From the January 1999 Idaho Observer:

Judicial Immunity: License to Plunder

by Hari Heath

Like “our” president and “our” Congress, the American “judicial” system has fallen to such depths that it is unlikely to recover. “Public servant” is no longer a defining term for any of these offices. “Our” governing system has been turned on its head so that we people have been reduced to mere beasts of burden with a mushrooming “government” strapped to our backs. This government demands ever more tribute for the “services” it provides.

How did we fall into this corrupted servitude? Accountability--or lack thereof.

Why? Those who took an oath to abide by the terms of the contract which established our government, now consider themselves “immune” to any civil lawsuit which would hold them accountable.

Did they pass a law creating this “immunity?” No, that would be against the contract. The contract, otherwise known as the Constitution, doesn't grant any immunity, in fact, in Article Six, it states quite the opposite.

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;...”

So how was this “immunity” created to prevent the mismanagers from being held accountable? Judicial legislation. And you thought legislation was the Congress' job.

Since the contract prohibits the judiciary from making the laws of our country, they don't. They establish doctrines instead. Like the “Doctrine of Qualified Immunity,” or, and here's a good one, the “Doctrine of Absolute Immunity.”

“Why if we were absolutely immune” as some juristic wannabe legislator might have said, “we could get away with anything.” And now they do.

By creating the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity for their pawns on the street -- AKA policemen -- the black-robed gentry have created an army to do their bidding with the promise of protection and a paycheck from the plunder.

“Qualified Immunity?”

What is this Doctrine of Qualified Immunity? It was born from court rulings and is further established by claiming its existence over and over again in case law. What does case law say?

“Qualified Immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” (Hunter v. Bryant, 112 S.Ct. @ 537).

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”(Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800).

“Taxpayers who alleged that IRS agent violated their constitutional rights by selling their property...failed to overcome presumption of qualified immunity for government agents.” (Retzlaff v. IRS, 728 F. Supp. 1304).

While this “qualified” immunity protects the officer on the street or other government agent, just what kind of self protection racket has the judiciary made up for itself?

“Absolute Immunity?”

First and foremost, Absolute Immunity for judges exists whenever they are acting as a judge. Under their “Doctrine,” it does not matter what they do, only that they are functioning in some semblance of a judicial activity.

“Judge loses his absolute immunity from damage actions only when he acts in clear absence of all jurisdiction or performance of an act which is not judicial in nature.” (Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202).

So, as these courts have ruled (legislated for themselves), all they need to create immunity is to have jurisdiction of a case and act judicially. What constitutes the “jurisdiction” they need to become “immune?”

“Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the right of the court to exercise judicial power over that class of cases; not the particular case before it, but rather the abstract power to try a case of the kind or character of the one pending.” (Richardson v. Ruddy, 15 Idaho 488).

Wow! All they need to have their way with whoever comes before their court is “Subject matter jurisdiction” over that class of case. They don't even need to hold court to ruin someone's life, since a judicial act includes signing a document in chambers.

And it gets worse from here

“Even though it was grossly improper, meeting of Federal district judge and federal prosecutors to discuss government's strategy of having mistrial declared for government's convenience was part of judicial phase of criminal process and concerned presentation of government's case, so that prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity for such acts” (Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424).

False charges authorized?

“Federal prosecutors were clearly entitled to immunity for initiating prosecution, whether or not charges were false, and whether or not prosecutors knew charges were false.”

“Deputy district attorney for city and county was immune from liability for damages as a prosecutor for allegedly instituting state court prosecution against plaintiff which prosecutor allegedly knew to be unfounded and which allegedly was based upon racial criteria.” (Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424).

Perjury and withholding information?

“Prosecutors may appeal to their immunity in the face of allegations of knowing use of perjured testimony and withholding of exculpatory information.” (Glick v. Koenig, 766 F.2d 265).

Malicious acts sanctioned?

“Absolute immunity shelters prosecutors even when they act maliciously, wantonly, or negligently.” (Rykers v. Alford, 832 F.2d 895).

“Judges will not be deprived of immunity for erroneous acts or even those actions performed maliciously or in excess of authority.” (Glick v. Koenig, 766 F.2d 265)

Corruption condoned?

