Powered by Cabanova
THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE RULE OF LAW IS THE CRIMINALLY INSANE FORMATION OF A MASTER/SLAVE SOCIETY BASED UPON THE PRINCIPLES OF SATANISM , DISGUISED AS EUGENICS, WHICH IS A CRIMINALLY INSANE DEMON CONTROLLED SOCIETY! GET INVOLVED AND RETAKE THIS EARTH FROM DEMON CONTROL NOW! DOCUMENTED JUDICIAL CORRUPTION HOLDER IN DUE COURSE MEMORANDUM OF LAW VACCINE EXEMPTION MEMORANDUM OF LAW EDUCATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office, participates in its function, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. Courts of justice are established not only to decide upon the controversial rights of the citizens as against each other, but also upon rights in controversy between them and the Government, and the docket of this court is crowded with controversies of the latter class. Shall it be said, in the face of all this, and of the acknowledged right of the judiciary to decide in proper cases, statutes which have been passed by both branches of Congress and approved by the President, to be unconstitutional, that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the Government without any lawful authority, without any process of law and without any compensation, because the President has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, or in any other government which has a just claim to well regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights. [106 U.S. at 220] While by the Constitution the judicial department is recognized as one of the three great branches among which all the powers and functions of the Government are distributed, it is inherently the weakest of them all. Dependent as its courts are for the enforcement of their judgments, upon officers appointed by the Executive and removable at his pleasure, with no patronage and no control of purse or sword, their power and influence rest solely upon the public sense of a tribunal to which all may appeal for the assertion and protection of rights guaranteed by the Constitution and by the laws of the land, and on the confidence reposed in the soundness of their decisions and the purity of their motives. [106 U.S. at 223] United States v. Lee (1882), 106 U.S. 196, 27 L.Ed. 171, 182, 1 S.Ct. 240. 2. The first part of the statement made in United States v. Lee was reaffirmed in Butz v. Economou (1978), 438 U.S. 478, 57 L.ED.2d 895, 915, 98 S.Ct. 2894: Our system of jurisprudence rests on the assumption that all individuals, whatever their position in government is subject to federal law: "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it." United States v. Lee , 106 U.S. at 220, 27 L.Ed. 171, 1 S.Ct. 240. 3. The first part of the statement made in Lee was again affirmed in Davis v. Passman (1979), 442 U.S. 228, 60 L.Ed.2d. 846, 863, 99 S.Ct. 2264: As Butz v. Economou stated only last term: "Our system of jurisprudence rests on the assumption that all individuals, whatever their position in government is subject to federal law: “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.' United States v. Lee , 106 U.S. [196,] 220, [27 L.Ed. 171, 1 S.Ct. 240] [(1882)]." 438 US, at 506, 57 L Ed 2d 895, 98 S CT 2894. 4. According to SHEPARD'S UNITED STATES CITATIONS: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REPORTS, LAWYERS' EDITION, 1994, 1996 Supp., 1998 Supp., 2000 Supp., none of the three cases has been reversed, vacated, or overruled. 5. One of the best arguments for making all government officials responsible comes from a dissent of Honorable Justice Brandeis in U.S v. Olmstead, 277 U.S 438 (1928). It states the following: Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent omnipresent teacher . For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy . ___________________________________________________ SYSTEMATICALLY VIOLATED FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND AUTHORITIES SELECTED UNITED STATES FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS: 1. Article 1, Section 10 (Impairment of Contract Clause) 2. Article III, Section 2, 3. Amendment I (Freedom of Expression Clause) 4. Amendment I (Freedom of Assembly Clause) 5. Amendment V (due Process Clause, Congress) 6. Amendment VIII: “Nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. 7. Amendment X. 8. Amendment IX. The Right of Self Defense, The Right to use one’s own power to preserve one’s own life, The right to earn a living, etc... 9. Amendment XIII. Protection against discrimination in entering contracts, Freedom from involuntary servitude , 10. Amendment XIV (Due Process Clauses,) 11. Amendment XIV (Equal Protection Clause) SELECTED FEDERAL STATUTES THAT HAVE BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY DISREGARDED/NOT ENFORCED 1. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1866.1870, 42 U.S.C. 1981. 2. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1871 42 U.S.C 1985 AND 1986. 4. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1866, 1870, 42 U.S.C. 1988. 5. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1964 TITLE VI (SELECTED PARTS) 42 U.S.C.A. 2000D D-1 6. