TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
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.
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, Council persons, Judges, Nursing
Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws,
statutes ordinances, or customs.
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 Pattern and Practice
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141: makes it unlawful for state or local
law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or
practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States. This law is commonly referred
to as the Police Misconduct Statute. This law gives DOJ the authority
to seek civil remedies in cases where it is determined that law
enforcement agencies have policies or practices which foster a pattern
of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency,
not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a
Pattern and Practice investigation include:
1. Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions. 2. Officers not providing justification or reporting incidents involving the use of force. 3. Lack of, or improper training of officers. 4. A department having a citizen complaint process which treats complainants as adversaries.
Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a
violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the
United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and
declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:
1. Excessive Force 2. Discriminatory Harassment 3. False Arrest 4. Coercive Sexual Conduct 5. Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests
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, or may be
sentenced to death.
It is a crime for one or more persons
acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive
another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the
United States. "Color of law" simply means that the person doing the
act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local,
state or federal). Criminal acts under color of law include acts not
only done by local, state, or federal officials within the bounds or
limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds
of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered under
color of law, if the perpetrator asserted their official status in some
manner. Color of law may include public officials who are not law
enforcement officers, for example, judges and prosecutors, as well as,
in some circumstances, non governmental employees who are asserting
state authority, such as private security guards. While the federal
authority to investigate color of law type violations extends to any
official acting under "color of law", the vast majority of the
allegations are against the law enforcement community. The average
number of all federal civil rights cases initiated by the FBI from 1997
-2000 was 3513. Of those cases initiated, about 73% were allegations of
color of law violations. Within the color of law allegations, about 82%
were allegations of abuse of force with violence (59% of the total
number of civil rights cases initiated).
Most of the FBI's color of law investigations would fall into five broad areas:
1. excessive force; 2. sexual assaults; 3. false arrest/fabrication of evidence; 4. deprivation of property; and 5. failure to keep from harm.
In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law
enforcement officers are allowed to utilize whatever force is
"reasonably" necessary. The breath and scope of the use of force is
vast. The spectrum begins with the physical presence of the official
through the utilization of deadly force. While some types of force used
by law enforcement may be violent by their very nature, they may be
considered "reasonable," based upon the circumstances. However,
violations of federal law occur where it can be shown that the force
used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive" against individuals.
Sexual assaults by officials acting under "color of law" could happen
in a variety of venues. They could occur in court scenarios, jails,
and/or traffic stops to name just a few of the settings where an
official might use their position of authority to coerce another
individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained
because of a threat of an official action against the other if they do
The Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or
seizures. A law enforcement official using his authority provided under
the "color of law" is allowed to stop individuals and even if necessary
to search them and retain their property under certain circumstances. It
is in the abuse of that discretionary power that a violation of a
person's civil rights might occur. An unlawful detention or an illegal
confiscation of property would be examples of such an abuse of power.
An official would violate the color of law statute by fabricating
evidence against or conducting a false arrest of an individual. That
person's rights of due process and unreasonable seizure have been
violated. In the case of deprivation of property, the official would
violate the color of law statute by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining
the property of another. In that case, the official has overstepped or
misapplied his authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the
right to due process and the Eighth Amendment also prohibits the use of
cruel and unusual punishment. In an arrest or detention context, these
rights would prohibit the use of force amounting to punishment (summary
judgment). The idea being that a person accused of a crime is to be
allowed the opportunity to have a trial and not be subjected to
punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal
The public entrusts its law enforcement officials with
protecting the community. If it is shown that an official willfully
failed to keep an individual from harm that official could be in
violation of the color of law statute.
The Supreme Court has
had to interpret the United States Constitution to construct law
regulating the actions of those in the law enforcement community.
Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial,
religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.
color of [state] law is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state
law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the
authority of state law Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654
(N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)
“The general rule is that an
unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is
in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose
since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not
merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional
law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been
passed ... An unconstitutional law is void.” (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; imposes no
duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as it had never been passed.” Norton v.
Shelby County.” 118 U.S. 425
“If the State converts a liberty
into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262
“No State legislator or
executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without
violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the
land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of
law.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137
“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can
engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US
“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a
Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the
law.” Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622
“The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616
“State courts, like federal courts, have a “constitutional obligation”
to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law.” Stone v.
