|
|
Absolute Judicial Immunity
In an unprecedented degree of 'abuse of power' judges decreed
themselves absolutely immune from civil suit when they are "acting maliciously and corruptly." In 1996
the 104th Congress passed the Federal Courts Improvement Act amending the Civil Rights statute to give further
immunities to malicious and corrupt judges.
The Judicial Doctrine of Immunity
"Immunity applies even when the judge is accused of
acting maliciously and corruptly." -- United States Supreme Court
See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-819 (1982) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S., at 554, Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S.
9, 9-10, 112 S.Ct. 286, 287, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991).
Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996 Public Law 104-317, 104th Congress
Sec. 309. Prohibition against awards of costs, including attorney's fees, and injunctive relief against a judicial
officer.
(a) Nonliability 28 USC 2412 for Costs. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no judicial officer shall be
held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, in any action brought against such officer for an act or
omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's
jurisdiction.
(b) Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights.--Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is
amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof ``, except that in any action brought against a judicial
officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable
for any costs, including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction''.
(c) Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.--Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended by
inserting before the period at the end of the first sentence: ``, except that in any action brought against a judicial
officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable''.
* * * * * * *
According to one opinion, "As far back as 1872, the
Supreme Court of the United States recognized that judicial immunity was 'the settled doctrine of the English Courts
for many centuries, and has never been denied, that we are aware of, in the courts of this country.'" Bradley
v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 347, 20 L. Ed. 646, 649 (1872)"
How far is "far back . . . that we are aware of?" 1872 is relatively new and recent. What happened in
the previous 10 centuries. The devil justifies evil with evil.
Laws are rules established by men who are in control of organized violence for the non fulfillment of which those
who do not fulfill them are subjected to personal injuries, the loss of liberty, and even capital punishment.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry
for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means, except by getting off his back. - Leo Tolstoy
* * * * * * * *
Here is an example of old English common law and how "absolute
judicial immunity" was recognized in American Jurisprudence.
Broad policy interests support allowing immunity for judges acting within their judicial capacity:
"Since the English common law doctrine of absolute judicial immunity was recognized in the United States,
courts have held its application necessary to preserve the system established for the administration of justice
and the law. Judicial immunity arose because it was in the public interest to have judges who were at liberty to
exercise their independent and impartial judgment about the merits of a case without apprehension of the personal
consequences of exposure to potential damages liability from vexatious and frivolous actions prosecuted by disgruntled
litigants." 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judges § 69 (1994) (footnotes omitted).
City of Bayou La Batre v. Robinson, ___ So2d ___ (S.Ct. 2000)
|
|
