DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

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).

Investigative Areas

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 not comply.

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 process.

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.

Acting under 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 262

“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.

“The 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):

"For a 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:

"If any 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 Reasonable Doubt”.

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 Constitutions.

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 law.

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.

4. The 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

Supreme 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 C.A. 132.

““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.

“Generally, “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.

“The corpus 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.

“Without standing, 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.