WHO SAID THAT YOU CAN'T SUE A STINKIN' ASS JUDGE?

     

\





There are a lot of people who believe and accept the notion that judges are all powerful, that they can do "whatever they want," which many of them would like for everyone to believe. Judges are creatures of the law and are subject to the consequences of breaking the law, the problem is the fraternity of the judiciary, which is the same as the "Blue Wall" maintained within the fraternity of police. 

   The federal and state judges generally tend to apply the same concept when it comes to responding to the rising complaints of judicial corruption, summary denial or dismissal on a claim that the conduct complained of was mere “error” or “a judicial decision not reviewable.”

     In 1978, the judiciary declared itself immune essentially from being held accountable under the law in the "Supreme" court case of Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 362.which only served to exacerbate the problem of corruption and public abuse by judges, for it gave judges absolute power, which is absolutely corrupt within itself. In Stump v. Sparkman held that the doctrine forbade a suit against an Indiana judge who had authorized the sterilization of a slightly retarded 15-year-old girl under the guise of an appendectomy. The judge had approved the operation without a hearing when the mother alleged that the girl was promiscuous. After her marriage two years later, the girl discovered she was sterile.

    A person whose rights have been violated by acts of lawlessness on the part of a judge is usually told that their only remedy is to appeal, which is a complicated and time consuming process that the average person cannot afford to do, so they are left violated.  Many people in America are quick to capitulate to the notion of absolute power by police, prosecutors, judges, and even politicians. Yet, these are the same people who by into the lie that the U.S. is a democracy, send the poor children off to invade some poor country, kill people who have never done any harm to them, or be killed for a lie. These people pledge themselves to a system that they concede is corrupt and unworkable, but then excuse their stupidity by claiming “well, no system is perfect.”

    Those who hold the power and the government bank on the population to be patriotically passive and stupid, the last Bush regime made that abundantly clear to the entire world. Under the law a judge can indeed be sued for personal damages in certain circumstances, as well as prosecuted as a criminal conduct, but it rarely happens because most people in America ascribe to the notion that they are powerless against those in “power.” The following is a selection of case/reference citations regarding the issue of “judicial immunity,” setting forth when a person may sue a Judge for money damages. This collection is from a former Arizona named Attorney Robert A. Hirschfeld, JD., and the reader is advised to look up and read the cited case for consistency with their situation before relying on, or citing it.

1.  When a judge knows that he lacks jurdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.

2.  Some (mostly judges and lawyers for judges being sued) urge that any act "of a judicial nature" entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. However, in a jurisdictional vacuum, (that is, the “absence of all jurisdiction”), deprives a judge of such claim as the necessary second prong of the two-prong test set out in Stump to determining whether an act is “judicial” or not, the first prong being whether the act done is one "normally performed by a judge." Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction." Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872).

3.  A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)

4. Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974)

5.  There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign. Cooper v. O'Conner, 99 F.2d 133

6..When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697.

7.  "... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).

8.  "No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it betond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence." Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859).

9.  "The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act." Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F 417.

If you allow anyone to claim absolute immunity from the law over you, then you also give them absolute power over you and not your Creator, you have then submitted to slavery.

Know Your Rights

 Stand Up for Your Rights! 

Internationally you have Rights secured by the International Declaration of Human Rights, otherwise known as your “Human Rights.”

Domestically you have Rights supposedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as your “Constitutional Rights.”

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is suppose to guarantee protection from “Unreasonable searches and seizures” of not just property, but of your person. When police detain you, they have seized your person, and they can only lawfully do so based on two things:

1. “Reasonable suspicion” to stop and question, which is defined as “facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to suspect that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed.” (At this point police may only conduct a pat-down for weapons, feeling and peeking into pockets for contraband is a search and illegal.)

2. “Probable cause” to arrest and search, which is defined as “facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed and the person arrested is responsible.” Common examples include seeing or smelling evidence which is in plain view, or receiving an admission of guilt for a specific crime. (At this stage, police may perform a search)

3. “Probable cause” also applies to prosecutors, they must have probable cause to prosecute, otherwise they engaged in malicious prosecution, which is illegal.

4. “Probable cause” also applies to judges, they must find “probable cause” before allowing a prosecution to proceed and must state so in the court record, otherwise, the prosecution must be dismissed.

Know Your Rights upon Arrest

1. When a law enforcement officer uses their power to prevent you from leaving or continuing on your way, you are under arrest, which then triggers your constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

2. You always have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions, whether the police tell you this or not, say nothing accept you would like to talk with an attorney.

3. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and have an attorney present during questioning. And if you cannot afford an attorney, one must be appointed to you before any questioning.

4. If you answer questions without an attorney present, which would be unwise, you can stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

Know You Rights While Walking, While Driving, While in Your House

1.  Keep items that you do not want police to see out of view, police use the “in plain view” rule to conduct warrantless searches.

2.  The officer must inform you as to the reason that he stopped you

3.  Just Say "No" to Warrantless Searches, the officers may ask you if he can search your vehicle, you are under no obligation to consent. If you consent to a search request you give up your Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, so whatever he finds or claims to have found is then admissible against you in court.

Follow these rules during confrontations with the police:

1.  Stay calm, be courteous, show no fear

2.  Be as non-confrontational as possible

3.  Do not let the officer bate you into an argument

4.  Remain as calm as possible, be in control

5.  Do not physically resist unless absolutely necessary

6.  Make clear the real reason you were stopped and or seized.

BE SMART, BE ON GUARD, AND BE SAFE