does anybody have case law in support of 18 USC 42 or 18 USC 241 242 ? looking for case law to support my claim against police dept. I do have a good case as it was all filmed and literally was arrested on film for presenting my pocket copy of the Constitution of the United States of America to officers who had just cuffed and stuffed a friend of mine for asking them if they where serious about driving up our driveway at a high rate of speed .Police drove up our driveway after putting lights and siren on a third friend of mine for turning his siren on , on his 1948 Harley Panhead police bike . police did not pull him over on the street , they did not put lights and siren on until he was already in his own driveway . No one broke any laws except the police themselves and we have video as well as individuals that took said videos to prove our case . Also police body cams where subpoenaed in my original defense against there Obstruction charges (for educating them in regards to there violations of the Constitution)and they failed to turn in arresting officers body cam as well as dash cam from patrol car .I feel I have a solid case here but have had a hard time finding any supporting case law ?

What do YOU think your cause of action would be?
And how much money do you think a jury would award you if you win?

cause of action 1 fraud for lying to superior officer on superior officers body cam , telling him that I grabbed him (its all on video) 2 failure to train 3 kidnapping 4 human trafficking 5 negligence 6 trespass (they came into our garage with no warrant) 7 statutory cause of action 18 USC 42 , 18 USC 241 242 (sure I can find others as well and probably should make this the first listed cause of actin). Plan to file , wait for answers then file motion for production to get body cam of arresting officer and dash cam from patrol car that they did not turn in, in my original defense . I think at that point they will probably settle because they cant afford to turn those cams in . If they do not turn in the remaining body and dash cam I will file spoliation charges . As far as how much to sue for I will be looking into that and any case law similar to mine would be helpful . Thank you for listening and hopefully you will have some input for me .

ZAC1... I just ran across this. Go git'em! I'm interested in how this turns out. Brian

18 USC 42, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242
RESPONSE
Answer
The statutes cited in the query, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, and 18 USC 42, all prohibit different types of conduct. 18 USC 241 prohibits conspiracy to deprive a person of civil rights, 18 USC 242 prohibits deprivation of rights under color of law, and 18 USC 42 prohibits the importation or shipment of injurious animals.

Analysis
18 USC 241: This statute makes it a crime for two or more people to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate someone in the free exercise of a right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Several cases, including United States v. Scott, United States v. Cortés–Cabán, and United States v. MartíNez-Mercado, discuss convictions under this statute. In each case, the court found that the government had met its burden of proof in establishing that the defendants had conspired to violate someone's civil rights. In United States v. Hayward, the court discussed the elements of the offense, noting that the government must prove that the defendants conspired with the intent to interfere with the victim's rights.

18 USC 242: This statute makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive someone of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. United States v. Lanier discusses the application of this statute, noting that it incorporates constitutional law by reference. The court held that the Sixth Circuit had applied the wrong standard in determining whether the defendant's conduct fell within the range of criminal liability under the statute. In U.S. v. Lanham, the court discussed the elements of the offense, noting that the government must prove that the defendant acted under color of law and willfully deprived someone of their rights.