SOCIETY IS STRUCTURED ON IDEAS PART X [THE STATE-CREATED DANGER EXCLUSIVE] By William Thorpe

Pictures are taken from the internet and are used for illustrative purposes only

I BEGIN: This is Part X in this focus on providing the FAMILY, ALLY and FRIENDS of the Virginia Prisoner with information that is intended to enable that necessary grasp and understanding of what we need to come to terms with in order to hold the Virginia Prison Official accountable by subordinating their professional behavior to the accountability-function of the governing WILL of the PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA, because that is what its all about. The authority of the Prison Official comes from the People and its abuse and violation is in turn a rejection of the People, which as ludicrous as the fact of its psychology, "requires" the People to disown their very existence in order for its complicity medium to even exist. What I'm saying is, the presence of Prison Official violations, its above-the-lawism, is a result of Speech or behavior (affirming or absent) of the People. What I want to focus on with Part X of THE IDEAS series, is something that is as primary to the existence and function of Virginia's SOCIAL CONTRACT or the State Purpose as Government, in other words "the obedience of collective agreement" of yup you guessed it THE PEOPLE. And at this juncture I need to stress this, there isn't a relationship, association or interaction existing as SOCIETY that isn't a fact of the obedience of collective agreement, which we are all born into and some of us rise up and examine its terms, because it has frayed and decayed, which is what confronts us with Social Contract. The qualifying title to this Part X is, THE STATE-CREATED DANGER EXCLUSIVE and there isn't a more fundamental acknowledgement, than the State creating DANGER, which also stands as THE SPECIAL-RELATIONSHIP DOCTRINE, which is defined by BLACK'S LAW as: THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN A STATE ASSUMES CONTROL OVER A PERSON (AS IN AN INVOLUNTARY HOSPITALIZATION OR CUSTODY),THE STATE HAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO PROTECT THAT PERSON AND MAY BE LIABLE FOR HARM INFLICTED ON THE PERSON BY A THIRD PARTY.THIS IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE PROHIBITING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM SUING STATE EMPLOYEES FOR FAILING TO PROTECT THEM FROM THIRD PARTIES---[my cite of Precedent case law DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEP'T OF SOCIAL SERVICES 489 U.S 189,case deals with Mother of child who was beaten to retardation by Father, suing Social Services for returning son to father despite likelihood of father abusing son, which is what happened and SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES held that SOCIAL SERVICES DIDN'T HAVE DUTY TO PROTECT CHILD] [also see this case TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALEZ 545 U.S 748, this case deals with a Mother of 3 daughters who had a restraining order against the Father not to be no less than 100 yards away from them, the father violated the Order the Mother contacted the Castle Rock cops who literally ignored her. The father kidnapped the 3 daughters and killed them. So the Mother sued and the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ruled that Cops e.t.c do not have a duty to protect anyone] [ the most recent appearance of this logic is in the ruling by the U.S.COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT in the case STERLING v. CITY OF JACKSON 2026 U.S.APP. LEXIS 27560 where the Judges on the 5th Circuit ruled that there isn't a Constitutional Right to "CLEAN WATER", in other words Government can give you contaminated, polluted and toxic water. Their suggestion as recourse is " Political Action". Which is exactly what this work endeavors.] As I get into this, let me state that Virginia has laws that declare the imprisoned Virginian, during the imprisonment as DISABLED.

So, at VIRGINIA CODE 8.01-2 and effectuated at 8.01-9, we see Virginia seeing the imprisoned for the term, as under a DISABILITY, then at 8.01-9, the provision of its security. What this reveals is the formation of "Obligation". Then at VIRGINIA CODE 53.1-223, we see a bit more development of the commonsense of "Obligation", meaning the Commonwealth's begrudging acceptance of the SPECIAL-RELATIONSHIP DOCTRINE, with the RESTRICTION ON SUITS AGAINST PRISONERS. Which is another fact of the Commonwealth's recognition of "Obligation". What these laws reveal and speak to besides the obvious "Obligation", is having responsibility for the unconditional "survivability" of the Virginia prisoner. In other words the Commonwealth in its pursuit of "a" imprisonment scheme cannot "create-danger", within the one and only context of "compromising", LIFE. There isn't any point to belabor, because without LIFE, there isn't any circumstance to either affirm or negate. So we see how flat out insane it is for the Nations Jurisprudence to formulate that the Social Contractual provision of "CLEAN" Water isn't an "inalienable right", that is simply enumerated. When without the contextual petty tyranny of SOCIAL CONTRACT and its acceptance of the necessary existence of "a" SPECIAL-RELATIONSHIP and its "Obligation "inherency, which stands clearly revealed in the character of Prison and the imprisonment scheme. The unencumbered Human existing without Rousseau's archetypal "chains", will secure LIFE ensuring and sustaining "CLEAN" Water with the realized and discovered means of water purification. So why then is this even an issue if not, as dialectic providing us with that necessary cautionary accusatory, "ORGANIZING-EXPLANATORY" Speech, that our traditionally understood relationship with Social Contract or as it concerns this work Virginia Society, is a "Bill of Goods", that yokes us because of our failure to recognize that the entire entity, edifice and STRUCTURE of Society is an expression of IDEAS, which we have a duty to examine and interrogate. Now this examination and interrogation in practice is the Speech of Political Action. In other words backwards and Conservative Political Speech gives us the type of organized-violence or Government that can with a straight face, say the fact of State-Created Danger or providing contaminated, polluted and toxic water to the socio-person, or that Jeffersonian "disposed to suffer", "mankind" keeping their end of the Social Contract bargain. Or structuring and establishing an imprisonment scheme, that is the very definition of STATE-CREATED DANGER, isn't and because of an entire historical construction of suppositions upon suppositions and brain addling mythologies, traditions and idealistic cultural biases, We accept as "preordained" fact. When all we have to do is question as organizing-explanations, which will naturally be and become the Political Action of Progressive Speech. Listed below are some works, which once again are not only for our Virginia context, but also for our National Equals: REVIVING DESHANEY: STATE-CREATED DANGER AND DUE PROCESS FIRST PRINCIPLES---74 Rutgers U.L.Rev.161 by MATTHEW PRITCHARD [cited in two cases EST.OF SOAKI v. ABDELAZIZ 137 F.4 th 969, MURGUIA v. LANGDON 73 F.4th 1103] (this essay has a Conservative and backwards logic) CHALLENGES IN SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS LITIGATION---76 SMU L.Rev.459 by NANCY LEONG (this essay is Conservative with backwards logic. The backwardness and Conservative logic of these sorts of work, is really a relitigation of the Civil War, because MONORE v. PAPE 365 U.S.169, had the "nerve" to apply SECTION 1983 as it was intended, see UNDER COLOR OF WHAT LAW: A RECONSTRUCTED MODEL OF SECTION 1983 LIABILITY--71 Va.L.Rev.499 by ERIC H.ZAGRANS)

By William Thorpe

William Thorpe Virginia exiled me to the Texas prison system. I'm solitary confined at the Wainwright Unit and if you feel any kinda way about this work contact me by Securus email using the Texas prison number #2261982 .