September 4, 2015

Kentucky clerk’s actions are about deprivation of rights under color of law

The refusal of Kentucky’s Rowan County Clerk Davis to issue same sex marriage licenses is not an act of free speech and religious freedom, but rather a criminal deprivation of rights under color of law, a gross violation of legally established rules of workplace religious proselytizing, and the coercive imposition of an undue burden of objectionable religious beliefs and practices onto the existence of others.

The assertions by Arkansas Gov. Mike Dingleberry and Lou’s ee Anna”s Gov. Bobby ChristoJihadist Jindal and various and sundry Fecal News talking rectums that this is about First Amendment Rights and Freedom of Religion and the repugnant Religious Freedom Restoration Laws is a smoke screen to establish their concept of fundamentalist extremist religious tyranny in America. There is a fundamental difference between freedom of speech and behavior and actions. Their behavior and actions deprive American citizens of our constitutional rights, which they are vigorously trying to accomplish with their repulsive invocations of Religious Freedoms and the creation and implementation of their Religious Freedom Restoration Laws, which are nothing more than legitimizing and codifying religious coercion, intimidation and tyranny. This is their attempt to establish ChristoSharia Law in America.

County clerk Davis’ refusal to issue same sex marriage licenses is a blatant denial of constitutional rights to these couples, and thusly is a criminal act known as “under color of law”. And for this, she must be prosecuted.

This is the legal definition of “under color of law” as it appears in the Federal Code:

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

[link:http://|https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242]

“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, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, 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 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 both, or may be sentenced to death.”

Further, in 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (known as Section 1983) provides civil rights liability for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of the law:

[link:http://|http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm

42 U.S.C. § 1983, commonly referred to as "section 1983" provides:

“Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

The settled law aspect of 18 U.S. Code Sec. 242 was established in U. S. v. CLASSIC, No. 618, (1941), by the Supreme Court in 1941.

[link:http://|http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/313/299.html]

[link:http://|https://supremejustia.com/cases/federal/us/313/299/case.html]

I am writing a bit about this case because I found it to be an extremely interesting read, as it was about election violations and I am quite interested in electronic voting corruption. If you have the time, I highly recommend reading this case.

Mr. Justice STONE, delivered the opinion of the Court.

Following are some excerpts from this case:
“

Section 19 of the Criminal Code condemns as a criminal offense any conspiracy to injure a citizen in the exercise 'of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States'. Section 20 makes it a penal offense for anyone who, 'acting under color of any w' 'willfully subjects, or causes to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or [313 U.S. 299, 310] protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States'.”

]
Section 20 of the Criminal Code, U.S.C., Title 18, Sec. 52, 18 U.S. C.A. 52:

'Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects, or causes to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be find not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.' (R.S. 5510; Mar. 4, 1909, c. 321, 20, 35 Stat. 1092).”

More:
The precursor of 20 was 2 of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, which reads:

'That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties on account of such person having at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or by reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be punished by fine ....'

And more:

Senator Trumbull, the putative author of S. 61, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., the Civil Rights Bill of 1866, and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee which reported the bill, in explaining it stated that the bill was 'to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights and furnishes the means of their vindication. ...' Cong.Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 211. He also declared, 'The bill applies to white men as well as black men'. Cong.Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 599. Opponents of the bill agreed with this construction of the first clause of the section, declaring that it referred to the deprivation of constitutional rights of all inhabitants of the states of every race and color. Pp. 598, 601.

On February 24, 1870, Senator Stewart of Nevada, introduced S. 365, 41st Cong., 2d Sess., 2 of which read:
“'That any person who under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom shall subject, or cause to be subjected any inhabitant or any State or Territory to the deprivation of any rights secured or protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. ...'
In explaining the bill he declared, Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1536, that the purpose of the bill was to extend its benefits to aliens, saying, 'It extends the operation of the Civil Rights Bill, which is well known in the Senate and to the country, to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.' The Committee reported out a substitute bill to H.R. 1293, to which S. 365 was added as an amendment. As so amended the bill when adopted became the present 20 of the Criminal Code which read exactly as did 2 of the Civil Rights Act, except that the word 'aliens' was added and the word 'citizens' was substituted for the phrase 'white persons'.”

My add : “White Persons” WTF !!!!!!????????

And more history on this statute:

[link:http://|http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm
]
A GUIDE TO CIVIL RIGHTS LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added).

