The TRUE Sovereign Citizens Movement In America

If you want to know who the real sovereign citizens are in America, read on.

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, at 530: The doctrine of judicial immunity and the limitations on prospective collateral relief with which we are concerned have related histories. Both can be traced to the successful efforts of the King's Bench to ensure the supremacy of the common-law courts over their 17th- and 18th- century rivals. See 5 W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law 159-160 (3d ed. 1945) (Holdsworth).

A number of courts challenged the King's Bench for authority in those days. Among these were the Council, the Star Chamber, the Chancery, the Admiralty, and the ecclesiastical courts. Ibid. In an effort to assert the supremacy of the common-law courts, Lord Coke forbade the interference by courts of equity with matters properly triable at common law. See Heath v. Rydley, Cro. Jac. 335, 79 Eng. Rep. 286 (K. B. 1614). Earlier, in Floyd and Barker, 12 Co. Rep. 23, 77 Eng. Rep. 1305 (1607), Coke and his colleagues of the Star Chamber had declared the judges of the King's Bench immune from prosecution in competing courts for their judicial acts. In doing so, they announced the theory upon which the concept of judicial immunity was built. The judge involved in Floyd and Barker was a common-law Judge of Assize who had presided over a murder trial. He was then charged in the Star Chamber with conspiracy. The court concluded that the judges of the common law should not be called to account "before any other Judge at the suit of the King." Id., at 24, 77 Eng. Rep., at 1307.

" Id., at 25, 77 Eng. Rep., at 1307.

As this quoted language illustrates, Coke's principle of immunity extended only to the higher judges of the King's courts. See 5 Holdsworth, at 159-160. In time, Coke's theory was expanded beyond his narrow concern of protecting the common-law judges from their rival courts, so that judges of all courts were accorded immunity, at least for actions within their jurisdiction.”[emphasis added]

*********************************************************

The Judge is the same as the King. Yes, THAT King. The one in England.

So, Judicial immunity arose from monarchical absolutes that the King was God, and this doctrine was enacted to protect the King, and in concert, God, from being questioned.

A quick reading of Psalm 44 will show you that David, called a “man after God’s own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14) I call Psalm 44 the indictment of God.

And, even an all-powerful God should be able to withstand, and respond to questions of the frustrated, or, by resisting such questioning, demonstrate that the claim of all-powerful and weakness are integrated.

Here in America, though, we do not have a monarchy, except in this one concept of judicial immunity, which has been carried over. Judicial immunity is incompatible with the basic concept of fairness (in a Constitutional Republic), and also common law under the same form of government.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, at 166:

“Where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a Constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.”

There simply IS NO remedy for a judge who acts corruptly or maliciously on the bench.

Marbury at 162, 163:

“If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

 The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every  individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain the king himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court. [Absolutely NOT true, the king disregards whatever he wants, as do American bureaucrats.]

In the 3d vol. of his commentaries, p. 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.

"In all other cases," he says, "it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law, whenever that right is invaded."

And afterwards, p. 109, of the same vol. he says, "I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the courts of the common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark, that all possible injuries whatsoever, that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals, are for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice; for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress."

The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.” (emphasis added)


**********************************************

There is no monarch here - no king. And yet, the judge, in their black robe, is deemed as God - an extension of the King as monarch, under the continuation of a monarchical nation of a supreme monarch, who was, like God, deemed to be above reproach.

Judicial immunity, in a constitutional republic is the highest display of social deviancy.

“Judicial immunity is an immunity from suit and from an assessment of damages, and applies even when a judge is accused of acting maliciously or corruptly.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554-54 (1967).

Did you catch that? Even if a judge is accused of acting maliciously or corruptly, they are immune from suit. There are states that have this written into law.

Monarchy is equated with religion, because in England, the Monarch is the head of the church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Governor_of_the_Church_of_England

What judicial immunity offers, is that judges are by implication, God.

Judicial immunity derives from the monarchical practice of common law. Where does that common law come from?

Dissent in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, at 766: “The judges who announced the common law sat ‘in the place of the king’ and so in practice the common law certainly derived from him. Thus, at least for the most part, ‘the custom of the king's court is the custom of England, and becomes the common law.’”

The Common law derives from the king, and for the matter of judicial immunity, we the “Constitutional Republic” have not actually escaped, or been liberated from England and/or the Monarchy.

Judicial immunity shields judges from any and all accountability for even malicious or corrupt actions while on the bench.

Ironically, judicial immunity is, by its very operation, a malicious and corrupt middle finger to those who expect justice. It has become a tool to enable and effect this same corruption and malice that it disregards as relevant.

Judicial immunity is of the common law, and thus is of the king.

We have no king here, except for the robe-wearing social deviants who call themselves “Your Honor.”

Alden dissent by Souter, footnote 14, discussing 1 S. Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo 915 (1688 ed. reprinted 1934); for a modern translation, see 2 S. Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo 1344-1345 (transl. C. & W. Oldfather 1934): “Pufendorf's discussion of sovereign immunity, just before the passage quoted by Blackstone, begins (in a modern translation): "Now although promises and pacts are as binding upon the conscience of a king as upon that of any private citizen, there is, nevertheless, this difference between the obligation of a king and that of subjects, namely, that it is no trouble for the former to exact what is owed him from a subject, when he demurs, while a citizen, so long as he remains such, has no means within his power to recover his due from a king against his will." 2 Pufendorf 1344-1345.

See how fair that is? The king can demand of a subject, but a subject cannot demand of a king. I thought the Revolutionary War was supposed to disconnect these tyrannical connections?

Here’s an interesting “common law” maxim:

Ab alio expectes, alteri quod feceris. (P.Syrus,1.)-Expect from others the same treatment that they receive from you.

Judges are exempt from this “common law” maxim, y’unnerstand. They do get to dip in the judicial immunity doctrine of common law, claiming that common law is “enshrined in the Constitution” and simultaneously, act maliciously, corruptly, even direct actions that result in illegitimate deaths, and they don’t expect the same treatment from you. I call bullshit.

Here’s another “common law” maxim:

Ab assuetis non fit injuria. (JENK. CENT. 8.)—No injury is done by things long acquiesced in.

It’s time to STOP acquiescing to judicial immunity as fair.

Here’s another “common law” maxim:

Acta exteriora indicantinteriora secreta. (8 COKE,146.)-External actions show the secret intentions.

The action of the Courts upholding common law judicial immunity, even in cases of malice or corruption, is by it’s very nature a green light to malicious and corrupt judges.

Here’s another “common law” maxim:

Absolutum dominium inomnibuslicitis. Absolute power in all things lawful.

Is malicious and corrupt “lawful”?

From Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547. at 553 (1967)

“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as this Court recognized when it adopted the doctrine in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872). This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences."

BULLSHIT.

The doctrine of judicial immunity IS for the protection and benfit of a malicious or corrupt judge, and is NOT for the benefit of the public.

The public no longer acquiese to judges being at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.

The only true claimants of “sovereign” citizenship are the black-robe wearers.

Let me know if you also refuse this doctrine of a robe-wearing social deviant being immune from consequence.

Pretending “decorum” and “integrity” and “impartiality” is a FAILED CONSTRUCT.

P.D., Jay V. Shore, as Certified ADA Advocate, and one pissed-off motherfucker.