21st JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI

STATE OF MISSOURI

JANET SHANKLIN ex.rel )

)
Relator )
)
No. _______________ v.
)
) Date May 22, 2021
) THE HONORABLE CRAIG J.
CONCANNON, et.al )
) Monique M. McNutt,
St. Louis County Counselor ) and
) Grant Shostak,
Public Defender )
)
)
Respondents )

CIVIL  RIGHTS  COMPLAINT

Article VI. Clause 2.1, Section 1.3 Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State

1
shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights 

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure,

oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of 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).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the

highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her

free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if

death results, 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, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or

for life. 

2
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under
Color of Law 
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute,

ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from

any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the

Constitution and laws of the U.S. 

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance,

regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to

different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of

citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or

race. 

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or

local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but

also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided

that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any

law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or

pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition

includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors,

3
Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons

who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Sec. 1983. - Civil Action For Deprivation Of Rights  

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or

usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to

be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction

thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in

equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought

against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial

capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was

violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any

Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be

considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia Title 42, U.S.C., Section

14141. 

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States [and Treaties] which shall be

made in Pursuance thereof; . . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land. +++

Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution

4
 When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his

constitutional rights he exercises no discretion or individual judgment; he acts no

longer as a judge, but as a " minister" of his own prejudices. [386 U.S. 547, 568].

 A judge is liable for injury caused by a ministerial act; to have immunity the judge

must be performing a judicial function. See, e. g., Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S.

339 ; 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1642-1643 (1956).

 The presence of malice and the intention to deprive a person of his civil rights is

wholly incompatible with the judicial function.

 When the state is one of the perpetrators and violators, there can be no expectation

of just, indeed any, relief from it. The State cannot cause a federal violation, and

then try to prohibit litigants from seeking redress in the federal courts for those

same violations (i.e. the state cannot violate our fundamental rights, and then try to

have us dismissed out of federal court for seeking vindication of those rights) ' "We

have long recognized that a state cannot create a transitory cause of action and at

the same time destroy the fight to sue on that transitory cause of action in any court

having jurisdiction", Tennessee Coal, Iron & R, Co. v. George, 233 U.S. 354, 360

(1914)' cited in Marshall v. Marshall (2006).Judges' oath of office includes the

undertaking to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States. Any Judge

violating such undertakings loses jurisdiction, resulting in his orders being VOID,

and he himself commits a treasonable offense against the United States. 

5
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if

bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened

use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to

ten years or both, and if death results, 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, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for

any term of years or for life, or both. 

FRAUD  UPON  THE  COURT (By The Court)

Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the "Court") does NOT

support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. The Court is an unbiased,

but methodical "creature" which is governed by the Rule of Law... that is, the

Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of

Evidence, all which is overseen by Constitutional law. The Court can ONLY be

effective, fair and "just" if it is allowed to function as the laws proscribe. The sad

fact is that in MOST Courts across the country, from Federal Courts down to local

District courts, have judges who are violating their oath of office and are NOT

properly following these rules, (as most attorney's do NOT as well, and are usually

grossly ignorant of the rules and both judges and attorneys are playing a revised

legal game with their own created rules) and THIS is a Fraud upon the Court,

6
immediately removing jurisdiction from that Court, and vitiates (makes ineffective

- invalidates) every decision from that point on. Any judge who does such a thing

is under mandatory, non-discretionary duty to recuse himself or herself from the

case, and this rarely happens unless someone can force them to do so with the

evidence of violations of procedure and threat of losing half their pensions for life

which is what can take place. In any case, it is illegal, and EVERY case which has

had fraud involved can be re-opened AT ANY TIME, because there is no statutes

of limitations on fraud.

"Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court"

And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal Law"

1. Who is an "officer of the court?"

        A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is

a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal

judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially

and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and

must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88

Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

7
2. What is "fraud on the court"?

        Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the

court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763

F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud

which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the

parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court

or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the

judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions

of the court have been directly corrupted."

        "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself,

or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can

not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are

presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's

Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision

produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never

becomes final."

3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court

proceeding?

8
        "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.

        It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud

upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v.

Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates

every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts

and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168

N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it

enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is

axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475

(1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.,

338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American

Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).

        Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed

"fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal

force or effect.

4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

        Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under

certain circumstances.

        In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an

9
objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's

impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to

conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be

disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

        Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is

not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services

Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the

reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779

F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of

partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the

Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual

bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the

judicial process.").

        That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself

in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be

questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v.

Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the

litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received

justice."

        The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice

10
must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80

S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13

(1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is

presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

        "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits

in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under

the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

        Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no

motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the

judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.

        Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are

bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law,

then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which,

possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the

disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance

of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders

issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It

would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or

effect.

11
        Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due

Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845

(7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on

section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").

        Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if

the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have

been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The

judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial

capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful

authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge).

However some judges may not follow the law. 

         

        The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution,

or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a

judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting

without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of

treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate

commerce.

        Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal

12
acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal

acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts. 

Respectfully submitted,

Janet Shanklin

"Section 1983 Litigation"

refers to lawsuits brought under Section 1983 (Civil action for deprivation of
rights) of Title 42 of the United States Code ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ). Section 1983
provides an individual the right to sue state government employees and others
acting "under color of state law" for civil rights violations.

A Section 1983 lawsuit is a legal claim alleging a civil rights violation based on 42 U.S.C. 1983.
These actions may be brought in state or federal court. Victims can pursue monetary damages
or an injunction. The injunction can prevent the violation from happening again.

No one can be liable under Section 1983. Instead, it creates liability for violating other federal
laws. That is why 1983 cases always include an alleged violation of another law, such as the: A
Section 1983 lawsuit is a civil rights lawsuit that can be filed by someone whose civil rights have
been violated.

1983 Lawsuit. A 1983 lawsuit is a type of lawsuit originating under Section 1983 of Title 42 of
the United States Code that allows people to sue government employees for violating their
constitutional rights. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code is part of the Civil Rights Act of
1871. [ Glossary ]

13
To prevail in a claim under section 1983, the plaintiff must prove two critical points: a person
subjected the plaintiff to conduct that occurred under color of state law, and this conduct
deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed under federal law or the U.S.
Constitution.

For Section 1983 to come into play, the person to be sued (the defendant) must have
acted “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State
or Territory or the District of Columbia … .” (42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (2020).) Courts have
determined that the “under color of” clause requires that the wrongdoer qualify, at least
in some sense, as a representative of the state when depriving the victim of …

42 U.S. Code § 1985.Conspiracy to interfere with civil

rights

(1)PREVENTING OFFICER FROM PERFORMING DUTIES

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by
force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any
office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from
discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the
United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an
officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or
property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or
while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as
to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official
duties;
(2)OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE; INTIMIDATING PARTY, WITNESS, OR JUROR
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force,
intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States
from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein,
freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or
property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the
verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such
court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any
verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his
being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire
for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in
any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with
intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to
injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce,

14
the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the
laws;
(3)DEPRIVING PERSONS OF RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on
the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving,
either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal
protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws;
or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of
any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such
State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons
conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is
lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal
manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as
an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the
United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of
such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section,
if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any
act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another
is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and
exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the
party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of
damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one
or more of the conspirators.

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.

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

15
 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.

FINDLAW

 LEARN ABOUT THE LAW

 CIVIL RIGHTS
 ENFORCING YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS
 FILING CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS

Filing Civil Rights Claims

Civil rights protections have come a long way since the nation's founding more than 200
years ago, when slavery thrived and women and people with disabilities were denied
access to the most basic public amenities. But laws only matter when they're enforced;
and with respect to civil rights violations, it is up to aggrieved parties to assert their civil
rights. This section provides both basic and in-depth information about filing
discrimination and other civil rights claims; the importance of filing your claim with the
government before initiating a lawsuit; the government's role in enforcing civil rights
laws; and related information.

16
More

Learn About Filing Civil Rights Claims

 Have Your Civil Rights Been Violated?

A guide to help you determine whether your civil rights have been violated. Learn
about protected rights, your options if your rights have been violated, how to file a
claim with the government, and more.

 Lawsuits for Civil Rights Violations and Discrimination

If your civil rights have been violated, one of your options may be to file a lawsuit
against the parties responsible. Learn about the necessary steps, the difference
between filing in federal or state court, and more.

 The Government's Role in Civil Rights Enforcement

One option when your civil rights have been violated is to file a complaint with the
government. The appropriate government agency will then investigate the issue
and enforce your rights if necessary.

 Filing a Consumer Complaint About a Bank

If you suspect that you’ve been discriminated against by a bank or other financial
institution, you may want to file a complaint with the Federal Reserve System.
Learn about the complaint process here.

 Disability Access: How to File an ADA Title III Complaint

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects individuals from disability
discrimination in public accommodations. Learn about how to file a complaint
under the Act and more.

 How to File an Education Discrimination Complaint

If you feel that you or someone you know has been discriminated against in an
educational matter, one of your options is to file a complaint with the federal
government. This article explains the process involved.

