true meaning of "color of law"

More on "color of law" from a law forum. Perhaps the origin and true meaning of "color of law" is based on the fact that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are based on Biblical law, (Gods Law) and anything other than that is not really law, but instead colored to appear as law. I have been trying to figure out where the term "color of law" originated and what it's true meaning is. I now believe the answer is, if it is not based on "God's law", it is "color of law". Being that "color of law" originated in America in 1871, during the same time when the defacto corporation was seizing control of the country and imposing "their" laws, which definitely were not aligned with God's law, hence the term "color of law" was introduced. Also the definitions of "color of law" being defined in the laws today by the very government that created it seem to compliment this idea. It seems to me that this should make a perfect defense if one can prove in court that "color of law", "color of office", "color of authority", etc, are in reality just that, "colored" to appear as the real thing, but in actuality, is NOT real. Websters definition of color is as follows; >3. to give a false or misleading
representation of the facts. [3] to distort, falsify, garble, misinterpret, misrepresent, misstate, pervert, twist, warp. When you look at all the meanings and definitions of "color", the former definitions are the only ones that can seem to have any relation to law, therefore enhancing the likelyhood of proving in court that ALL government is ACTING under "color". I have posted the following before but will post it again for reference. Comments on this appreciated. The more of us who have ideas on this subject, the better.
[2:40:32 PM] Thomas Monroe: From the FBI website;   “Color of Law”

“Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.”  (end quote)

From US Legal.com
Color of law refers to an act done under the appearance of legal authorization, when in fact, no such right existed. It applies when a person is acting under real or apparent government authority. The term is used in the federal Civil Rights Act, which gives citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents who use their authority to violate rights guaranteed by federal law.

From a law website;

“Filing a civil rights claim under section 1983 requires first demonstrating that the defendant was acting under "color of law." But what does color of law mean? In general, color of law is a broad term used to describe when someone is working in their official capacity for a governmental agency. Anyone who works for a governmental agency is potentially subject to a section 1983 civil rights violation suit.
The meaning of the term "under the color of law" has been significantly expanded since it was introduced in 1871. It now includes a wide variety of governmental agencies from police departments to public schools. The key is to demonstrate that the agency exists because of or for a governmental or political subdivision. Unless a private school or university is performing duties for the government, like a government contract, they will not be considered a governmental agency.”  (end quote)

Notice that the term “color of law” began in 1871.



TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 242
Prev | Next
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law


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.

Websters definition of “color” ; 3. “to give a false or misleading representation of the facts.

The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.
Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as though it is by the state.
Cross-references

“Ignorance of the law is no excuse”. If the “law” IS “law”, then what is “color of law”? IF “color of law” is the law that they (the defacto) claim we are ignorant of, then this maxim based on ignorance has no validity under true law. If we are indeed ignorant of the law, that is one thing, but if we are ignorant of “color of law”, and if “color of law” is NOT really law, then how does the ignorance apply? The law maxim states ignorance of “the law”, not ignorance of “color of law”. There are two very different sets of laws, one being the dejure true law (prior to 1871), the other being “color of law”, a creation of the defacto corporation. Everything after 1871 is “color of law”. How can a maxim of law be used where there IS NO LAW. This is why I say that we are not ignorant of the law, but ignorant of the facts, and ignorance of the facts is excusable as a law maxim. (ignorantia facti excusat) : (see definition of “color“ above). Particularly since it is an indisputable fact that the defacto has gone to great lengths to keep their little secret a secret. We know what the law is, we have only intentionally been kept ignorant of the fact that our government was being overtaken by fraud and deception.


The following is from the Civil Rights Act:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, 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."
Acting under color of [state] law is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)

From Blacks Law Dictionary:

COLOR. An appearance, semblance, or
simulacrum, ae distinguished from that which
is real. A prlma Facie or apparent right
hence, a deceptive appearance; a plausible,
assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality
; a disguise or pretext. Railroad Co. v.
Allfree, 64 Iowa, 500, 20 N. W. 779; Berks
County v Railroad Co., 167 Pa. 102, 3l Atl.
474; Broughton v. Haywood, 61 N. C. 383.
In pleading. Ground of action admitted
to subsist in the opposite party by the pleading
of one of the parties to an action, which
is to set out as to be apparently valid, but
which in reality is legally insufficient.
This was a term of the ancient rhetoricians,
and early adopted into the language of
pleading. It was an apparent or prima facie
right; and the meaning of the rule that
pleadings in confession and avoidance should
give color was that they should confess the
matter adversely alleged, to such an extent,
at least, as to admit some apparent right In
the opposite party, which required to be encountered
and avoided by the allegation of
new matter. Color was either express, i. e.,
inserted In the pleading, or Implied, which
was naturally inherent in the structure of
the pleading. Steph. P1. 233; Merten v.
Bank, 6 Okl. 585, 49 Pac 913.

