In my blog post entitled, Why the Supreme Court Gave Judges Absolute Judicial Immunity at the Expense of Our “Guaranteed” 14th Amendment Rights in the Constitution one of the reasons the Supreme court gave was because allegedly the definition of “color of law” did not include judges. In today’s article we will find out if that’s true.
The language congress employed, holding liable all persons acting under color of state law, had ancient roots in the law. Since the thirteenth century, the legal term of “color of office” or “color of law” meant abuse of legal authority.
Criminal Consequences for Judges Acting Under Color of Law
The U.S Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice defines exactly what “color of law” means. In section 18 U.S.C., § 242 which was originally known as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it stated that the provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
It further stated that the statute includes judges, district attorneys.
So, persons acting under color of law included judges.
Civil Liability for Judges Acting Under Color of Law
The U.S Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice defines “color of law” as including judges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which is the modern version of the KKK Act of 1871. This is the statute that mimicked the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The difference is that instead of criminal liability, there is civil liability and the act would not require willfulness. It gave victims of civil rights violations the right to sue state officials who deprives them of these rights.
It stated, “That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, shall, any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State to the contrary notwithstanding, be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…”
Since the U.S. Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department includes judges as persons acting under color of law. Therefore, they have civil consequences for depriving a person of their 14th amendment rights.
The Supreme Courts Definition of Color of Law
In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled in Pierson v. Ray ruled on what the legislative definition of “color of law” meant. Chief Justice Warren, in his opinion for 8 members of the Court in reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1871 stated:
“We do not believe that this settled principle of law was abolished by § 1983, which makes liable “every person” who under color of law deprives another person of his civil rights. The legislative record gives no clear indication that Congress meant to abolish wholesale all common-law immunities. Accordingly, this Court held in Tenney v. Brandhove…that immunity of legislators for acts within the legislative role was not abolished. The immunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is equally well established, and we presume that Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish the doctrine.“
Federal Court Judges Are Committing Crimes
So, even though the U.S Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice explicitly stated that persons acting under the color of law included judges. The Supreme Court has chosen to outright break the law and state that it does not include judges.
Every judge since who has ruled in favor of judicial immunity has committed a crime. They have bastardized the separation of powers and caused the breakdown of our judicial system. They have committed treason.
This Makes our Justice System a Threat to Every Man, Woman and Child in America
The legislative record also directly addresses whether legislation included judges before it passed.
However, the First Circuit decided recently that it was ok for a judge to rob a person of their constitutional rights. They even allow judges to kidnap children. We can see this in case 23-1655. These judges committed treason.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on judicial immunity has been in place since 1967. The Federal Courts STILL have not overturned their interpretation of who is included in the “color of law” definition.
Chief Justice Warren did not have a background in constitution law. I believe if he had been then this ruling would never have happened. Countless mothers and fathers would not have committed suicide, and countless families would not have been completely and utterly destroyed.
We must vote in members of congress who will replace all Federal Court judges who participated in these crimes. They must be replaced with judges who specialize in constitution law.
In the next article we will discuss England: Historical Consequences of Being Deprived of the Magna Carta. It delves into the importance of the Magna Carta and how that impacted the 14th Amendment as we know it today and the consequences of robbing people of those rights.
Footnotes:
28 Steven L. Winter, The Meaning of “Under Color of” Law, 91 MICH. L. REV. 323, 326-27 (1992) (“[T]he central idea conveyed by the phrase had remained remarkably constant for six centuries: Under color of law referred to official action without authority of law, in the nineteenth as in the thirteenth century.”); David Achtenberg, A “Milder Measure of Villainy”: The Unknown History of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Meaning of “Under Color of” Law, 1999 UTAH L. REV. 1, 59-60 (1999) (arguing that for members of the 42nd Congress “‘under color of” law meant ‘under pretense of’ law”).
29 Michigan Law Review, Volume 91, Issue 3, The Meaning of “Under Color of” Law, Steven L. Winter, 1992, page 327.