Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Weird question

Previous | Next
 rated by 0 users
Latest post Thu, Sep 17 2015 5:49 PM by Taxagent. 6 replies.
  • Sun, Sep 10 2006 9:14 PM

    • TALM
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Wed, Aug 2 2006
    • Posts 33

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Weird question

    First, a big thanks for the wonderful people here that give of their time to teach those of us that are the down trodden in the area of legal knowledge.

    My question is kind of weird in the respect that it is very broad in its scope.

    The United States Department of Justice prosecutes individuals who violate this title. An example of their efforts under this title would be their prosecution of the police personnel that beat Rodney King in California some time ago.

    The USDJ's investigative branch is the FBI.
    The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority.

    The FBI's mission is very clear.

    Criminal Enforcement

    "We enforce laws that make it a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242. “The types of law enforcement misconduct covered include the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another".


    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
    Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

    False arrest and fabrication of evidence: Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process.

    So with all this in mind, I have some difficult involved questions. I would have to ask you to consider that everything I say is the absolute truth and proceed with this view point.

    A little history.........A crime happened. An innocent man was falsely accused by a cop. The cop wrote a false report and arrest affidavit and framed the man. The cop forwarded his report to the DA who in turn obtained an indictment.

    The man's parole was revoked due to this allegation in another state and his lawyer refused to see him till two days before pretrial. This was a year and a half after he was imprisoned. The lawyer had already cancelled pretrial and entered into a plea agreement and told the man he had better accept it or the judge was prepared to give him forty years.

    The lawyer had no basis to think he would lose the case, but he was an old friend of the DA's and inside politics prohibited the lawyer from relenting to his clients wishes to take the case to trial.

    As a side note: Up to this point the man was never served with an indictment (a falsified writ or return proves this) and his lawyer never told him before hand any specifics of the case against him.

    The man was battered by his own lawyer and this is one of those weird cases where an innocent man actually enters a guilty plea.

    The man was convicted with (2) class two felonies and sentenced to two years (time served) with no probation. Four months or so later he was released from prison.

    The sentence itself speaks of how desperate the DA was to dispose of this case without trial and that the man's own lawyer was in the pocket of the DA.

    I have the entire case file and I can honestly say that the DA would not have taken it to trial because a first year law student could have exposed this entire miscarriage of justice in front of a judge at pretrial.

    Now my questions. Giving the scope of the "color of law statute"

    (1) How can you have a cop charged with framing a man and offering him up for prosecution to the DA.? The FBI claim they cannot proceed with this investigation because the say it is a civil matter and not a criminal matter.

    I uphold that the cop is in clear violation of civil liberty violations and everyone who has scrutinized my case file realizes with stunning clarity of how the cop framed the man and it is indeed a criminal matter.

    (2) If the cops report is 100% false but was not written as a sworn document how can a cop be held criminally accountable for his maliciously calculated misdeeds.

    He wrote his fictitious report and submitted it to the United States Probations Office with the sole purpose of having the man's federal probation revoked. The report was read word for word in a federal revocation hearing by a federal prosecutor in front of a federal judge.

    We try to operate under the assumption that if an average citizen was to write a fictitious report and submit it to the United States Probations Office with he sole purpose of having the mans probation revolked, wouldn't this be a criminal matter?

    Doesn't this count for something in my cause?

    (3) If the arrest affidavit contains a fictitious victim but also list a real victim to the crime, what does this constitute? I mean, I know perjury is defined as "The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath".

    Also for it to be deemed perjury it is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it could affect the outcome of the Judges decision to issue an arrest warrant.

    Hypothetically is not considered perjury, for example, to fabricate a victim, as long as you have a real one listed. Surly the judge would have issued an arrest warrant even if the fictional victims name was not listed (sic).

    My argument to find this affidavit liable for perjury is that even though there is a real victim listed, the fabrication of the second victim only fortifies the Judges opinion of the credibility of the affidavit.

