Unauthorized Practice of Law, Part 2

Judicial Immunity a/k/a Social Deviancy

Part 2. 

(Notice: any and all words used hereon that were or are created by the undersigned author, JAY V. SHORE, unless otherwise attributed, remain the intellectual property of JAY V. SHORE, and any use, reproduction, sharing, or other implementation of this property is perpetually absent grant, right, or other authorization for any party, to use, reproduce, share or otherwise implement this property unless a fee for such is paid, which specie and amount are determined with the sole and exclusive discretion of JAY V. SHORE) Absent intent or authority as legal advice.

Judges claim immunity for their acts of discrimination, denial of equal access, coercion, intimidation, threats, and interference with ADA rights, even thought the ADA Title II purports to remove 11th amendment immunity. Judges are the illegitimate gods of the religion of the “justice system” which is, in fact a rape-and-pillage construct of the few favored individuals that have no interest in justice applying to the populace as a whole.

Let’s dive into this.

1. Judges have, for years, required litigants to use their “pronouns” of “Judge” or “Your Honor.”

2. “[J]udicial officers generally are absolutely immune from civil suits for monetary damages under § 1983 for their judicial actions." Cooper v. Parrish, 203 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir. 2000). Judicial immunity ‘provides a shield from liability for acts performed erroneously, even if alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.’ Dean v. Byerley, 354 F.3d 540, 554 (6th Cir. 2004). The rationale for judicial immunity is that judges ‘should be free to make controversial decisions and act upon their convictions without fear of personal liability. Cooper, 203 F.3d at 944.” Watts v. Antkoviak & Antkoviak, P.C., 2004 (emphasis added)

3. To have a judicial or quasi-judicial officer demanding accountability from a litigant or party to a proceeding, when these same officers can simultaneously act “erroneously”, “maliciously”, or “corruptly” is incompatible with the idea that judges are “honorable.” BOTH of my middle fingers are erected to this notion. 

4. Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, 508 U.S. 429 at 435, 113 S. Ct. 2167, says: “The doctrine of judicial immunity is supported by a long-settled understanding that the independent and impartial exercise of judgment vital to the judiciary might be impaired by exposure to potential damages liability. Accordingly, the "touchstone" for the doctrine's applicability has been ‘performance of the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.’” (emphasis added)

5. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, at 510, says: “We recently reaffirmed the holding of Yaselli v. Goff in Imbler v. Pachtman, supra, a suit against a state prosecutor under § 1983. The Court's examination of the leading precedents led to the conclusion that "[the] common-law immunity of a prosecutor is based upon the same considerations that underlie the common-law immunities of judges and grand jurors acting within the scope of their duties." 

6. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 at 418 says: “The common-law absolute immunity of judges for ‘acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction,’ see Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872), was found to be preserved under § 1983 in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554-555 (1967).”

7. Smith v. Wade 461 U.S. 30 (1983) at 51,  says: “As for punitive damages, however, in the absence of any persuasive argument to the contrary based on the policies of § 1983, we are content to adopt the policy judgment of the common law -- that reckless or callous disregard for the plaintiff's rights, as well as intentional violations of federal law, should be sufficient to trigger a jury's consideration of the appropriateness of punitive damages. See Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 233 (1970)”
   
   What about this principle of common-law? Why doesn’t IT apply to judges?

8. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), at 553 says: “Few doctrines were more solidly  [554]  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." ( Scott v. Stansfield, L. R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868), quoted in Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 349, note, at 350.)

9. No. No. No. HELL NO. It is NOT for the benefit of the public that judges, acting maliciously and corruptly should be without fear of consequences. They should face the same measure they mete out. Is common law at odds with the Bible? Luke 6:38 “For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.” There should be consequences for such judges, and the consequences should be swift, severe, unwavering, and easily obtainable by those who have been harmed.

10. The fact is, that while chest-thumping about the common-law while conjuring up this immunity artifice, SCOTUS has failed to provide one instance of Constitutional basis for judicial immunity. I’m throwing down the fucking flag on the play.

11. If the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution was required to explicitly provide immunity for States, then how can SCOTUS just conjure up immunity for judges when a ratified amendment was required to establish immunity for the States?

12. Judges have been granted “immunity” as an artifice that is really an authorization for social deviancy.

13. Judges commit crimes that they hold others accountable for. The wake of bodies in the waters of malice and corruption that judges are empowered with is staggering, and these bodies scream for justice when none exists.

14. This power of this malicious and corrupt social deviancy has been granted to judges by their co-conspirators and collaborators of the same created class of persons - The Supreme Court of the United States.

15. This doctrine of judicial immunity violates the  fundamental concept of fairness and integrity. The Constitution has absolutely zero indicators for judicial immunity.

16. Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co, 125 U.S. 555 (1888) at 583 says “There is no common law of the United States, and yet the  [584]  main body of the rights of the people of this country rest upon and are governed by principles derived from the common law of England, and established as the laws of the different States. Each State of the Union may have its local usages, customs, and common law. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 13 How. 519. (emphasis added)

17. The US Constitution, Article III, §1 says: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, <sic> and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. (emphasis added)

18. And these same social deviants that co-empowered the inferior courts with judicial immunity, boldly proclaim that immunity applies even in cases of malicious or corrupt actions. 

19. Did you notice the part in Article III, §1 about judicial immunity? No? Neither did I. Because, it’s not there. Does anyone see a provision for the Supreme Court to be allowed to eliminate the “good behavior” element of Article III? I don’t, and that’s just what they’ve done.
    
    Now might be a good time to gripe about Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, in which SCOTUS affirmed “misrepresentation” by the police as non-consequential to deprivation of rights, while the same police officers are demanding that the subjects before them tell the truth. Let’s call it what it is. Police, because of Frazier, are authorized to lie while coercively demanding truth from others. WTF?

20. Article III, §2 says: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Does anyone have a clue where Congress regulated or away the “good behavior” portion of Article III? (Crickets chirping)

21. It would be difficult to imagine why Americans have been silent for so long, but when you factor in the legal industry’s standard admonition that “we don’t want to piss off the judge” and the “decorum” of the court being insisted upon, which regularly includes the judge being able to act as a narcissistic, sociopathic egomaniacal social deviant, while demanding others figuratively bow before them, combined with the contempt powers that allow the whims of the judge to jail someone for looking at them a certain way, and when all of this is combined with a free pass to be malicious and corrupt by SCOTUS rulings and conjurations of judicial immunity, well, any eighth grader can understand, with these variables, that “justice” is as bogus as “good behavior”.

22. There is no justice system until corrupt judges are subject to the same consequences, both criminal and civil, that others in society are subject to, and on a regular basis.

23. What’s really going on is that JUDGES ARE AFRAID OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS, and while they act all-powerful, the glaring truth is that they would piss their pants if accountability were mixed into the recipe for “justice.” They “fear the consequences” of their actions.
    
    Lawyers, covering for their comrades - fellow Bar members, ever complicate the law, and the common man must buy the law by hiring a lawyer to deal with corrupt judges to have a chance at survival.
    
    Any faith in the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary is destroyed by the empowerment of judges to act with malice and corruption, while claiming judicial immunity. “Your Honor”, my ass.
    
    This is not freedom. This is fascism.
    
    Fuck your “Justice System” that offers a demand for accountability while offering no reciprocal accountability.

P.D., JAY V SHORE, as Certified ADA Advocate