1. The constitutions for the United States as well as the several states establish immunity for no public official except legislators in debate on the floor of the legislature. Statutes passed granting immunity might rise to the level of unconstitutional.
2. Judicial immunity is a contrivance (illusion) of the judicial body politic. Consider the outreach of all public officials claiming immunity and expecting the court to recognize the claim lest testimony and evidence be entered exposing the judicial scam.
3. Immunity does not exist for any act by anyone for unlawful conduct. The court does not claim immunity for unlawful acts. We, the unwashed public, fail to read what the court says about immunity.
   What the courts do claim, and possibly rightly so, is freedom from vexation, harassment and litigation arising from the decisions imposed by a judge. A great number of factors come into play whether the judge acts in a judicial capacity.
4. In Oklahoma a referendum vote (HJR 508, 1967, passed 1968) gave authority to the legislature (albeit, the public understood it not) to abolish the 7th article of the state constitution. What was left in its place was a new Article 7 and the courts were not judicial in nature.
   (a). Immunity [even if a viable doctrine] applies only in judicial courts, where judges act in a judicial capacity, making judicial decisions.
   (b) Decisions by tribunals, commissioners, administrators under legislative or executive articles are not judicial courts. The question posed is whether, under what circumstance, immunity is a proper plea, or protection.
   (c) Question of jurisdiction requires proper challenge. An Answer as "I have jurisdiction" is correct in certain circumstances. The judge might be in proper jurisdiction, but the man before him in the wrong jurisdiction, and oblivious of the fact.
5. The point becomes clear judges subject themselves to civil and criminal liability in the clear and complete absence:
   (a) Personal or subject matter jurisdiction, or both. See: Dykes v. Hoseman, 743 F.2d 1488 (11th, 1984).
   (b) Apprising a judge he acts in absence of jurisdiction vitiates judicial immunity claims. Dykes.
6. These and other instances show a judge does not enjoy absolute immunity. If one or two instances exist, then it would appear there might be three, or four, or twenty different instances where immunity is lost.

The point made with this post goes to the proposition immunity arises only under strict, narrowly considered parameters. That the acts must be judicial in nature, as a judge, in a judicial setting. First glance leads to the conclusion acts violative of rights not going to the merits of an issue might be the first foot in the door. All the cases I read seem to indicate those suing judges attack the decision and not the possible extra judicial demeanor.

There are several law journals directed to the subject of "Suing Judges". A recent book published is called: "Judicial Impeachment, None Called for Justice, Mary L. Volcansek, University of Illinois Press, 1993, and goes into the Judicial Conduct Act of 1980.

This post [obviously] is not exhaustive. Many other thoughts in agreement and support with the idea of judicial accountability exist. My experience goes to the concept the mind numbs when too many thoughts become invasive.

Pat

Dear Pat:

We appreciate your interest and concern about the JAIL Initiative and the time you took to research existing laws, etc. on the subject.

Please understand, however, that JAIL is not designed to usurp existing laws, or the system as we know it. JAIL kicks in ONLY after the system has been given EVERY OPPORTUNITY to work, with all existing laws and procedures put to the test. The Special Grand Jury will be obligated to see to it that the complainant has fulfilled exhaustion of all existing remedies before it will take action. And then, only willful, intentional violations of law by judges will be acted on by the SGJ. There are methods, such as motions, requests for rehearing, etc. to bring violations to the judges' attention (see my petition for cert. on the website for example), and when they STILL refuse to abide by the law, it's time for the People to act, through JAIL.

The problem is that all the laws in the world are so much ink on paper, unless we have a judicial system that is willing to respect and obey the law. I have spent years trying to get judicial remedies, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I have gone to every door at the State Capitol, the State Attorney General, the Governor's Office, covering both the legislative and executive branches. I've gone before the County Grand Jury, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Department of Justice who referred me to the FBI. All are helpless.

It's not a question of "discretion" but solid refusal to address the facts and law of the case. In other words, the law "be damned." They don't care about their responsibilities.

I have pending a petition for cert., the argument portion of which is linked on our website. One can see that the Ninth Circuit refuses to take judicial notice of the facts of the complaint, as well as of the substantive state law under which I have claimed my right to due process-- and never received! According to existing law on the books, the federal judges must take MANDATORY judicial notice of relevant material when requested by a party and supplied with the information. I am the plaintiff/appellant, requesting judicial notice of material facts from my complaint-- the most relevant document of the case!

Without addressing or even acknowledging the existence of the material facts, necessary to determine the outcome of the case, the courts turn their back on my right to redress. The issues aren't even reached.

After the judges refused to take mandatory judicial notice (See Federal Rules of Evidence 201(d)), they then conjure up a "finding" that does not relate to the facts of my complaint-- no citation to the record-- and then based on that false "finding" come up with a bogus conclusion that the federal court doesn't have jurisdiction, so the entire case is thrown out on whim, and sanctions are imposed for filing a frivolous action without any showing of evidence. (See petition on this site.) This is a classic example why JAIL is so necessary.

This is only the most recent of my attempts to get redress. I have taken previous cases of misconduct of federal judges to Congress to no avail. The law and facts are typically ignored by the judges. It's systemic. All across the country this is happening because there is no judicial accountability. Judges judging judges just doesn't work, and the executive and legislative are helpless. We must bring the system back to the People! We must make JAIL the final backstop to restore a "Nation of Laws-- not of Men!" (Marbury v. Madison). The system doesn't offer a solution-- despite all the laws that are out there!

Sincerely,

Ron Branson

Back to Home Page