    So my question would be, if it is 100% provable (through states documents alone) what are the options in regards to the legal aspects of perjury in an arrest warrant affidavit?


    That’s it.............I am basically trying to get my ducks in a row before I approach the DOJ.

    I’m basically holding them to their word.

    Assistant Attorney General Jan W. Kim. "Those who abuse their position of trust are a stain on the vast majority of law enforcement officers who perform honorably under danger and difficult circumstances. The Department of Justice is committed to vigorously enforcing the criminal civil rights laws."
  • Mon, Sep 11 2006 2:33 AM In reply to


    Feedback [*=*] re: Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Weird question

    No offense, but you're so far afield, you're playing in the wrong park. Before any other action can be pursued, the guilty plea has to be set aside. No other court can or will look behind that. You can't challenge facts that were admitted to and it's highly likely that the time to challenge it on any basis has past.
  • Mon, Sep 11 2006 9:29 PM In reply to

    • TALM
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Wed, Aug 2 2006
    • Posts 33

    Carrage before the horse, but my questions remain.

    I appreciate and understand what you are saying. I have been told on numerous fronts that since there was a plea of guilty there is no way to hold the Investigator accountable for his actions.

    Never the less, I do accept what you are saying.

    What is confusing to me is that no where in 18/242 can I find a clause to cover the Investigators actions being vindicated due to his victim admitting guilt. What I am trying to say is that the Investigator (to me) appears to have violated this statute in a most ominous way. Now I am to understand that if the true criminal (Investigator) achieves his desired results of having the man falsely imprisoned, his actions are vindicated and he escapes justice.

    How can the Investigator dodge justice when there is no clause in the 18/242 to hide behind? To realize the plea was a false plea and the man was innocent, one only has to read the states case. After understanding the “true” case, everyone (so far) has seen how the Investigator falsified his report and went to great lengths to frame the man.

    To make matters simpler, let’s pretend that the man had the guilty plea set aside by the ‘Board of Pardons and Paroles’ (just pretend) and he was vindicated of the crime. How can 18/242 apply to the Investigators actions in respect to the questions in my original post (1-3)?

    I do realize that I am lost in left field several fields down from the snack bar, but that is why I am here. I’ve learned a lot from you people. Thank you.
  • Tue, Sep 12 2006 3:57 AM In reply to

    re: Carrage before the horse, but my questions remain.

    "To make matters simpler, let’s pretend that the man had the guilty plea set aside by the ‘Board of Pardons and Paroles’ (just pretend) and he was vindicated of the crime. How can 18/242 apply to the Investigators actions in respect to the questions in my original post (1-3)?"

    I don't think it can. The document was not a sworn affidavit, and so far as I can see this statute doesn't provide any vehicle to go after him for anything other than sworn testimony.

    Of course, that doesn't mean it's the only route - a conventional civil suit for damages based on defamation law is always possible if the statement contained knowingly false statements of fact.

    Again, however, such a case is not possibe so long as the guilty plea stands. You can't sue someone for making a false statement of fact when you've plead guilty at trial to the allegedly false allegations.

    To open the door for ANY action, the first step is going to have to be to at LEAST get the guilty plea set aside, and probably obtain a finding of actual innocence.

    Richard
  • Thu, Sep 17 2015 2:54 PM In reply to

    • key-rock
      Consumer
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Thu, Sep 17 2015
    • VA
    • Posts 1

    Re: Carrage before the horse, but my questions remain.