Powell 428 US 465, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067.
obligation of state courts to give full effect to federal law is the
same as that of federal courts.” New York v. Eno. 155 US 89, 15 S. Ct.
30, 39 L. Ed. 80.
“An administrative agency may not finally
decide the limits of its statutory powers; this is a judicial function.”
Social Security Board v. Nierotko. 327 US 358, 66 S. Ct. 637, 162 ALR
1445, 90 L. Ed. 719.
"State Police Power extends only to
immediate threats to public safety, health, welfare, etc.," Michigan v.
Duke 266 US, 476 Led. At 449: which driving and speeding are not.
California v. Farley Ced. Rpt. 89, 20 CA3d 1032 (1971):
crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There
can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this
Constitutional right." Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:
Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person
and subject matter, the case must be dismissed." Louisville v. Motley
2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42. “The Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a
Title 42 Penalties For Government Officers
The AUTHORITY FOR FINES (DAMAGES) CAUSED BY CRIMES BY GOVERNMENT OFFICERS.
These Damages were determined by GOVERNMENT itself for the violation listed. Breach Penalty Authority
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE $250,000.00 18 USC 3571 DENIED PROPER WARRANT(S) $250,000.00 18 USC 3571 DENIED RIGHT OF REASONABLE DEFENSE ARGUMENTS $250,000.00 18 USC 3571 DEFENSE EVIDENCE (RECORDS) $250,000.00 18 USC 357I DENIED RIGHT TO TRUTH IN EVIDENCE $250,000.00 18 USC 3571 SLAVERY (Forced Compliance to contracts not held) $250,000.00 18 USC 3571 DENIED PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION $250,000.00 18 USC 3571 TREASON (combined above actions). $250,000.00 18 USC 3571 GENOCIDE $1,000,000.00 18 USC 1091 MISPRISION OF FELONY $500.00 18 USC 4 CONSPIRACY $10,000.00 18 USC 241 EXTORTION $5,000.00 18 USC 872 MAIL THREATS $5,000.00 18 USC 876 FRAUD $10,000.00 18 USC 1001 FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS $10,000.00 18 USC 1001 PERJURY $2,000.00 18 USC 1621 SUBORNATION OF PERJURY $2,000.00 18 USC 1622 GRAND THEFT (18 USC 2112) each $250,000.00
To determine multiply no. of counts by damage 18 USC 3571 RACKETEERING (Criminal) $25,000.00 18 USC 1963 RACKETEERING (Civil) Wages Taken $x3 = 5? 18 USC 1964 (Sustained Damages [total] x 3) Thirty-seven (37) Constitutional violations from Count 1: = $9,250,000.00 Damages Dealing with claims of "immunity."
Any claim of " immunity" is a fraud because, if valid, it would prevent
removal from office for crimes against the people, which removal is
authorized or even mandated under U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section
IV; as well as 18 USC 241, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, and other state
Precedents of Law established by COURT cases,
which are in violation of law, render violations of law legally
unassailable. Such a situation violates several specifically stated
intents and purposes of the Constitution set forth in the Preamble; to
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the-blessings
of liberty. This is for JUDGES, or anyone in any branch of government.
SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION
SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION:
1. The accused must be properly identified, identified in such a
fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be
singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to
arrest and trial without benefit of "wrong party" defense. Almost
always, the means of identification is a person's proper name, BUT ANY
MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION IS EQUALLY VALID IF SAID MEANS DIFFERENTIATES
THE ACCUSED WITHOUT DOUBT. (There is no constitutionally valid
requirement you must identify yourself, see 4th Amendment; also see,
Brown vs. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v. Lawson 461 US 352.)
2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common
name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy
of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or
even low-level bureaucratic orders (example: colorado National Monument
Superintendent's Orders regarding an unleashed dog or a dog defecating
on a trail). If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could
bring new and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error.
For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a
crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory
definition of an offense, by affirmative non-applicability. In other
words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the
3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in
non-prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average
intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of
defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of.
The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the
language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense describes a
specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a
general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be
considered in the determination of probable cause.
accuser must be named. He/she may be an officer or a third party, but
some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse; some
certain person must take responsibility for the making of the
accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid
means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the
injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay
evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that they heard
that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.
