Contents     home     Our Mission     prosebar     Judicial Oath of Office     Rampant Judicial Fraud     absolutejudicialimmunity     Judge Complaints     judicial complaint1     ResourcesPage1     CharacterCounts     JudicialAccountability     ResourcesPage2     Delaware     Red Alert     HomeContinued     HallofShame     judicial Immunity     ProSe/law     Contact Us     Access to Justice     accesstojustice2     ProSeResources     effectivelegalwriting     CourtRoomConduct     Pleadings101      
 
 
 
  "ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY"
     IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED
                       AND
         UNCONSTITUTIONAL
 
 
                                                                                              
                                                                      All Judges are Bound by the Constitution,
                                                                 the Law and
                                                     Their Solem Oath of Office.
 
   In our American democracy, judicial proceedings and decisions must be based on the Constitution and the
established law controlling the facts.
 
 

  Indisputably, the Judge-made  doctrine of "absolute judicial immunity" from personal responsibility,

for criminal conduct in the administration of justice is fundamentally flawed.   In no other area of  our

American democracy are public officials granted such license to engage in criminal conduct and intentional

violation of the Constitution and laws they are sworn to protect, uphold and defend.

 
 

  The  doctrine of  "absolute judicial immunity” has resulted in rampant criminal acts, actions and

conduct, by outlaw judges,  under color of law in the courts across America.

 

                                          

                                                           Fundamentally flawed

                                                                            and

                                                          Patently Unconstitutional 

 

The  judge-made doctrine of "absolute judicial immunity" suffers from three fundamental flaws that

cannot be glossed over by rote-like reliance on the doctrine in case after case, year after year:

 

   First, judges are absolutely without any authority to exempt themselves and their clan from the legal system 

they are sworn to  enforce, protect and defend. The doctrine of judicial immunity has no constitutional

or statutory basis.  As Hamilton wrote, “No laws have any validity or binding force without the consent and

approbation of the people."  

 

  Second, the doctrine of "absolute judicial immunity" violates the American democracy principles  of

accountability and equality under law. 

 

   Finally,  the judge-made "absolute judicial immunity"  is inextricably tainted by the defect of conflict

of interest.  Conflict of interest is at its worst when it involves judicial decision making.  In the

Federalist No. 10, James Madison stated: " No man is allowed to  be a judge in his own case," 

"because his interest would certainly bias his  judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity."  

 

   In the Federalist No. 80,  Alexander Hamilton, sharpened the adage further in the context of judicial

decision making: "No man ought certainly to be a judge in his own cause, or in any cause in respect

to which he has the least interest or bias."

  

   The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the critical importance of the maxim for impartial

and fair administration of judtice.  Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg  designated it "a mainstay of our

system of government."

  

                                                   THE MYTHS OF JUSTIFICATION

 

   The Supreme Court attempts to justify "absolute judicial immunity"  on  the flawed argument that

a sweeping immunity shield is necessary for an impartial and independent judiciary. The court argues 

that permitting dissatisfied litigants to sue judges:  “would contribute not to principled and fearless

decision-making; but, to intimidation.” and that  “If errors are committed, the proper remedy is appeal.”  

                                                              

                                                IS:

(1) Because of the high costs, an appeal is out of reach of ordinary litigants;

(2)  there are more outlaw judges in the appellate courts than the trial courts; and,  

(3) for all practical purposes,  the court of appeals is the court of last resort for most litigants.

 
                                   
                           Judicial Independence
 
                                                                    
 
                                  Judicial Independence is not Absolute.
                                                  Judges are not
                                                    
                                                                  Monarchs.
 
 
 Judges, like any other public servant, must be accountable for their conduct. The concept of judicial
independence devised by the Framers of the Constitution envisioned only freedom from legislative and
executive encroachments. 
                                                                     
 
                          All  judges are bound by the Constitution,
                              the law and the solemn oath of office
 
                                                                                    
                                           
 
 
                                           NEVERTHELESS,
 

during its long and impenetrable fortress of absolute judicial immunity, that protects outlaw judges’ 

from personal liability for their intentional and malicious criminal acts in the administration of justice:

 

  The judicial branch is allowing thousands of  outlaw judges  across the country to operate outside the

remedial system of American law; and to escape the consequences of  their intentional, unlawful and

outrageous acts,  actions and conduct in the administration of justice.

 

  Permitting outlaw judges to operate outside of the laws imposed upon the American people makes a

mockery of our fundamental principles of accountability and equality under the law.

 

 

  What does this say about the system that systematically protects  criminal acts, actions and conduct

in the administration of justice?  

 

                                                                  

                                                                           

 

 It sends the message that  judges are above the law and judicial crimes  are exempt from the force of the law.

 

  

  Plainly, crime must have consequences; especially,  judicial crimes under color of law.   There must

be action: a scolding for a child who steals a pencil, a fine for someone who violates traffic laws, a term of

imprisonment for a hooligan who burns a train or bus, a longer one for a rapist, and death for someone who

intentionally takes another’s life,  a remedy, at law, for  someone damaged by the tortious acts or omissions

of judges and others.  If there are no consequences, social order as we know it will dissolve.

 

 

                                                                       QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

 

   Qualified immunity would be adequate to provide the desired protection to honest judicial errors.

Qualified immunity would protect judges from meritless lawsuits and guarantee victims of intentional

unlawful judicial conduct their opportunity to seek redress.QQ

 

 

 Qualified immunity is a lesser form of immunity that may be granted by a court if the judge demonstrates

that the law was not clear on the subject in which the judge's actions occurred. The executive branch is

governed by qualified immunity. There is no indication that the administration of government has ground

to a halt, or that the executive branch cannot attract high-quality individuals to government service.

A well-articulated qualified immunity standard would allow a lawsuit against a judge to be dismissed if it

could be established that the judge was operating within accepted judicial authority.

 Qualified immunity would not precipitate a flood of litigation. Decisions that judges typically make will

seldom be litigated, as appellate review will satisfy most litigants. However, where a judge abuses their

authority and someone is injured,  it is only fair to qualify a judge's personal immunity. The removal of

absolute immunity would, over time, deter judicial abuse: judges would not be intimidated, but they

would be more careful to safeguard the rights of all parties.

   This should be a no brainer, if a judge intentionally violates the Constitution and the laws they were sworn

to uphold they should be held accountable. As law breakers, judges should be treated like any other law breaker.

 

 

 

            IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE  


                                                                           
 

 

                                                                            SEND THIS LINK 

               http://outlawjudges.org/absolutejudicialimmunity.aspx

 

       TO YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES  g

 

 TO                                                                                        

 

get                                       

                     GET THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS HERE

 

  

                                             

 

 

                                       

TO

 

                   DEMAND JUDICIAL

                    ACCOUNTABILITY R

 

                                                                                        H

 

                                         READ MORE ABOUT "ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY"

                                                                          

                                                                  HERE

 

 

 return                                                             RRRETURN TO HOME PAGE HERE

                         HOME

 

 

dd your content here