    friend, what i am going to tell you is not something you will likely hear from anyone on this forum, nevertheless, it is the unfortunate truth. you are not going to see that cop answer for his crimes. period. there are so many protections and legal immunities shielding police from civil and criminal litigation, it's like an onion. go ahead, peel away. you may peel away every layer successfully, likely at great cost, but what have you got in the end? the same thing: wet eyes and nothing. the police are officers of the court. this is the reason why you never but never win in court if it comes down to your word against the officer's word. because guess who else are officers of the court: all bar attorneys. this includes ALL judges. their duty is to the court first. it's a sworn oath. the best interest of the court is in the lucrative business of prosecuting people brought before them. people don't just walk in and incriminate themselves and the court doesn't go looking for them. police bring them to the court. if they started prosecuting police, they would lose business. no corporation in the world is in the business of turning down profit, and the corporations that operate the courts, such as the "state of so and so" the "city of such and such" , and the "county of blah blah blah" are no different. the police bring them profitable business all day, every day. it's what they exist for. what do you do for them? how do you profit the court? "but", you may say,"the police exist to serve and protect. everybody knows that." is that right? well perhaps you should inform the supreme court of that because beginning in 1856 South v Maryland and in numerous cases up to the present day, they have decisively ruled that "police have no duty to protect any individual" and "the citizen has no right to expect protection by police from madmen and killers." i can tell you, friend, everybody DOES NOT know that.                                                                    so what you are trying to accomplish is technically not impossible, but practically, it is impossible. let me paint a scenrio for you. you are a new york yankee baseball player. you want to take on the boston red sox all by yourself and you believe you can do it. they accept the challenge, so you go to boston. it's game day and you are standing in the batter's box at fenway park. you are the only yankee in the park. you may have a slight scattering of yankee fans in the stands, but they can not help you and will not be inclined to root too vigorously for you. everyone else in the stands are sox fans, hail from boston, and are religious in their love for the sox. every other player on the field and in the dugout are red sox and grew up in boston. all the managers and staff are red sox employees and are from boston. the umpires are all from boston and some are even ex-red sox players. you step up and the pitcher throws a strike. but you are determined. next pitch, strike. ok, this one is going out of the park. the pitcher winds up and lets it rip you start to swing just as ball beans you in the side and you fall down. it was clearly intentional. you know it, everybody who saw it knows it. and most of them don't seem to have too much of a problem with it. the tiny amount of protest you CAN hear is quickly drowned out by the cheering and hooting and hollering of all the native boston sox fans who are immensely enjoying the spectacle. you get up as the pitcher is staring you down and trash talking about your mother. the catcher is laughing at you. the other players are talking to each other and looking in your direction. you turn to the umpire and he just looks at you. "well?" you ask. "well what?" he says. "aren't you going to throw him out? he clearly beaned me on purpose." "sir, i'm having trouble understanding what you are saying. i advise you to get a manager to come out here and speak for you." you say, "i don't have a manager. it's just me." he says, " alright, then one will be appointed for you free of charge." and with that, he gives a whistle and a "come here" gesture at the sox's dugout and a rookie manager comes trotting across the infield while in the process of removing his red sox jersey. he approaches you, asks what happened, you tell him, he tells the umpire, "says our guy- ahem, the pitcher beaned him." the ump says, "this is a serious allegation. does he have any proof of this?" manager says, "there's the ball, right there where he says it landed after hitting him." umpire says, "circumstantial. we are in a ball park. balls can be anywhere, it doesn't prove he was hit with it." manager lifts your shirt and shows the umpire the swelling and bruising. the ump says, "how do we know he wasn't already like that when he got here?"                                                                                   i think you can see where this is going. needless to say, the pitcher wasn't even verbally warned not to do that again, and certainly not thrown out of the game. 

  • Thu, Sep 17 2015 5:10 PM In reply to

    re: Carrage before the horse, but my questions remain.

    RickInNoCal:
    let’s pretend that the man had the guilty plea set aside by the ‘Board of Pardons and Paroles’ (just pretend) and he was vindicated of the crime.

    Well, that's a fantasy that can never happen.  BOP cannot set aside a guilty plea.  Only a court could do that and the court won't do it based upon evidence which was known at the time the plea was entered.

  • Thu, Sep 17 2015 5:49 PM In reply to

    This thread is nine years old -- no point in debating it now

    key-rock resurrected a nine year old dead thread. The OP is long gone and not likely to ever see this. 

Page 1 of 1 (7 items) | RSS

My Community

Community Membership New Users: Search Community