“Judicial immunity is not waived even though actions on part of judge were grievously erroneous or prompted by malice or corruption.” (Patterson v. Aiken, 628 F.Supp. 1068).

“Judge is immune from civil damage suits...immunity extends even to malicious or corrupt acts.” (Bryant v. O'Connor, 671 F.Supp. 1279).

Had enough yet? This is what is allowed down at your county and federal courthouses under various “Doctrines of Immunity.” Fair trial? Justice? Oh, occasionally for a good cause, just to bolster the public confidence of the “system.”

Have you ever had to defend yourself in court? Did you get a lawyer? Did he or she really work for you? How much did they take (Both the lawyer and the court)? Were your arguments heard in a meaningful way? Did they actually read your documents? Did you put together a really good case, only to have it ignored? Did you lose in spite of overwhelming evidence in your favor? Did the cop lie? Did the judge believe the cop? Were you labeled as a “Constitutionalist,” thereby guaranteeing your “loss?” Did the judge who tried your case thumb his nose at rulings from the Supreme Court? Did you lose money, property, or spend time in jail?

Remember, the majority of people in jail these days didn't actually hurt anyone or the property of others, but rather “violated” some legal taboo.

Victimless crimes for socialist revenue enhancement?

After being wronged by the “immune” judge, the “immune” prosecutor and the “immune” police, did you sue them for their wrongs against you? Did you once again run into their wall of “immunity?”

Justice Incorporated, it's a handy little enterprise operated by “members” of the Bar Association (remember none of them are actually licensed to practice law [The Idaho Observer, July, 1998]).

Just pay and pray that you can stay out of their way.

It started out as a good thing

It's not easy being a judge. Judges have to make decisions that can right society's wrongs and sometimes ruin people's lives. Often decisions must be made on limited information and in accordance with a multitude of laws and procedures.

The concept of judicial immunity has its roots back in common law. And for a good purpose:

“Underlying purpose of judicial immunity is to preserve judicial independence in decision making process; judges must be free to render decisions without fear of personal liability. Although judicial immunity is absolute, it should apply only when necessary to protect independent nature of judicial decision making process.” (McDonald v. Krajewski, 649 F.Supp. 370).

“It is essential in all courts that the judges who are appointed to administer the law should be permitted to administer it under protection of the law, independently and freely, without favor and without fear. This provision of the law 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.” (Pulliam v. Allen, 466 US @ 532).

A judge, when acting within the law and under the mandates of the Constitution should have some element of immunity when performing his job correctly. As an inherent, natural form of immunity, if they did their job correctly there would be no real basis for a suit against them.

But that was then and this is now

Before assuming the powers of the office, a judge must take an oath to support the Constitution and laws. The same requirement exists for other offices of government.

With these doctrines of immunity, which are acts of judicial legislation, those who have assumed the power of governance have now made themselves unaccountable even to their oath:

“US Constitution Article 6, Clause 3, mandating that federal judges swear oath of allegiance to Constitution, and 28 USC 453, setting forth such oath, did not create substantive cause of action against federal judge for acting contrary to Constitution.” (Lewis v. Green, 629 F.Supp. 546).

The problem we face with our modern day “government,” again, is accountability.

Through these “doctrines” the judiciary and other “officers” who come before them, reject their oaths; refuse assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good; and condone error, malicious conduct, corruption, deprivation of constitutional rights, conspiracy, and all manner of genuine evil, because they have proclaimed themselves “immune.”

Immunity isn't found in the laws written by Congress. Only in the rulings of those fine “members” of the Bar Associations. What's the remedy? Certainly not the courtroom -- they own the place.

Frederic Bastiat said it best in 1850:

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in a society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

“Your Honor” is a title that is commanded not earned. Modern judicial conduct has been given a special place in the hearts and minds of those people who have been unfortunate enough to have encountered it.

I guess that's why judges can pack a gun under their cloak, while we people are disarmed and electronically frisked before we can enter the Bar Association's place of business -- Just US Incorporated.

Truth and Justice is no longer the American way. We've been “immunized.”