"Color of law"
From FBI website at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm
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).
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.
Most of the FBI's color of law investigations would fall into five broad areas:
• excessive force;
• sexual assaults;
• false arrest/fabrication of evidence;
• deprivation of property; and
• 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.
Filing a Complaint
In order to file a complaint alleging a violation of the criminal laws discussed above, you may contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:
• all identifying information for the victim(s);
• as much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and agency employed;
• date and time of incident;
• location and time of incident;
• names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
• a complete chronology of events; and
• any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.
You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district, or send a written complaint to:
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66018
Washington, D.C. 20035-6018
Investigations vary in length and although there are internal limitations, the investigation will proceed to its logical conclusion. The FBI is the investigative component of the Department of Justice. It is, therefore, not responsible for the prosecution of a case. That is the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., and the United States Attorney's Office within the local jurisdiction. After the FBI has completed its investigation, it forwards its findings to the United States Attorney's Office and to the Department of Justice. They then make the determination as to whether to proceed toward prosecution or not.
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:
Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions.
Officers not providing justification or reporting incidents involving the use of force.
Lack of, or improper training of officers.
A department having a citizen complaint process which treats complainants as adversaries.
Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, DOJ has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities, when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons.
Also see Department of Justice 8-1.000 CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
“It is a clearly established principle of law that an attorney must represent a corporation, it being incorporeal and a creature of the law. An attorney representing an artificial entity must appear with the corporate charter and law in his hand. A person acting as an attorney for a foreign principal must be registered to act on the principal’s behalf.” See, Foreign Agents Registration Act” (22 USC § 612 et seq.); Victor Rabinowitz et. at. v. Robert F. Kennedy,376 US 605. “Failure to file the "Foreign Agents Registrations Statement" goes directly to the jurisdiction and lack of standing to be before the court, and is a felony pursuant to 18 USC §§ 219, 951. The conflict of law, interest and allegiance is obvious.
Lunch Bite - A Lawyer can not make a claim to your rights , Only you can . Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee's mind blowing assertion in
United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538 (M.D. Pa. 1947)
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania - 76 F. Supp. 538 (M.D. Pa. 1947) February 26, 1947 ,
" The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. " test the matter in contempt ..looks like he's tryin to get some cash flow and a cut with the trust double dip .. .
" McAlister v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S. Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth v. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum v. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed * words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies as to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus. " [ Emphasis added } see Justia for full case and elsewhere .. refuse or produce ..later
This Court has held that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were inspired by the same abuses, preceding the adoption of the Constitution, and they must be liberally construed in favor of the citizen and his liberty, and that stealthy encroachments upon the rights guaranteed by them will not be tolerated. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616. OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES U.S. Supreme Court·277 U.S. 438 (1928)
If the Congress sees fit to provide citizens with a particular cause of action, then we as federal courts should entertain that action — and unbegrudgingly.JOHNSON v. COLLINS ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY•199 F.3d 710, 729 (4th Cir. 1999)If the Congress sees fit to provide citizens with a particular cause of action, then we as federal courts should entertain that action — and unbegrudgingly.JOHNSON v. COLLINS ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY•199 F.3d 710, 729 (4th Cir. 1999)
the US and all states are 100% controlled by judicial and political prostitutes and the BAR is the entity that has taken over:
THE BAR CONTROLS ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT...(See Below)
1.) The ABA/BAR has a 100% racketeering monopoly on Justice........they control every court every law; they control the entire Judicial Branch
2) Up to 70% of all members of every congress are BAR members.....So the BAR has infiltrated the Legislative Branch..up to 70%
3.) Barack Obama a former BAR member, Hillary a BAR member so they have a lock on the Executive Branch
4.) Many Governors are BAR members...........(Are you starting to see a pattern ...the evidence is blatant!)
5) Adding icing to their mafia racketeering cake is the kicker of all .............the BAR controls the FBI, the US marshals, the ATF, the DEA the ENTIRE Department of Justice via BAR member Loretta Lynch and Barack Obama
6.) And the final nail in our coffin is that the BAR controls every Sheriff in almost every Country via a BAR members called the DA.........
When one takes a birds eye view of their insidious work they will realize such infiltration started in 1783 at the Signing of the Treaty of Paris.
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL
STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE
This Court “must” adhere to authority, “The doctrine of star decisis is but an application of the doctrine of estoppels”, [brown v. Rosenbaum, 175 Misc. 295, 23 N.Y.S.2d 161,171;].
“Jurisdiction must be documented, shown, and proven, to lawfully exist before a cause may lawfully proceed in the court”, [Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 p2s 389; Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 789, 80 L Ed. 1135; Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272; Basso v. U.P.L., 495 F2d. 906; Thomson v. Gaskell, 62 S. Ct. 637, 83 L. Ed. 111; and Albrecht v. U.S.. 273 U.S.S.1.]. To adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established [87 Pa. 286; Ballard County v. Kentucky County Debt Commission, 290 Ky. 770, 162 S. W. 2d 771,773.]
BAR? BRITISH ACCREDITED REGISTRY B.A.R.?
During the middle 1600's" the Crown of England established a Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence" the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA.
When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent - established in what was formally named the British Crown Territory o& New England - the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America.
Today, each corporate “STATE" in America has it's own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law - lawyers - to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything?
Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each “STATE," every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney - one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling landowner. Another name game they use is "of counsel," which means absolutely nothing more than an offer of advice. Surely, the mechanic down the street can do that! Advice is one thing; lawful representation is another.
A BAR licensed Attorney is not an advocate, so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is? He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the Crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the landowner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer for that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court. A more appropriate phrase would be "legal plunder." See "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat, 1850.