How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask TexLaw Your Own Question
TexLaw, Attorney
Category: Personal Injury Law
Satisfied Customers: 4430
Experience:  Lead Personal Injury Trial Lawyer
Type Your Personal Injury Law Question Here...
TexLaw is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

in a legal advocacy for a social cause, I want to invoke 4th

This answer was rated:

in a legal advocacy for a social cause, I want to invoke 4th amendment protections and remedies versus an entity that while not OFFICIALLY working for the government, has evidenced enough ties to make it quasi-public, and thus subject to 4th amendment protections and remedies . I know that 4th amendment cases and remedies don't really go well together as there has historically not been a bunch of them around. But this is a social cause truly don't care even if i only win $1 - as I am decently well equipped and funded to take this cause that's been in federal court for a year, even higher than the court of appeals. My question is this; can you point me to any known cases or theories wherein there has ever been constitutional protections extended to an entity that , while technically not working for the government, was found to be "de facto" working for the government or as an agent thereof? I just need one example, if possible. Thank You.
Here are some cases which take about the standard you need to meet to prove quasi-governmental status:

Nat'l Bank v. Panther Mt. Land Dev., LLC (In re Panther Mt. Land Dev., LLC), No. 11-1900, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, 686 F.3d 916; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15319; Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P82,305;XXXXX Dec. 226, February 15, 2012, Submitted, July 25, 2012, Filed

OVERVIEW: Improvement districts formed under Arkansas law by Chapter 11 debtor were not expressly covered by 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(a)(1) because they were separate, pseudo-governmental entities with certain powers including abilities to sue or be sued, incur expenses for development purposes, and impose priority liens on properties included within the districts.

Houston Cmty. Hosp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Tex., Inc., No. 05-50454 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, 481 F.3d 265; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680, March 9, 2007, Filed

OVERVIEW: A private administrator of a plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, 5 U.S.C.S. §§ 8901-8914, was not arm of government or entitled to official immunity or federal sovereign immunity against nonpayment claims filed by hospital; district court's denial of summary judgment was not collateral order giving rise to appellate jurisdiction.

If you want to talk your issue through, I would be happy to do so, but I need more details on exactly what is going on.

Best Regards,
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

believe it or not there have only been a handful of spyware cases in the US that deal with personal privacy. All of them have been in the 6th circuit, and my case was moved there by the defendants. One of my defendants brags in ads that their software was developed by an EX- NSA programmer. These companies have peddled software developed in govt labs to the average citizen, many of whom use them to coerce, blackmail and abuse women. It works as a nice workaround the constitutional protections wherein the govt needs a warrant. its effectively a CyberPlatter - reminiscent of the "SilverPlatter" days prior to the exclusionary rule, where the feds would use the states to do their footwork, then not have to worry about constitutional restraints on the evidence gathered. IM arguing that the software companies, entities that were once the bane of the internet, who went legit and turned their rootkit spyware into empires, are de facto spying for the govt, free and clear of constitutional restraints. Luckily, the judge in my case is the same judge who ruled on Warshak - which ended up making the 6th circuit the first (nd i htink only) to block the feds from freely spying on our in boxes- , so she will appreciate the net argument - albeit standing on shaky legal grounds, but it does have a point.

Very interesting and troubling!

What is the full citation to the Warshak case?
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

she initially ruled on it, then it went back and forth for years. Now in the internet age, its so very important this gets changed. The NSA is building a million square foot facility in Utah to collect all words ever spoken on the internet. They can do it because the laws allow them to, as long as they dont "read" them at the time of intercept. This is an ominous development. I understand the need for national security, but the things going on where they are pressuring and demanding google and companies like that retain records for years and years, is omonus. ANd repats the same pattern, albit in a high tech manner, that my family saw in Cuba. There, the communists had little indians on every corner who would inform on a neighbor who dared speak ill of Castro (so much so that even TODAY cubans in cuba never say CASTRO out loud, they point to their beards. Now the "little indians" are the 100K employers that monitor their employees every word and move on their company laptops, and millions of people like the abusive defendnt in my case who used it to strip his wife of house, home, and any monthly payments and interest in this CEO guys 2 successful businesses. ANyway, the citation is United States v. Warshak, "Warshak VI", 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25415 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2010)

Let me read this case and I'll get back to you with my thoughts.
You are talking about a the government obtaining information which is likely protected by t the Stored Communications Act by hiring third parties to install spyware onto your computer.

This would implicated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C.S. § 1030, which is a criminal statute which penalizes a range of computer offenses and also provides a civil remedy in certain circumstances to persons who suffer damage or loss as a result of a violation of its provisions. Section 1030(g) specifies the circumstances in which a plaintiff may bring a civil action under the CFAA.

TexLaw and 5 other Personal Injury Law Specialists are ready to help you