Definitions

Absolute Immunity Doctrine - Although 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 "on its face admits of no defense of official immunity," "certain immunities were so well established in 1871, when 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (civil rights law) was enacted, that 'we presume that Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish' them." Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 113 S.Ct. 2606 (S.Ct. 1993. (quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554-555 (1967)). The United States Supreme Court has held that absolute immunity for actions under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 accorded with the common-law absolute immunity of prosecutors and other attorneys for eliciting false or defamatory testimony from witnesses or for making false or defamatory statements during, and related to, judicial proceedings. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 113 S.Ct. 2606 (S.Ct. 1993) Note: American Courts point to the oppressive common-law of England to justify their decisions. The common-law of England was one of the bases for rebellion in the Colonies and resulted in the American Revolutionary War. (See the American Declaration of Independence.) The phrase "common-law" first appeared in the U. S. Supreme Court's decisions in State of Georgia v. Brainstorm, 2 U.S. 402 (S. Ct. 1792) 2 Dall. 402. Absolute immunity is available to officials performing official acts. See, e. g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) (the President); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) (judges); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951) (legislators). Hoffman v. Harris, et al. 114 S. Ct. 1631 (1994) (social workers.) Note the gradual immunization of all public officials - Who will be next?: - legislators in 1951 - judges in 1967 - prosecutors in 1976 - Presidents in 1982 - Social Workers in1994 Inept American Courts What do lazy, good for nothing bums complain about when they want a free ride? Read below, excerpts from a certified Supreme Court case, how the U.S. Supreme Court complains about their workload. Notice carefully the extreme remedy the Court proposes. - the majority of the Court's rationale threatens added appeals, not simply in qualified immunity cases, but wherever an immunity-type doctrine (or any other important legal rule) seeks to protect litigants, from trial. See, e.g., Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 121 L. Ed. 2d 605, 113 S. Ct. 684 (1993) (Eleventh Amendment immunity); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 73 L. Ed. 2d 349, 102 S. Ct. 2690 (1982) (absolute immunity); Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 52 L. Ed. 2d 651, 97 S. Ct. 2034 (1977) (double jeopardy guarantee against successive prosecutions). It thereby threatens busy appellate courts with added numbers of essentially similar, if not repetitive, appeals, at a time when overloaded dockets threaten the federal appellate system. . . . . . . . ("One of the chief needs of our generation is to deal with the current appellate capacity crisis in the Federal Courts of Appeals. Few could argue about the existence of such a crisis, born of spiraling federal filings and an increased tendency to appeal District Court decisions"); Judicial Conference of the United States, Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts 132 (Dec. 1995) ("If conditions seriously deteriorate in the courts of appeals, it may be necessary to consider some limitations on the right to appeal"). See generally T. Baker, Rationing Justice on Appeal: The Problems of the U.S. Courts of Appeals 31-51 (1994). The preceding case was taken from Behrens vs. Pelletier, 116 S. Ct. 834 (S.Ct. 1996).(emphasis added) Note: Litigants in this case are criminals, masquerading as judges, prosecutors, legislators, social workers and anyone else the court decides to protect through immunity doctrines. Back to "litigants" Oh, you poor, over-worked judges - If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen . See also Supreme Court's Perverted Definitions

Back to Contents

No legal advice is given on this Website or Webpage
Send comments to American Injustice
Copyright © 1997, 1998 & 1999 by American Injustice, Inc. All rights reserved
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.