"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.
"(a) A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was
done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority, but rather he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"
Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349
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