Alan Bacon (sui Juris)
Doctrine of Deprivations
Thu Jan 8 11:04:09 2004
65.177.48.181

Until about 1950, American law schools taught that: "Constitutional government is a government by law. The office of the state is to establish and maintain laws." Henry Campbell Black, American Constitutional Law §70 (4th ed., West Pub. 1927). They also taught: "Due process of law requires, first, the legislative act authorizing the [depriv]ation, pointing out how it may be made... etc."


These original principles of the People subsequently went out of favor with "law professors," and are no longer found written in any common "law school" textbooks. By the 1970s, Attorney Richard M. Nixon and his associates including (now-Chief Justice) William Rehnquist endeavored to establish a different Form of Government that can act against the People totally unconstrained by Law (and therefore operate outside and beyond the Consent of the Governed). They have now accomplished that.


In Hudson v. Palmer (1984) and Parratt v. Taylor (1981), etc., the US Supreme Court opined that the Constitutional rights of Free Citizens and of Slaves (prisoners) to hold property shall henceforth be the SAME in the United States, and that free citizens shall be governed like the slaves- by the same Form of "random and unauthorized" government which operates efficiently inside our prisons. The Court opined that no Executive or Judicial officer of the United States nor of the several States who has sworn to uphold the Constitution has any duty under it to "refrain" from "intentionally" committing "random and unauthorized deprivations" of a free citizen's life, "liberty" or "property."
But for this Doctrine, the wilful commission of an unauthorized deprivation of a free citizen's Life, Liberty or Property by a state or federal agent would be punishable as a Federal Crime. 18 USC § 242 http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm

The Doctrine "provide[s] that random, unauthorized deprivations did not violate [the Constitution] if adequate" money is available to pay compensation. http://www.law.utexas.edu/dawson/cases/racing/patin.htm 


According to this Doctrine, as confirmed by Chief "Justice" Rehnquist, "Justice" O'Connor, "Justice" Scalia, and "Justice" Kennedy, a government agent's "wanton, unauthorized departure from a [Legislature]'s established policies and procedures, working a deprivation of liberty" or "property" does NOT violate any Constitutional DUTY that must be respected by the agent. (Zinermon dissent) In fact, according to this perverse doctrine, "The wanton or reckless nature of the" unauthorized deprivation is what makes the unauthorized deprivation Constitutionally permissible.

Id. The Deprivations which are most permissible under the Doctrine are those that are committed by an Executive agent who has wilfully, "deliberately or recklessly subverted his [the citizen's] rights and contravened" the Law. Id.

• Lawful? — Alan Bacon (sui Juris), Thu Jan 8 11:09