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1964 TITLE VII (SELECTED PARTS) 42 U.S.C.A. 2000E-E-2 7. EQUAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES ACT-20 U.S.C. 170 ________________________________________________________________ EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW Giozza v. Tiernan , 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893), "Undoubtedly it (the Fourteenth Amendment) forbids any arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty or property, and secures equal protection to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their rights... It is enough that there is no discrimination in favor of one as against another of the same class. ...And due process of law within the meaning of the [Fifth and Fourteenth] amendment is secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government." Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885) "The rule of equality... requires the same means and methods to be applied impartially to all the constituents of each class, so that the law shall operate equally and uniformly upon all persons in similar circumstances". Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 332 "Our whole system of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of application of the law. 'All men are equal before the law,' "This is a government of laws and not of men,' 'No man is above the law,' are all maxims showing the spirit in which legislatures, executives, and courts are expected to make, execute and apply laws. But the framers and adopters of the (Fourteenth) Amendment were not content to depend... upon the spirit of equality which might not be insisted on by local public opinion. They therefore embodied that spirit in a specific guaranty." CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) Justice Bradley, "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis. Downs v. Bidwell , 182 U.S. 244 (1901) "It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution." Gomillion v. Lightfoot , 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v. Allwright , 321 U.S. 649.644 "Constitutional 'rights' would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied." Juliard v. Greeman , 110 U.S. 421 (1884) Supreme Court Justice Field, "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States... In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it. All else is withheld." Mallowy v. Hogan , 378 U.S. 1 "All rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal Constitution are equally applicable." Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442 "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Perez v. Brownell , 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958) "...in our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to them by taking away their citizenship." Sherar v. Cullen , 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights." Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) "The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law". Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws." Robb v. Connolly , 111 U. S. 624, 637, 28 L. ed. 542, 4 S. Ct. 544. Upon the state courts, equally with the courts of the United States, rests the obligation to guard and enforce every right secured by that Constitution [of the United States]. Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law. Sherar v. Cullen , 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights." Schware v. Board of Examiners , United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State." Sims v. Aherns , 271 SW 720 (1925) "The practice of law is an occupation of common right." Cooper v. Aaron (1958), 358 U.S. 1, 18, 3 L.Ed.2d 5, 17, 78 S.Ct. 1401. Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art 6, cl 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State. . . ." Ableman v Booth (US) 21 How 506, 524, 16 L ed 169, 176. No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Ex parte Virginia, 100 US 339, 346-347, 25 L Ed 676 (1880). The Constitution constrains governmental action "by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken." Ex parte Virginia, 100 US 339, 346-347, 25 L Ed 676 (1880). And under whatever congressional label. ... Even Congress itself appeared to acknowledge, at least until recent years, that Government-created and -controlled corporations were part of the Government. The Government Corporation Control Act of 1945, discussed above, which brought to an end an era of uncontrolled growth of Government corporations, provided that, without explicit congressional authorization, no corporation should be acquired or created by "any officer or agency of the Federal Government or by any Governmental corporation for the purpose of acting as an agency or instrumentality of the United States ...." sec 304(a), 59 Stat, at 602 (emphasis added). That was evidently intended to restrict the creation of all Government-controlled policy-implementing corporations, and not just some of them. And the companion provision that swept away many of the extant corporations said that no wholly owned government corporation created under state law could continue "as an agency or instrumentality of the United States," sec. 304(b), 59 Stat, at 602. ... It surely cannot be that government, state or federal, is able to evade the most solemn obligations imposed in the Constitution by simply resorting to the corporate form.