“Section 1983 was enacted on April 20, 1871 as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and is also known as the "Ku Klux Klan Act" because one of its primary purposes was to provide a civil remedy against the abuses that were being committed in the southern states, especially by the Ku Klux Klan. While the existing law protected all citizens in theory, its protection in practice was unavailable to some because those persons charged with the enforcement of the laws were unable or unwilling to do so.[1] The Act was intended to provide a private remedy for such violations of federal law, and has subsequently been interpreted to create a species of tort liability”

And this definition of “UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW” :

[link:http://|http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/u002.htm
]
UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW

“Covers not only acts done by an official under a State law, but also acts done by an official under any ordinance of a county or municipality of the State, as well as acts done under any regulation issued by any State or County or Municipal official, and even acts done by an official under color of some State or local custom.
To act "under color of state law" means to act beyond the bounds of lawful authority, but in such a manner that the unlawful acts were done while the official was purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his official duties. In other words, the unlawful acts must consist of an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because he is an official. A person may be found guilty even though he was not an official or employee of the State, or of any county, city, or other governmental unit if the essential elements of the offense charged have been established and the person was a willful participant with the state or its agents in the doing of such acts.
"Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken `under color of' state law." United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)”

Elements of a Section 1983 Claim

[link:http://|http://legal dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Section+1983
]

“To prevail in a claim under section 1983, the plaintiff must prove two critical points: a person subjected the plaintiff to conduct that occurred under color of state law, and this conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed under federal law or the U.S. Constitution”

and :

Section 1983 Litigation

[link:http://|http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/Sect1983.pdf/$file/Sect1983.pdf]
Prima Facie Case

“To establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs must allege two elements:
(1) the action occurred “under color of law” and
(2)the action is a deprivation of a constitutional right or a federal statutory right.
11 The first element, discussed in Chapter 2, infra, involves a fact specific inquiry wherein the court must examine the relationship between the challenged action and the government. The second element is explained in Chapters 3, 4, and 5, which deal with the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.”

As per the issue of workplace proselytizing, County Clerk Kim Davis’ behavior is without any doubt whatsoever nothing but gross and egregious workplace proselytizing.
The Webster’s Dictionary definition of Proselytizing is :
intransitive verb
1: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive verb: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause

There have been a number of court cases involving workplace proselytizing and employers’ terminating employees for this behavior. Many cases have been ruled on in the appellate courts, all with the same decisions, which have allowed employers to terminate employees for aggressive religious proselytizing. A number of cases have been presented to the Supreme Court, but all have been rejected. Which means that the last rulings by courts at the highest level below the Supreme Court become the standard on this issue. This then is considered “settled law” on the issue. By her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples based on her assertions that they do not accept nor abide by her religious beliefs, her actions definitely become an extreme form of religious proselytizing, coercion, and intimidation. Thus it is legal grounds for termination.

Finally, at the core of the Religious Freedom Restoration Laws is the concept of “Burden”. It was the invocation of this concept that Scalia et.al. used to justify their ruling in the HobbyLobby case and the even worse decision in another case the following day (I do not remember the name of that case).
The acceptance of the concept of “undue burden” in this manner is totally ass backwards. When a person or persons invoke their claims of “Religious Freedom” and First Amendment Free Speech “rights” upon other persons who do not share these religious beliefs, this becomes actions and behavior, beyond mere speech. This behavior and action impacts and affects another person’s existence, by creating an involuntary alteration, manipulation, and modification which results in the second person’s constitutional rights being deprived. This deprivation of another person’s constitutional rights, against their free will and consent, by religious coercion and intimidation, becomes the actual undue burden of the invocation of the specious claims of Religious Freedom and First Amendment rights. There is absolutely no burden whatsoever imposed upon a person’s existence by preventing that person from depriving another American citizen of their constitutional rights. Rather, it is the act of and results of depriving an American citizen of their constitutional rights which is the real unacceptable burden of Religious Freedom behavior.
And lastly, the inane, asinine, and ignorant assertions by the aforementioned Religious Jihadist talking rectums that there are no laws or statutes which specifically codify same sex marriage and that Supreme Court rulings are not law, is just absolutely incorrect. FYI American ChristoTaliban, the purpose and duty of the Supreme Court is to judge and determine if laws, cases, and behavior brought before the Court are Constitutional or not. The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is a Constitutional right and this right is the law in every state of the Union, whether a state has a same sex marriage is legal law or not.
In conclusion, my special, sensitive message to the Fundamentalist Religious Extremists shoving this down America’s collective throat, KMA

GRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!