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

Fw: Judicial Immunity - Re: Why bother finding their signature? Re: OATH - proof of not needed

Expand Messages
  • Ed
    I respectfully disagree. Judges are bound by the Constitution, the Law, and their Oath whether they have signed a piece of paper or not just like you, me, and
    Message 1 of 3 , May 29, 2003
       
      I respectfully disagree. Judges are bound by the Constitution, the Law, and their Oath whether they have signed a piece of paper or not just like you, me, and everybody else. Ignorance of the Law is NO excuse for someone in such a position. It is their duty to know their job. Here in Texas they are required to have a law degree and been licensed for at least 4 years.
       
      If you think you can do something to them by finding no signed oath on file then go for it. I'm skeptical that you can achieve anything by it.
       
      I am of the personal opinion there is no such thing as judicial Immunity. The supreme Law of this Land is the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Acts of Congress, The Constitution and Statutes of your State. Read them and the Federalist Papers and it should be clear. If you also read some legal history, as I have, you find that the very reason for our revolution was the "immunity" of Kings, Nobles, and Judges. In fact it was when a Jurist named Locke, if memory serves correctly, established the idea of judicial Immunity that contributed to the cause of our American Revolution. Our US Constitution does NOT give the judicial Branch ANY authority to make public law (but they do by fiat that others impliment as law even though it is not).
       
      Finally - There is no need to amend the Constitution of the Nation and probably no need to amend the Constitution of your State. I doubt you will find Judicial Immunity anywhere in your State and you certainly do not find it in our United States Constitution. You also will NOT find it anywhere in the Acts of Congress and probably won't find it in your State Statutes. I know it is NOT in the Texas Constitution or anywhere in the Statutes of this State.
       
      Judicial Immunity was created by judicial fiat. It is NOT Law but is a "professional curtesy" members of the judicial Branch of Our State and Fed gov. give each other. There are ways to overcome it. But finding they haven't signed their Oath is not, to my knowledge, the way to do it.
       
      Ed
      www.informed.org
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/  Join our Experiment in OpenLaw
      ----- Original Message -----

          Certainly a judge cannot be BOUND by an oath he didn't take.  

          So the validity of the oath determines immunity.  No oath or invalid oath,
      not immune at all.  Valid oath = judicial immunity, even if he/she violates your
      rights, unless he/she proceeds without jurisdiction.  And remember one thing,
      violating your rights does not deprive a judge of his assertion of judicial
      immunity.  You guys want to start holding judges responsible and eliminate
      judicial immunity, then get your state constitutions amended to eliminate the
      defense.

      g'day
      John Wilde
    • Legalbear
      If you also read some legal history, as I have, you find that the very reason for our revolution was the immunity of Kings, Nobles, and Judges. None of those
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 1, 2003

        If you also read some legal history, as I have, you find that the very reason for our revolution was the "immunity" of Kings, Nobles, and Judges.

         

        None of those have immunity now, as a matter of law, with respect to criminal charges; and, by way of civil RICO, immunity from civil suits either.  I sell my research on civil RICO in my Ebay Store.  The problem arises when the judges, prosecutors, and other executive officers become complicit in their actions and cover them up and make it possible for them to continue.  I succeeded in having one judge order the DA to investigate another judge for altering a court record.  The prosecutor never did.  The reason I know is that I’m the one that had the proof and I was never contacted by the DA.  A motion to have the DA held in contempt for violating the order was summarily denied.  The only way I found out was by getting a copy of the register of actions.  That judge’s failure to send me a copy of that order was an act of official misconduct; a class 2 misdemeanor.  One enjoyable thing I did get out of it, was watching the response of the other judge, whom I had a criminal case pending before, after she learned of the other judge’s order.  I’d filed 4-5 motions for substitution of judge and she denied them all.  The day trial was to take place, a week or so after the order to investigate was issued, I appeared, she announced she was recusing herself and rushed out of the courtroom.  A new judge was appointed for those cases and I ended up winning them both.     

         

        In fact it was when a Jurist named Locke, if memory serves correctly, established the idea of judicial Immunity that contributed to the cause of our American Revolution.

         

        It’s because of this that it would be great to get J.A.I.L. for Judges on the books in every state.

         

        For mailing use:  Excellence Unlimited, 17795 E. Eldorado Place #201, Aurora, CO  80013 303-481-0379 rm 107 fax 810-958-6113

        www.legal-research-video.com
        www.legalbears.com
        www.freedivorceforms.net
        http://www.stores.ebay.com/bearscomputersandlawresearch
        To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
        tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

         

         

        Ed
        www.informed.org
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/  Join our Experiment in OpenLaw

        ----- Original Message -----

        From: John Wilde


            Certainly a judge cannot be BOUND by an oath he didn't take.  


            So the validity of the oath determines immunity.  No oath or invalid oath,
        not immune at all.  Valid oath = judicial immunity, even if he/she violates your
        rights, unless he/she proceeds without jurisdiction.  And remember one thing,
        violating your rights does not deprive a judge of his assertion of judicial
        immunity.  You guys want to start holding judges responsible and eliminate
        judicial immunity, then get your state constitutions amended to eliminate the
        defense.

        g'day
        John Wilde



        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • Frog Farmer
        ... I respectfully disagree. Taking an oath is a volitional act. ... Correct. Usually, the law you referred to above requires that the first official act
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 2, 2003
          Ed wrote:
          >
          > I respectfully disagree. Judges are bound by the
          > Constitution, the Law, and their Oath whether they
          > have signed a piece of paper or not just like you, me,
          > and everybody else.


          I respectfully disagree. Taking an oath is a volitional act.

          > Ignorance of the Law is NO excuse for someone in such a
          > position. It is their duty to know their job.

          Correct. Usually, the law you referred to above requires
          that the first official act must be the taking of the
          prescribed oath of office, among other requirements. Taking
          the oath is usally described as being necessary BEFORE
          entering into the duties of the office. Obviously, being a
          volitional act, some people may choose to proceed, while
          others may fail to proceed to subsequent official acts.

          I don't need anyone agreeing with me to utilize this in my
          own defense. I have ways of cajolling people into making
          admissions and confessions. And then just for good measure,
          there's always the official evidence!

          > If you think you can do something to them by finding no
          > signed oath on file then go for it. I'm skeptical that
          > you can achieve anything by it.


          Here's what I achieved by it:

          1. I got a large list of names that, should I encounter
          them, I can trick the person into lying to me, as though I
          was any other ignorant sheep.

          2. Once it can be demonstrated that the first thing a
          person ever does is lie to me, I cannot be expected to
          believe or take seriously anything further he has to say.

          3. If they violate my rights, I have personal first-hand
          knowledge that a crime of impersonation of an officer is
          occurring in my presence. Realize this cannot occur unless
          I already have my evidence ready. No presumptions that may
          be applicable to a person without knowledge will be
          applicable to me.

          4. It is my own rights that I defend. I am not waiting
          around for a majority to agree with my rights or solve my
          problems politically. If my neighbors declare that I shall
          be ruled by law, then so shall they. They are no more than a
          neighbor (if that!) until they take that oath. Then we can
          play "law". Until then, they aren't qualified to waste my
          time. I have a life and better things to do. No offense,
          all you nosey arrogant neighbors and think-you-know-better
          college graduates!





          -----------------------------------
          Have it ALL! With NO Waste!
          http://www.frogfarm.org/seasilver/
          -----------------------------------
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.