(emphasis added) Lebron v. National R. Passenger Corp. (1995), 513 U.S. 574, 130 L.Ed.2d 902, 914-923, 115 S.Ct. 961. The 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177: “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.” “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it” “A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his office. It is the duty of every American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC. CORRUPTION OF AUTHORITY: ( People v. Tenerowicz , 266 Mich. 276 [253 N.W. 296].) Lorenson v. Superior Court (1950), 35 Cal.2d 49, 59-60, 216 P.2d 859. A conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws is an obstruction of justice and an indictable offense at common law. Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123. "No change in ancient procedure can be made which disrupts those fundamental principles . . . which . . . protect the citizen in his private right and guard him against the arbitrary action of the government." Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882) "No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it." Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications , (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694 Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process. Geiler v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1973) 10 Cal.3d 270, 286 Society's commitment to institutional justice requires that judges be solicitous of the rights of persons who come before the court. Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374 Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process. Olmstad v. United States , (1928) 277 U.S. 438 "Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." Owen v. City of Independence "The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury." Perry v. United States , 204 U.S. 330, 358 "I do not understand the government to contend that it is any less bound by the obligation than a private individual would be..." "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance , (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 518, 533 Before sending a person to jail for contempt or imposing a fine, judges are required to provide due process of law, including strict adherence to the procedural requirements contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating but an aggravating factor. U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it." "It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives." Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law. Glazier v. Hubbard , 42 SW 1114, (1887) A judge is not such at all times, and for all purposes, when he acts he must be clothed with jurisdiction and acting without this, he is but an individual assuming an authority he does not possess. Blincoe v. Head , 44 SW 374, (1898); Reed v Taylor , 78 SW 892, (1904) judges . . . who step outside of the circle of duty thus drawn by the letter of the statute, they must answer in damages to such individuals as may suffer from such unauthorized acts. McDonald v. Goodman et al, 239 SW2d 97, (1951)e is . a conspiracy is a corrupt or unlawful combination or assuming an authority he does not possess. conspiracy is a corrupt or unlawful combination or agreement between two or more persons to do by concerted action . . .a lawful act by unlawful means. . .) US v. Townsend , 924 F2d 1385, (7th Cir 1991) . . . single or multiple conspiracy is a question of fact; joining the agreement, not the group is the requirement of conspiracy; names of other conspirators are not required to convict one conspirator; agreement to conspire is one offense; substantive offense is separate and independent . . . . tortous act; - US v. Pan Am Petroleum, 55 F2d 753 at 778, (9th Cir 1932)4, (18); fraud and conspiracy are not the cause of action, but rather the overt acts done in furtherance of the fraudulent plan. . . . The gist of the action is the damage and not the conspiracy. The charge of conspiracy where unsupported by evidence will be considered mere surplusage, not necessary to be proved to support the action. He may yet recover damages against one or more of the defendants shown to be guilty of the torts Title 18 USC SECTION 241, CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. JUDICIAL IMMUNITY: Nowhere was the judiciary given immunity, particularly nowhere in Article III; under our Constitution, if judges were to have immunity, it could only possibly be granted by amendment (and even less possibly by legislative act), as Art. I, Sections 9 & 10, respectively, in fact expressly prohibit such, stating, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and "No state shall... grant any Title of Nobility Article III, Sec. 1, "The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior." Tort & Insurance Law Journal, Spring 1986 21 n3, p 509-516, "Federal tort law: judges cannot invoke judicial immunity for acts that violate litigants' civil rights." - Robert Craig Waters. Ableman v. Booth , 21 Howard 506 (1859) "No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence." Chandler v. Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit , 398 U.S. 74, 90 S. Ct. 1648, 26 L. Ed. 2d 100 Justice Douglas, in his dissenting opinion at page 140 said, "If (federal judges) break the law, they can be prosecuted." Justice Black, in his dissenting opinion at page 141) said, "Judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted and punished for crimes... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution". Cooper v. Aaron , 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958) Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821). Cooper v. O'Conner, 99 F.2d 133 There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign. Davis v. Burris , 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938) A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Forrester v. White , 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S. Ct. at 544-545 (1987); Westfall v.Erwin , 108 S. Ct. 580 (1987); United States v. Lanier (March 1997) Constitutionally and in fact of law and judicial rulings, state-federal "magistrates-judges" or any government actors, state or federal, may now be held liable, if they violate any Citizen's Constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities, or guarantees; including statutory civil rights. A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity. Gregory v. Thompson , F.2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974) Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Hoffsomer v. Hayes , 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417 "The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act." Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803) "... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." "In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID". Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ... or equal protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional. Piper v. Pearson , 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher , 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872) "Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction." Pulliam v. Allen , 466 U.S. 522 (1984); 104 S. Ct. 1781, 1980, 1981, and 1985. In 1996, Congress passed a law to overcome this ruling which stated that judicial immunity doesn't exist; citizens can sue judges for prospective injunctive relief. "Our own experience is fully consistent with the common law's rejection of a rule of judicial immunity. We never have had a rule of absolute judicial immunity. At least seven circuits have indicated affirmatively that there is no immunity... to prevent irreparable injury to a citizen's constitutional rights..." "Subsequent interpretations of the Civil Rights Act by this Court acknowledge Congress' intent to reach unconstitutional actions by all state and federal actors, including judges... The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state [federal] from denying any person [citizen] within its jurisdiction the equal protection under the laws. Since a State [or federal] acts only by its legislative, executive or judicial authorities, the constitutional provisions must be addressed to those authorities, including state and federal judges..." "We conclude that judicial immunity is not a bar to relief against a judicial officer acting in her [his] judicial capacity." Scheuer v. Rhodes , 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." Stump v. Sparkman , id., 435 U.S. 349 Some Defendants urge that any act "of a judicial nature" entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity. Rankin v. Howard , 633 F.2d 844 (1980) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Arizona District Court dismissal based upon absolute judicial immunity, finding that both necessary immunity prongs were absent; later, in Ashelman v. Pope , 793 F.2d 1072 (1986), the Ninth Circuit, en banc, criticized the "judicial nature" analysis it had published in Rankin as unnecessarily restrictive. But Rankin's ultimate result was not changed, because Judge Howard had been independently divested of absolute judicial immunity by his complete lack of jurisdiction. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (State use of), 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697 When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. U.S. v. Lee , 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it." "It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives." Zeller v. Rankin , 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326 When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. ________________________________________________________________ THE BELOW ARE FEDERAL LAW SUITS I HAVE FILED AND THE LAWS WERE CRIMINALLY DISREGARDED. BUT GOD! EASTERN DISTRICT FEDERAL COURT DISREGARD OF HATE CRIMES IN SNYDER VS. HEMPSTEAD PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD ETAL: CV-04 -0472 and CV-02-3589, SEE THE COURT DISREGARD OF HATE CRIMES IN SNYDER VS. HEMPSTEAD PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD ETAL: SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 02 9386 SOUTHERN DISTRICT FEDERAL COURT DISREGARD OF HATE CRIMES IN SNYDER VS. YONKERS