BASICS OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY And Civil Rights

Immunity

And

Civil Rights

The Immunity Rule, "Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law (?) than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as this Court recognized when it adopted the doctrine, in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed.2d 646 (1872)."

What is "common law?"  Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition defines it as "The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions."  Per that definition "common law" has no standing in the United States of America other than information only.  In the United State of America the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.[1]  So Judicial Immunity as currently applied and enforced in the United States of America is strictly a Ministerial Rule it has no basis in the Constitution or the Statutes derived from the Constitution. 

But that aside for now, the Supreme Court, our public ministers, have gone further and said:

"This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences." (Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 349, note, at 350).

Let me rephrase that with some factual clarification:

This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge (nonetheless a malicious or corrupt judge can not be held accountable) but for the benefit of the public, (whose being disenfranchised and whose rights are being denied) whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions (without regard to "We the People's" rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[2]) with independence and without fear of consequences.

Now that is the undisputed result of the Doctrine.  The "judicial decisions" of the "common law," created by the Judiciary, is sometimes "malicious and corrupt," I would add incompetent but who am I to say, because of the doctrine "solidly established at common law," judicial immunity "We the People" when disenfranchised and denied our constitutional rights, "the supreme law of the land" have no recourse to recovery from the criminals who have stolen "We the People's" rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[3].  "We the People," the superiors of the Judiciary, are left to dangle in the wind without any options for redress of our grievances. Thus "We the People" have no enforceable rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"[4]. 

That is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At the ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America we knew what we wanted. Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #78 asserted how to protect the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws:

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative (judicial or executive) act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid..."

Alexander Hamilton saw no need for a bill of rights:

"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."" Federalist 84

The ''Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996'' does not award immunity to the judiciary it gives you an exception "that in any action brought against a judicial officer."  I quote:

(c) CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS.—Section 1979

of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended by inserting

before the period at the end of the first sentence: '', 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''.

The assertion of immunity by the Judiciary in their Judge made law is without merit.  The assertion in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) was based on RESULT in Floyd and Barker (1607), the Judge was excused, not what Lord Coke wrote in the text.  The Judge was excused because of the supposed excerpted assertion "Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice."  The Supreme Court for self-serving reasons in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) gave no credence to the exception noted in Floyd and Barker (1607)"; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."

In Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 523 (1868), Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 565 (1967) Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) and Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) the only reasoning independent of the 1607 assertion of Nobility was:

If "we subject the established courts of the land to the degradation of private prosecution, we subdue their independence and destroy their authority. Instead of being venerable before the public, they become contemptible." Page 74 U. S. 539

I have to agree, if we subject anybody or anything to "the degradation of private prosecution" we degrade them, "we subdue their independence and destroy their authority."  Begging the question, a logical fallacy, petitio principii "assuming the initial point", seems applicable.  They assert that "private prosecution" is always "degradation."  "Private prosecution" when consistently and judiciously directed is not degradation but remedial and educational.  "Private prosecution" is "degradation" when maliciously, corruptly, haphazardly or incompetently applied.  Since Judges are the ones to apply it, are they incriminating themselves with their assertion, "private prosecution" is always "degradation."  We need to learn from our mistakes rather than obfuscate them with the corrupt, malicious and incompetent veneration and en-Nobling of the Judiciary. 

On a separate note, I would contend that we do not have any individual rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America e.g.,  "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process"; but that is another story.

DGJeep"The Earth and everything that's in it" (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/)

Friday, March 11, 2011, 4:52:28 PM

---

[1]  Article. VI., 2^nd paragraph This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[2] Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights

[3] Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights

[4] Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights

Thanks in advance,

To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process

"Agere sequitur esse"
"Time is  of the essence"
David G. Jeep
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/
E-mail is preferred Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
(314) 514-5228

David G. Jeep
c/o The Bridge
1610 Olive Street,
Saint Louis, MO63103-2316