From the February 2005 Idaho Observer:

Abolish immunity; prosecute the wicked

The article below makes an extremely important point: Unethical and immoral people work hard to attain public office so they can commit crimes against people without fear of being prosecuted. If you need evidence to support such a hypothesis, consider yourself lucky. Those who accept the hypothesis at face value do not require any additional evidence because they are themselves evidence that legions of extremely vile and abusive criminals are gorging themselves at the public trough.

by Richard Geffken

Immunities are the greatest threat to the principles of democracy ever forced upon this country. Created by judicial manipulations which began in the 1930s, immunity now extends to murder, rape, fraud and bribery. The decision in Dory v. Ryan, 25 F3d 81 (2nd Cir. 1994) found that government officials are immune from prosecution in the commission of virtually any crime, regardless of motive.

The proviso is that the immunity extends only to offenses committed within the scope of a civil servant’s official duties. However, the "scope" has been liberally interpreted in many cases to cover most aspects of civil servants’ public and private lives.

The blanket of immunity enjoyed by public officials today encourages lawlessness from the very people entrusted to protect the public and serves as the foundation for the sadistic abuses today’s Americans must suffer without recourse from government officials.

It is ironic that they are the very people who should be held most accountable for any betrayal of the public trust but they are no longer accountable to the public whose trust is so grievously being violated.

Immunity was never legislated into existence. Claims that the 11th Amendment allows immunity are in error. Not only does the 11th Amendment, contain no language implying immunity, every court from the time of its passage in 1795 through the 20th century expressly ruled that the 11th Amendment does not allow prosecutorial immunity for government officials.

The U.S. Supreme Court confesses it was a California Appeals Court in 1935 that first created the concept of allowing immunity that prevents court officials from being tried. Since that time, immunity has been expanded to include all public officials who literally have the authority to kill and rape Americans at their pleasure without concern for consequences. Since the most unethical and immoral elements of society would receive the greatest benefit from such license for depravity, these are the people who compete most stridently for public office. As a consequence, significant proportions of the nation’s public offices are currently filled with those person devoid of social conscience.

The Court tested the waters for years to see if anyone noticed or cared. Then in 1976 in Imbler v. Pachtman, 96 S.Ct 984, the U.S. Supreme Court finally acknowledged that the American people really are lax enough to allow their freedom to be crushed by lawless psychopaths.

The Imbler court even had the gall to say, "This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge but for the benefit of the public, whose interest is that judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions…without fear of the consequences." Id. At 989 n.12.

No one wants judges to have freedom to be malicious and corrupt! The people’s genuine interest is to have such scum suffer a death penalty instead, and to greatly fear the consequences of every vile act they commit!

Imbler claimed that judges were immune under the common law of England. This is untrue. A Revolution was fought in order to end atrocities committed by King’s men for which our Founding Fathers could not seek redress in court. British common law holds that public officials should know better, and therefore should suffer twice the penalty of a commoner.

Rather than enjoying immunity for their actions, American civil servants should also know better and suffer twice the penalty of a commoner for the same crime.

In fact, the crimes of public officials are uniquely evil, because a commoner cannot corrupt the sanctity of law by maliciously using courtrooms to rape children, enslave citizens, and steal someone’s property while pretending to do an "honorable" public service. Only judges and prosecutors have the ability to corrupt the sanctity of law in this manner.

Long ago a forerunner of the American Revolution wrote, "There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under color of law, and with the colors of justice." (Montesquieu, 1748).

Americans could learn another lesson from 18th century England: History has shown that quite a few judges were beheaded at the Tower, or hung on High Street for their crimes against the commoners.

There must be fear and trembling for the consequences of using false justice to betray the public trust. There can be no possible benefit to society to having malicious or corrupt judges. None. Good riddance to foul garbage.

After having granted themselves immunity to terrorize our nation, the Court allows prosecutors to now use this sinful privilege to deliver victims to corrupt judges. In Burns v. Reed (111 S.Ct. 1934 (1991)), the U.S. Supreme Court continued the treachery begun with an obscure California case in 1935. The Court acknowledged that there were no immunities for prosecutors in 1871 when Congress passed legislation enabling victims to sue corrupt officials and also that the first case to suggest such immunity happened 25 years later. Nevertheless, the Court granted limited immunities to those officials who settle personal grudges by railroading Americans with false evidence, threatening witnesses and jurors and fabricating evidence in order to gain a conviction.

By 1993 all pretenses that American courts provide justice were dropped. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons (113 S.Ct. 2606 (1993)) replaced "qualified" with "absolute" immunity for prosecutors for virtually all acts, regardless of motive, including fraud, suborning testimony from "witnesses," presenting false and fraudulent evidence to the jury, etc.

The people never voted for immunities, nor did their elected representatives. To the contrary, Congress has held that officials be criminally and civilly liable for their conduct. Corrupt judges simply usurped the legislative function by interpreting it out of existence.

If government allows its officials to be corrupt and if it victimizes its own people instead of protecting them according to their oaths of office and; if a government’s own courts do not follow the Constitution (the only instrument with which we grant them power) then that government needs to be replaced with one that serves, rather than oppresses the people.