evidence shows up to prove he is innocent, he can request a new trial. In so doing, he would basically be waiving this portion of his 5th Amendment right. \n\nIf a person is found innocent, but later evidence shows up to prove he is guilty, the governmetn cannot violate his 5th Amendment right and re-try him for the same crime. But there is a loop-hole. He could be charged for a different crime. The 4 cops tried for beating Rodney King were found innocent, but then later re-tried for violating his civil rights. Same crime, different charges.
575976
Not knowing what your local laws are.... I would contact your local law enforcement agency and see what they are willing to do to help you.  They might tell you it's a civil problem and give you a direction to follow.
235402
Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution.\n\n"They [Senators and Representatives] shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same"
575199
Your best bet would be to go to the American Civil Liberties Union web site in your area, or look in your local phone book under attorneys, or look up the Library of Congress.