17
Filing Civil Rights Claims Articles

 Civil Rights Enforcement - Overview

 Discrimination in Public Accommodations: Government Enforcement

 Filing a Government Agency Claim Before a Lawsuit

 Government Prosecution of Criminal Civil Rights Violations Q & A

 Lawsuits for Civil Rights Violations and Discrimination

FINDLAW
Government Prosecution of Criminal Civil Rights Violations Q & A

Created by  FindLaw's team  of legal writers and editors | Last updated August 02, 2017

Q. What are the differences between a civil and a criminal civil rights violation?

A. A criminal violation requires the use or threat of force. Other distinctions between
criminal and civil cases brought by the government are:

  CRIMINAL CIVIL

Who is charged: Accused person Usually an organization

Standard of proof: Beyond a reasonable doubt Preponderance of evidence

Fact finder: Jury Judge

Victim: Identified individuals Individuals and/or representatives of a group

or class

Remedy sought: Prison, fine, restitution, community Correct policies and practices, relief for
service individuals

Govt's right to Very limited Yes

appeal:

18
Criminal cases are investigated and prosecuted differently from civil cases. More and
stronger evidence is needed to obtain a criminal conviction than to win a civil suit. In a
criminal case, the government cannot appeal. A federal criminal conviction also
requires a unanimous decision by 12 jurors (or by a judge only if the defendant chooses
not to have a jury). Judges usually hear civil cases, but occasionally a jury will decide
the case.

Both criminal and civil cases can be resolved without a trial by party agreement and with
the concurrence of the judge; this is done by a plea agreement (criminal case) or by
a consent decree (civil suit). In criminal cases, judges must use the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines in determining the defendant's punishment, whereas judges in civil suits may
or may not adopt remedies as recommended by the government when it wins.

Q. If there is no violence or threat of violence, whom should I contact?

A. If no violence is involved, complaints should be submitted in writing to the Civil

Rights Division, where it will be forwarded to the appropriate Section for review. The
Division's mailing address is:

Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington,
D.C. 20530

Q. What do I do when my civil rights have been violated, and can I make a
complaint on behalf of someone else? Must it be in writing?

A. Individuals may report possible violations on their own or on behalf of others if they
have sufficient first-hand information about the incident. The information provided
should include the following:

 Names of the victim(s), any witnesses, and the perpetrators (if known)
 A description of the events
 Whether any physical injuries or physical damage were incurred

Complaints in writing are preferred, but there may be circumstances when a telephone
complaint is appropriate (especially if there is an immediate danger).

Hate crimes:

 Local FBI field office or

 Local police department

19
Health care access interference:

 Local FBI field office [phone threats]

 Local ATF (Treasury) [bombing or arson]

Involuntary servitude or migrant worker exploitation:

 Local FBI field office or

 Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Task Force  - 1-888-428-7581 (weekdays
9 AM - 5 PM EST) - [available in 100 languages during work hours and English, Spanish,
Russian, and Mandarin after hours]

Housing interference:

FINDLAW NEWSLETTERS

Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life

Learn more  about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google  Privacy Policy  and  Terms of
Service  apply.
 Local FBI field office and/or
 Local HUD office

Official misconduct:

 Local FBI field office

Religious interference or property damage:

 Local FBI field office

If you are unable to locate the appropriate office listed above, please send the complaint
in writing directly to the Criminal Section at the following address:

Criminal Section Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 66018,
Washington, D.C. 20035-6018

Q. Is there a cost involved in making a complaint?

A. NO FEE is required to file a complaint.

20
Q. What help can I receive if I am a victim whose civil rights have been violated?

A. During the course of a federal criminal civil rights investigation, the victim may be
eligible to receive compensation (for medical and mental health treatment, funerals, lost
wages, and crime scene clean-up) and other assistance provided through various local
government and private agencies. Each state has eligibility requirements for receiving
compensation, usually requiring that the victim promptly report the incident and
cooperate with the police and prosecutors.

Q. Can a victim receive monetary compensation as the result of a criminal case?

A. If a defendant is convicted as the result of a federal criminal civil rights prosecution,
the government will ask the court to order restitution to be paid to the victim where it is
permitted by law and appropriate to the facts of the case.

Q. Will the federal government represent me in a lawsuit against the defendant?

A. The U.S. government cannot represent a victim in a civil suit arising out of a criminal
civil rights violation. Victims may contact a private attorney to pursue a civil action even
if there has been a federal prosecution for the same incident.

Q. Do all federal criminal civil rights violations require racial, religious, or ethnic
hatred? If not, what does "color of law" mean?

A. Official misconduct and slavery cases (such as police beatings and migrant worker

exploitation) do NOT require that the law enforcement officer or exploiter have acted
out of hatred for the victim because of the victim's race, national origin, color, or
religion. However, there are several laws that do require that the unlawful acts be based
upon such a discriminatory motivation including housing and religious interference or
acts intended to prevent an individual from enjoying certain federal rights (voting,
employment, use of public facilities or access to health care [gender]).

"Color of law", a legal term used in official misconduct cases, means that the law
enforcement officer acted while abusing the authority given to him or her by reason of
his or her employment as a public official.

21
 

22