Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Question for Ron

Expand Messages
  • JAIL4Judges
    Questions for Ron By Kristi Devine - devinekristi@yahoo.com Kristi, the below cites which you provide all sound very good. However, from my years of actually
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 16, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

       

      Questions for Ron

      By Kristi Devine - devinekristi@...

       

      Kristi, the below cites which you provide all sound very good. However, from my years of actually experience in the courts and in dealing with reality, these assertions amount to mere propaganda and misstatements designed to deceive the simple.

       

      Time and time again I am “confronted” with good men who cite all these “authorities,” but the fact remains, Judicial Immunity does and will triumph all these authorities regardless of what they say. Judges do not honor their own words because they are dishonorable judges. So I ask you, when are the words of dishonorable men honorable? We are here discussing the subject of honest con artists, truthful liars, and merciful thieves.

       

      What has the Constitution become? It has become an artfully written historical document preserved under glass for the public to view in Washington , D.C. , and nothing more.

       

      It is because of reality, JAIL4Judges exists. American shall never extricate itself from its present quagmire until all government is subject to the judges, and all the judges are subject to the findings of an independent, autonomous Grand Jury relying upon the Constitution. All other efforts are high-sounding words of wishful thinking. If wishing were reality, we would all be soaring like eagles. Take heed, lest ye be deceived!

       

      God bless you, Kristi

       

      - Ron Branson

      VictoryUSA@...

       

       

       

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Kristi Devine [mailto:devinekristi@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:44 PM
      To: JAIL4Judges
      Subject: Question for Ron

       

      Dear Ron:

       

      This seems to be some pretty strong language, is it that no one holds them to this?

       

      JUDICIAL IMMUNITY:

       

      See Judicial Immunity page for more citations (links) and news articles regarding the topic. See also, 42 USC 1983 - Availability of Equitable Relief Against Judges.

      Note: [Copied verbiage; we are not lawyers.] Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act or for their administrative/ ministerial duties, or for violating a citizen's constitutional rights. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act; he is performing a ministerial act.

       

      Nowhere was the judiciary given immunity, particularly nowhere in Article III; under our Constitution, if judges were to have immunity, it could only possibly be granted by amendment (and even less possibly by legislative act), as Art. I, Sections 9 a 10, respectively, in fact expressly prohibit such, stating, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States " and "No state shall... grant any Title of Nobility." Most of us are certain that Congress itself doesn't understand the inherent lack of immunity for judges.

       

      Article III, Sec. 1, 'The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior."

       

      Tort Et Insurance Law Journal, Spring 1986 21 n3, p 509-516, "Federal tort law: judges cannot invoke judicial immunity for acts that violate litigants' civil rights." - Robert Craig Waters.

       

      Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859)

      "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 beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence."

       

      Chandler v. Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, 90 S. Ct. 1648, 26 L. Ed. 2d 100 Justice Douglas, in his dissenting opinion at page 140 said, "If (federal judges) break the law, they can be prosecuted." Justice Black, in his dissenting opinion at page 141) said, "Judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted and punished for crimes... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution" .

       

      Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

      Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.

      The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).

       

      Cooper v. O'Conner, 99 F.2d 133

      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.

       

      Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)

      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.

       

       Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S. Ct. at 544-545 (1987)

      Westfall v.Erwin, 108 S. Ct. 580 (1987)

      United States v. Lanier (March 1997)

      Constitutionally and in fact of law and judicial rulings, state-federal "magistrates- judges" or any government actors, state or federal, may now be held liable, if they violate any Citizen's Constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities, or guarantees; including statutory civil rights. A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity.

       

      Gregory v. Thompson, F.2d 59 ( C.A. Ariz. 1974)

      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.

       

      Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417

      'The courts are not bound by an officers interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act

        

      Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)

      ... 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."

      "In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank".

      "All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID".

      Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ... or equal protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.

       

      Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872) "Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction. "

       

      Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984); 104 S. Ct. 1781, 1980, 1981, and 1985

      In 1996, Congress passed a law to overcome this ruling which stated that judicial immunity doesn't exist; citizens can sue judges for prospective injunctive relief.

      "Our own experience is fully consistent with the common law's rejection of a rule of judicial immunity. We never have had a rule of absolute judicial immunity. At least seven circuits have indicated affirmatively that there is no immunity... to prevent irreparable injury to a citizen's constitutional rights..."

      "Subsequent interpretations of the Civil Rights Act by this Court acknowledge Congress' intent to reach unconstitutional actions by all state and federal actors, including judges... The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state [federal] from denying any person [citizen] within its jurisdiction the equal protection under the laws. Since a State [or federal] acts only by its legislative, executive or judicial authorities, the constitutional provisions must be addressed to those authorities, including state and federal judges..."

      "We conclude that judicial immunity is not a bar to relief against a judicial officer acting in her [his] judicial capacity."

       

      Mireles v. Waco , 112 S. Ct. 286 at 288 (1991)

      A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity; however, even in a case involving a particular attorney not assigned to him, he may reach out into the hallway, having his deputy use "excessive force" to haul the attorney into the courtroom for chastisement or even incarceration. A Superior Court Judge is broadly vested with "general jurisdiction. " Provided the judge is not divested of all jurisdiction, he may have his actions excused as per this poor finding.

       

      Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)

      Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect.

      The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States ."

       

      Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349

      Some Defendants urge that any act "of a judicial nature" entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing.

      A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely administrative, non-judicial capacity.

       

      Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)

      The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Arizona District Court dismissal based upon absolute judicial immunity, finding that both necessary immunity prongs were absent; later, in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (1986), the Ninth Circuit, en banc, criticized the "judicial nature" analysis it had published in Rankin as unnecessarily restrictive. But Rankin's ultimate result was not changed, because Judge Howard had been independently divested of absolute judicial immunity by his complete lack of jurisdiction.

       

      U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (State use of), 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697

      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.

       

      U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882)

      "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it."

      "It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives."

       

      Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326

      When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.

       

      CORRUPTION OF AUTHORITY:

       

      Burton v. United States , 202 U.S. 344, 26 S. Ct. 688 50 L.Ed 1057 United States Senator convicted of, among other things, bribery.

       

      BUTZ v. ECONOMOU, 438 U.S. 478 (1978)

      United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882)

      "No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it."

       

      *Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694

      Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process.

       

      *Geiler v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1973) 10 Cal.3d 270, 286

      Society's commitment to institutional justice requires that judges be solicitous of the rights of persons who come before the court.

       

      *Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374

      Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process.

       

      Olmstad v. United States , (1928) 277 U.S. 438

      "Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

       

      OWEN v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE , 445 U.S. 622 (1980)

      'The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury."

       

      Perry v. United States , 204 U.S. 330, 358

      "I do not understand the government to contend that it is any less bound by the obligation than a private individual would be..."

      "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."

       

      *Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 518, 533

      Before sending a person to jail for contempt or imposing a fine, judges are required to provide due process of law, including strict adherence to the procedural requirements contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating but an aggravating factor.

       

      U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882)

      "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it."

      "It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives."

       

      Warnock v. Pecos County , Texas , 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996)

      Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.

       

      Best regards,

       

      Kristi L. Devine

      978-852-8012

       

      Have a GREAT DAY and pay it forward!

       

      "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who do nothing about it." - A.E.

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.