COLOR OF AUTHORITY. That semblance
or presumption of authority sustaining
the acts of a public officer which is derived
from his apparent title to the office or
from a writ or other process in his hands
apparently valid and regular. State v. Oates,
86 Wla. 634, 57 N. W. 290, 39 Am. St. Rep..
Q12; Wyatt v. Monroe. 27 Tex. 288.

COLOR OF LAW. The appearance or
semblance, without the substance, of legal
right. McCain v. Des Moines. 174 U. S. 168.
19 Sup. Ct. 644, 43 L. Ed. 936.

COLOR OF OFFICE. An act unjustly
done by the countenance of an office, being
grounded upon corruption, to which the office
is as a shadow and color. Plow. 64.
A claim or assumption of right to do an
act by virtue of an office, made by a person
who is legally destitute of any such right.
Feller v. Gatee, 40 Or. 543, 67 Pac. 416, 56
L. R A. 630, 91 Am. St. Rep. 492; State v.
Fowler, 88 Md. 601, 42 Atl. 201, 42 L. R. A.
849, 7l Am. S t Rep. 452; Bishop v. McGillis, 80 wis. 575, 50 N. w. 779, 27 am. st.
Rep. 83 ; Decker v. Judson. 16 N. Y. 439 ;
Mason v. Crabtree, 71 Ala. 481; Morton v.
Campbell, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 181; Luther v.
Banks, ,111 Ga. 374, 36 s. E. 826 ; People
v. Schuyler, 4 N. Y. 187.
The phrase implies, we think, some official
power vested in the actor,-he must be at least
officer de facto. We do not understand that an
act of a mere pretender to an office, or false
personator of an officer, is said to be done by
color of office. And it implies an illegal claim
of authority, by virtue of the office, to do the
act or thing in question. Burrall v. Acker, 23
Wend. (N. y.) 606, 35 Am Dec 582.

COLORABLE. That which has or gives
color. That which is in appearance only,
and not in reality, what it purports to be.

Colorable Alteration. One which makes
no real or substantial change, but is introduced
only as a subterfuge or means of evading the
patent or copyright law.-
Colorable imitation. In the law of trade-marks, this phrase
denotes such a close or ingenious imitation as
to be calculated to deceive ordinary persons.

The Court, in defining Color of Law in Timson v. Weiner, D.C. Ohio, 395 F. Supp. 1344, said, "As used in Civil Rights Act means same thing as "state action".

The Court, in Thompson v. Baker, D.C. Ark., 133 F. Supp. 247, said, "and means pretense of law and includes actions of officers who undertake to perform their official duties".

Title 42, U.S.C.A. Section 1983 defines color of law: Acts "under color of any Law" of a State include not only acts done by State officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority";

The above definitions of Color Of Law are in Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition.

The following quote is from a law forum.

“The meaning of color of law is a great question. Let's discuss what the true law is, as opposed to color (pretense) of law. We do not create the direction in our mind. We only chose among the various directions which are offered in our mind. An intelligence other than us creates and offers the proper direction, and an intelligence other than us creates and offers improper direction, such as destructive compulsions, resentments, etc. We call the source (the creator) of proper direction God. It follows that God supplies the true law. The true law is God's Law. Color of law is man making rules that are not God's direction but are convenient rules for the men who make them. All dictators, for instance, have a "legal" (color of law) system. I would submit that a percentage of laws in most color of law systems are proper laws. The Bible says be still and know (God's Law). A jury of people who can receive God's Law is a proper way to impose God's Law (a jury of God given conscience). Hopefully, the public and government is receptive enough of God's direction to choose a proper jury.”