5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury
cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may
accuse another falsely without risk.
6. To comply with the five
elements above, that is for the accusation to be valid, the accused
must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law,
procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes
court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful
process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any
means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom, and all dissent
may be stifled by utilization of defective process.
"The essential elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to defend. “Simon v. Craft, 182 US 427.
"one is not entitled to protection unless he has reasonable cause to
apprehend danger from a direct answer. The mere assertion of a privilege
does not immunize him; the court must determine whether his refusal is
justified, and may require that he is mistaken in his refusal. “Hoffman
v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)
7. The court must be one
of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a
creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation,
i.e., Article III judge. Lacking any of the seven elements or
portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all
designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); it is
the defendant's duty to inform the court of facts alleged for
determination of sufficiency to support conviction, should one be
obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and charge must be
dismissed for failure to state an offense. Without lawful notice, there
is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings prior to filing of a
proper trial document in compliance with the seven elements is void. A
lawful act is always legal but many legal acts by government are often
unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary knowledge and incentive to
comply with the mandates of constitutional due process. They will make
mistakes. Numbers beyond count have been convicted without benefit of
governmental adherence to these seven elements. Today, informations are
being filed and prosecuted by "accepted practice" rather than due
process of law.
Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven,
not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction.
The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is
only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See, “McNutt v.
General Motors Acceptance Corp, 298 U.S. 178 (1936). The origins of this
doctrine of law may be found in “MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4
U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424
courts ruled "Without Corpus delicti there can be no crime"“In every
prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”,
i.e., the body or elements of the crime.” People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr.
47, 254 C.A.2d 185.
"In every criminal trial, the prosecution
must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the
fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as
its cause. " People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting
People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d
903, 46 P.3d 372.].
“Elements of “corpus delecti,” injury or
loss or harm and a criminal agency which causes such injury, loss or
harm, need only be proven by a “reasonable probability,” i.e., by slight
or prima facie proof… ” People v. Ramirez, 153 Cal.Rptr. 789, 791, 91
““Corpus delecti” of crime consists of fact of
injury, loss, or harm, and existence of criminal agency as cause. ”
People v. Daly, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 21, 28, 8 CA4th 47.
“corpus delecti” of crime is (1) the fact of the loss or harm, and (2)
the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. ” People v. Dorsey, 118
Cal.Rptr. 362, 43 CA3d 953.
"There is no requirement of
independent evidence 'of every physical act constituting an element of
an offense,' so long as there is some slight or prima facie showing of
injury, loss, or harm by a criminal agency. " In re I.M., 23 Cal.Rptr.3d
375, 381 (2005).
"The corpus delecti of a crime consists of
two elements[:] the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and the
existence of a criminal agency as its cause. " People v. Jones, 949 P.2d
890, 902, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 793, 17 Cal.4th 279.
delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance
of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s
extrajudicial confession or admissions. The corpus delecti of a crime
consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm,
and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing]
“People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92
CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d
464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640,
805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d
729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318
and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily
Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v
Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill
App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind
184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375;
Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359
US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW
821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350
Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v
Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v
Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both
elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.” 29A American
Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.
there is no actual or justiciable controversy, and courts will not
entertain such cases. (3 Witlen, Cal. Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions §
44, pp 70-72.) “Typically, … the standing inquiry requires careful
judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether
the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the
particular claims asserted. ” (Allen v. Wright, (1984) 468 U.S. 737,
752…Whether one has standing in a particular case generally revolved
around the question whether that person has rights that may suffer some
injury, actual or threatened. ” Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 45
Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335.
"As a general principal, standing to
invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy
as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate
adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer
an injury. " People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.
"Judicial power generally is the power to adjudicate upon the legal
rights of persons and property, with reference to transactions or
occurrences existing or already had and closed...The judicial function
is to 'declare the law and define the rights of the parties under it.
“Frasher v. Rader, 124 Cal. 133, 56 P. 797...'A determination of the
rights of an individual under the existing laws' is an exercise of
judicial power...An essential element of judicial power, distinguishing
it from legislative power, is that it requires "the ascertainment of
existing rights." People v. Bird, 300 P. 22, 26-27. , there are 2 elements to corpus delcti injury,loss(damage) redress ability of the court.