What About This?

[ForeignDude]

Just found this (link).

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.


Could this section of the USC be used, for example, to:

(1) prosecute the entire DC city council;
(2) prosecute those members of the school and school board who are preventing Oregon's "Jane Doe" from carrying in school for self protection;
(3) prosecute any police officer who unlawfully arrests an individual who open-carries, where such is the practice (as has happened to a few members of VCDL).

Granted, I don't know how such a statute would apply to private businesses, if at all. I certainly would not (say again, not) be in favor of prosecuting the local fast-food joint for putting up a "NO GUNS" sign.

Nonetheless, there it is. What say you, folks? Is there something to this?

 

[makarova]

Theoretically, yes.

However, this is a criminal case and I doubt such a filing would go very far. IANAL. It would be possible to file a civil case and of course it would be on the tax payer dime. If I were filing such a case, I would have an agreement in writing with my attorney that 1. Any settlement would be with my written agreement only. and 2. My attorney had taken this case with the understanding that he was prepared to litigate this case all the way through to judgment. That way if he thinking of $$$$ signs only, he couldn't threaten to back out in the middle of case in order to pressure me to settle. Ask me how I know about that!!! And of course the old rule of thumb applies. Unless he's willing to take the case on a contingency basis, he doesn't think you got a case!

 

[Thain]

he couldn't threaten to back out in the middle of case in order to pressure me to settle. Ask me how I know about that!!! And of course the old rule of thumb applies. Unless he's willing to take the case on a contingency basis, he doesn't think you got a case!

Hmm, let us count the ethical violations here...

First of all, most jurisdictions in the United States prohibit working for a contingency fee in family law or criminal cases. This is spelled out in Rule 1.5(d) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association, which are the rules adopted nearly wholecloth by most state bars.

There are also very specific rules about terminating representation of a client, and I'm hard pressed to figure out how any lawyer could use it as a bargaining tactic. This is covered by Rule 1.16 if you are curious.

Anyway, with regrd to the OP:

Could this section of the USC be used, for example, to:

(1) prosecute the entire DC city council;
(2) prosecute those members of the school and school board who are preventing Oregon's "Jane Doe" from carrying in school for self protection;
(3) prosecute any police officer who unlawfully arrests an individual who open-carries, where such is the practice (as has happened to a few members of VCDL).

(1) No. A conspiracy exists when two or more parties use legal means to accomplish an illegal result, or they use illegal means to achieve some other goal that is unlawful. The D.C. City Council held open meetings, proposed a law, received public comments, and ten voted to pass a law. They did nothing illegal, and the acheived a legal end. If SCotUS upholds the CoA, then yes, the law in question will be tossed. But you can't be prosecuted for ex post facto law.

(2) No. There is nothing illegal about the Oregon "gun free school zone" statutes.

(3) Probably not. The police officer might possibly be hit for "unlawful arrest," but it'd be one heck of a leap to get to conspiracy.

 

[gunsmith]

looks like

it would apply to Mayor Bloomberg
and his cronies

 

[damien]

Some of that law appears to be unconstitutional. It allows the death penalty for attempted kidnapping, attempted murder, and attempted aggravated sexual abuse. In general the courts have ruled that the death penalty can only be applied for a murder under aggravating circumstances.