Bradley had an extremely tough case due to the strong emotions of the time.
Defending one accused of being involved in the assisination of Lincoln would be
worst than trying to defend an American Citizen alleged to be a member of
Al Quida (sp?).
As for your reference to "good" law. What is "good" and what is "bad" is a
moral/value judgment. Certainly there is "good" law wherever you find "law".
Even under Stalinism and Fascism. Certainly there is "bad law" wherever you find
"law". Even in the Bible. Our 'heritage' in our Law is as much, or more,
from that of the Roman Republic. That is, the Law prior to the age of the
Ceasars, about 50 BC, followed by the Holy Roman
Empire, 372 to 16th century, as it is from Englands Laws. The
Magna Carta was an attempt to restore the 'Rule of Law' that the English
remembered from their times as part of the Rome Republic. Make the King
accountable to 'the Rule of Law'. But it was soon relegated to an archaic
document that was unenforceable [Our Constitution of the U.S. is quickly
approaching this state]. Law in this Land begins with our Declaration of
7-4-1776. But for scholars, none need not look any futher than this for our
LAW OF THE LAND. English Law WAS condemned by this Declaration.
Our Law, and our System of Law, is 'secular'. In this Land the Human (an
Individual) is presumed to be "good" and the Artificial is presumed to be "bad".
In their System of Law the King and Nobles were presumed to be "good" and people
presumed "bad". Likewise with 'Church Law'. The first function of Law, in this
Land, is to bind and restrain the artificial. That is a Constitutional
government or, in other words "the Rule of Law" rather than "the Rule of Men"
("Divine Right" of Kings, Nobles, Church Officials to 'rule'). Here "the
People" Rule by and through their Constitution(s) and Laws. The 'church' has no
direct role in government. What is 'moral' is determined by the indirect
influence they may have on the development of our Penal Codes that apply to
Humans. MOST of our Laws apply to regulating the Artificial Person.
Officials are Artificial persons. Any 'license' creates an 'artificial
person'. The Artificial have NO Rights, NO Privileges, NO immunities. This is
found in the prohibition against 'Titles of Nobility'. Humans are presumed to be
"Noble", and given the Presumption of Innocence, with Rights, Privileges and
Immunities vested in them by our Constitution and Laws. The Artificial
(Officials) have, as artificials ONLY duties, obligations, and responsibilities
while in their Official Character. In the 'practical application' of our Laws
the paradigm is, more and more often, reversed.
What Officials have is discretion. In other words 'permission' to act
within the scope of their position of Public Trust. Judicial Officials have very
wide 'scope'. A lot of 'discretion'. But they have NO immunity when they exceed
the scope of their authority by acts or ommission to act. Also Known
as: Malfeasance or Nonfeasance / Commission or Ommission.
The real fraud is when the word "absolute" is placed in front of the word
"immunity". Valid charges against those holding the position with the most trust
given by the public (synonomous with 'the people'), a position of Public Trust,
are summarily dismissed without any examination on the assertion of "absolute
immunity". Same is true of "qualified immunty".
A person in an artificial capacity / character, an 'Office', is either
immune, or is NOT immune. Ain't no 'absolute' or 'qualification' about it.
They were either acting within the scope of their Office, performing a LAWFUL
function, or they were not. If not - then they are liable in their Individual
Character and, at the same time, so is those that are charged with regulating
their behavior - their 'Respondeat Superior', and those that insure their
There was a time when ALL who held positions of Public Trust were required
to be 'bonded'. In other words, required to have insurance. Just as those that
have a license to drive a car are required to have insurance. Today this has
been replaced with the Public Account (state treasury) and the U.S. Treasury as
the 'insurance pool'.
I don't like it. It puts people like me in a position of being colored as
bringing an action against my own government when I assert my claim against the
Public Account. In Texas corrupt Public Officials have also got law on the books
that says our Office of the Attorney General is to defend those that commit
criminal acts while in positions of public trust, and to defend the Public
Account when claims are brought against their 'sureties' (Public Account as the
Bonding Agent - aka 'insurer').
Judicial Officials are strongly inclined to rule in whatever way an
Attorney employed in our Office of the Attorney General wants. I have won on the
facts and issues. But continue to encounter Obstruction of Justice in my efforts
to collect on the debt. Ran into it again at the hearing on November 2nd. Got
another hearing comming up in a few days.
Thanks for raising the topic, your comments, and participation
in the discussion Doug.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 3:23
Subject: [ed44] Ed. You are right.
Judicial Immunity is a FRAUD
I always like to look at the Mother case, the
It is often an amazing case.
Bradley successfully defended
John Suratt, a guy accused of killing
John Wilkes Booth
died 12 days after the assassination.
Booth was killed by an army
assassin. Shot in the neck. Instantly
paralyzed. Was hiding in
Several other were hung. President Johnson suspended habeas
Mrs. Suratt was hung.
John Suratt was the guy defended by
The reference to English law CANNOT be condemned!
Charta and good English law is our heritage and treasure.
We reject SOME
English law. For example, we have no royalty.
Let's not employ the
"Either/ or" logical fallacy.
The question is NOT "do we recognize judicial
The question is "When is immunity appropriate"
I say that we
need to entertain less judicial immunity.