PUBLIC SCHOO BOARD, SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT 03 CIV 0263 AND O3 9857. SEE THE HEMPSTEAD HATE CRIME SETTLEMENT USED AS LAW TO CONTINUE HATE CRIME ADMINISTRATION. SEE BELOW. __________________________________________________________________ BLOOD MONEY HATE CRIME ADMINISTRATION DOCUMENTATION TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME OR MAY CONCERN, KNOW THAT MIRIAM SNYDER as RELEASOR, in consideration of the sum of Twelve Thousand One Hundred and Twenty-Five Dollars ($12,125.00), and the received from settlement agreement DAVID KEEFE and the HEMPSTEAD CLASSROOM TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION as RELEASEE, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, releases and discharges DAVID KEEFEthe RELEASEE, RELEASEE'S heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns from all actions, causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments, extents, executions, claims, and demands whatever, in law, admiralty or equity, which against the RELEASEE, the RELEASOR, RELEASOR'S heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns ever had, now have or hereafter can, shall or may, have for, upon, or by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever from the beginning of the world to the day of the date of this RELEASE. This release Includes, but is not limited to, CV-04 -0472 and CV-02-3589, alleging as against David Keefe: (1) Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1964,) 198I, 1983, 1985 and 2000(d)(e); (2) Violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, and 19th Constitutional Amendments; (3) Violation of 18 U.S.C. 241, 201, 209; (4) Violation of the Racketeer Influenced a Corrupt organizations Act (RlCO); (5) Defamation; 6. Libel; (7) Constitutional Tort; (8) Breach of contract; (9) Coercion; (10) Attempted Murder; (11) Slavery; (12) Violation of U.S. Black Codes; (13) Breach of Duty of Fair Representation; (14) Violation of Federal Law and/or any state law; (15) And all other claims or causes of action included therein. Whenever the text hereof requires, the use of singular number shall include the appropriate plural number as the text of the within instrument may require. This RELEASE may not be changed orally. In Witness whereof, the RELEASOR has hereunto set RELEASOR'S hand and seal on the day of In presence of MIRIAM SNYDER STATE OF New York COUNTY OF Suffolk on July 26, 2002 before me personally came Miriam Snyder, to me known, and known to me to be the individual described in, and who executed the foregoing RELEASE, and duly acknowledged to me that she executed the same. Notary Public, State of New York No. Suffolk County __________________________________________________________________ THE ABOVE IS A HATE CRIME ADMINISTRATION SETTLEMENT WHERE MONEY WAS USED AS LAW TO CONTINUE, EXCUSE AND ESCALATE DOCUMENTED HATE CRIME ADMINSTRATIONS. THE DOCUMENTATION IS WORTH MORE THAN THE MONEY. PLEASE NOTE THE HEMPSTEAD PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER ASSOCIATION LAWYER, DANIEL GALLINSON, HELPED NEGOTIATE THIS HATE CRIME SETTLEMENT. DURING THE LAW SUIT/ SETTLEMENT TIME, HE WAS MIRACULOUSLY AND TIMELY, INFLICTED WITH CANCER. IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, HE WAS KILLED VIA INDUCED CANCER AND HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION. HE IS DEAD, SERIAL KILER BOYDEN GRAY STYLE, OVER THIS LAW SUIT! SEE THE NYS BOYDEN SECTION TO SEE HOW THESE KILLINGS WORK. DURING THIS SAME TIME, MR, KEEFE THE UNION PRESIDENT ALSO, MIRACULOUSLY AND TIMELY, BECAME INFECTED WITH CANCER OVER THE ABOVE LAW SUIT. ALSO, PLEASE NOTE, DURING THIS TIME, MY MOTHER TOO WAS INFLICTED WITH CANCER. WE HAVE THREE DEADLY AND TIMELY NEWLY ERUPTED CANCERS OVER THIS ONE LAW SUIT. THIS PATTERN IS CONSISTENT WITH SERIAL KILLER BOYDEN GRAY STERILIZATION AND INDUCED CANCER SCIENTIFIC OBSTRUCTIONS BACKGROUND. SEE THE BOYDEN NYS AND BOYDEN JUDGE KILL SECTIONS. SEE: http://search.who.int/search?q= BOYDEN+GRAY+CANCER &entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ie=utf8&client=WHO&sitesearch=&ud=1&site=default_collection&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=WHO __________________________________________________________________
- Homepage
- 2017 CRIMINAL REPORTS
- PRAYER WARRIORS NEEDED!
- GOOD HEALTH
- MYRA SNYDER SCOTT KILED
- JOB MOBBING/KILL
- BOYDEN GRAY
- J. LIPPMAN
- A. URBANSKI
- CONGRESS
- LEGAL MINDS
- DEBT COLLECTION
- VIDEOS
- CONTERACT SLANDER
- NEWS/CRIMES
- VACCINE EXEMPTIONLETTER
- TI JOB NETWORK
- END ORGANIZED TALK
- SAVE CHILDREN
- 2013 LINKS 4 INVESTIGATION
- LAW
- REPLACED LINKS
- ATTEMPTED MURDERR
- DEMOCIDE
- EDUCATION
- STALKING
- PRESS RELEASES $ LEGAL
- GALLERIA
- VISION
- BOYDEN NYS CRIMES
- BOYDEN JUDGE KILLINGS
- NYS CRIME VICTIM
- EUGENICS
- STORE
- CRIMINAL RPT LINKS
- WILLIE
- PRAYER
- INDUCED SEIZURES
- MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
- THE CURSE
- BOYDEN KILL PROJECTS
- POLICE REPORT 08
- BOYDEN DUPE
- EVIDENCE
- 18 USC 241
- LEGISLATION
- DIARY
- RESUME
- FLYER
- MONEY TRAIL
- BOYDEN II
- BOYDENIII
- BOYDEN IV
- UPDATE
- BLACKLISTINGS
- BOYDEN WTO
- AUG. 2007
- DONATE
- ECONOMIC CRIMES
- OLD POLICE RPTS
- LIABILITY