Does judicial immunity violate "No Title of Nobility"?
- View SourceLt.CIC. Attorney Gary Zerman, GZerman@... Responds To VA. JAILerFrom: Randy Linamen
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 9:26 AM
Subject: Question presented on "No Title of Nobility"
The question now before U.S. Supreme Court, FILED YESTERDAY, 6:16 pm:
"Whether our Nation's Founders targeted judicial agent's 'immunity'. In the
constitutional preclusion: "No Title of Nobility" (quoting U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9; and Sec. 10, in part). Now annulled by
questionable legislation, and profuse lack of accountability."
An unpublished opinion, without signature, came from U.S. Court of
Appeals, Richmond VA (4th Circuit) after U.S. Dist. Court, Alexandria,
Virginia FAILED to file "original papers" required by Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 10 (a) resulting in petition for rehearing, and Linamen's immediate, unlawful, EARLY release from VDOC, April 2, 2003. Without explanation! That petition denied, also without signature, April 28, 2003.
Judges, "shall hold their offices during good Behavior" (quoting Article III, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution). Linamen doesn't believe concealing 20 years of constitutional deprivation, by lower court judges and attorneys can be
considered "good Behavior".
Several violations of U.S. Constitution, are undeniable on certified court records. Not one responsive pleading has come from Virginia in over 6
years in traitorous violation of The Rule of Law, upon which our entire
judicial system is based.
This case falls in CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST's jurisdiction. Linamen
has proof that attorneys below, don't read 1st Amendment petitions, "for a redress of grievances."
The phone numbers: William K. Suter, (202) 479-3011; Gail Johnson,
(202) 479-3038; and Cynthia Rapp, (202) 479-3031. Please, be polite and
civil. The case, In re Linamen, or Linamen v. Judicial Agents of Virginia.
Ron, as you said in your message preceding that below, "May God
open your eyes. God bless you all."
Randy, in the name of Michael Aaron Linamen (an only child who left this earth, 6/17/03).
randylinamen@...Gary Zerman's Response:----- Original Message -----From: Gary ZermanSent: Monday, January 24, 2005 3:38 PMSubject: RE: Does judicial immunity violate "No Title of Nobility"?Ron & Randy:
Yes. In many ways. But, the 1st Q to ask is what/where is the authority
for Judicial Immunity? Placing the government, above the People, goes
against the grain of the Constitution. It makes the servant greater than
the master. That is inverting the People's sovereignty, and is an assault on
the Constitution. It allows a judge to violate our rights [due process], and
take away our rights without just compensation. But most of all, it starts
us down a dangerous path where this will occur over and over again.
Nowhere in the Constitution, particularly Art. III, dealing with the judiciary, is the judiciary given immunity by our Founding Fathers. Further, as you
point out in Art. I, it has some indirect prohibitions, "No Title of Nobility
shall be granted ..." Art. I, sec. 9. "No state shall ... grant any Ttitle of Nobility." Art. I, sec 10.
The only "privilege", "immunity", "exemption", given in the Constitution to the goverment, is the "privilege[d] from Arrest" given to members of the
Senate and House, set forth in Art. I, sec. 6. As with this "privilege", if
our Founding Fathers wanted judges to have immunity, they would have stated such - it would be in the Constitution.
Judges unconstitutionally took immunity for themselves, in one of the worst Supreme Court opinions ever written, Bradley v. Fisher, 80 US 335 (1872), authored by Justice Stephen Field. Here Justice Field, wihout much explanation, eliminated the "corrupt" and "malicious" exceptions to
immunity, that he stated only four (4) years earlier in Randall v, Bringham,
74 US 523 (1868) - violating his own precedent. The Randall and Bradley
cases are wrong for several reasons.
1. Neither case cites any Constitutional authority, but state immunity
comes from long established English common law precedent. If it is not in the Constitution, there is no authority to write such, (and some would even say the judge committed treason). That is the purpose of having a written Constitution.2. The Court giving itself immunity violates a foundational principle of our Constitution, the separation of powers - the so called checks and balances. Amazingly, Justice Field states that immunity is granted the judges "for the People." Well he did not ask the People; if he had they would have said, NO. The Judiciary simply cannot give itself immunity. If the Judciary is ever granted immunity (it should never be absolute, but qualified), it should come from the People through their representatives, in a Constitutional amendment. However, recall that we fought a revolutrion, because we thought the King did wrong, and did a lot of it - we no longer bought into his sovereign immunity. Common sense dictates that we did not throw off the yoke of the King, to get under the yoke of the judges. 3. It is rank hypocracy. What happened to the doctrine, the our country is governed by the Rule of Law, that "We are a Nation of Laws, not men. That no man is above the law." Judges, sitting essentially at the pinnacle of power, and judges giving themselves absolute immunity, simply does not pass the smell test. It is so hypocritical, it breeds contempt for our law and government. Further, it starts the evil crack, that will lead to further placments of the government above the People.
I have not seen a Supreme Court case address the argument that immunity, especially absolute immunity, is unconstitutional. However, see Pierson v.
Ray, 386 US 547 (1967), a fraudulent 8/1 opinion that turns the plain
meaning of language and legislative construction on its head. Look at
Justice Douglas' common sense dissent, that starts: "The question presented [here in Pierson] is not of constitutional dimension; it is solely a
question of statutory interpretation." Douglas also readily dismisses the
claim that pulic officials - judges in particular - should not be scrutinized and need immunity, because it would inhibit the independence of their work - their decsion making, stating: "... Chief Justice Cockburn long ago disposed of the argument that liability would deter judges..." Further, should a case riase the agrument that absolute judicial immunity, the Supreme Court will most lliekly punt, and not grant to hear the case.Gary L. Zerman