STOP JUDICIAL CORRUPTION and REPEAL JUDICIAL IMMUNTY IN FLORIDA

3:51 am PST, Feb 28, Tim Lonergan, New Jersey

7:40 pm PST, Feb 27, John Collins, Florida
Florida Statute 61.08 (Alimony) and 61.079 (Pre-nup) are unconstitutional. Violation of 'separation of powers' read "Judiciary may"...no, no, no. Vague, Privacy issue. 13th Amendment. Due process. Look alive.

8:19 am PST, Feb 27, Ernest Ortiz, Massachusetts

7:50 am PST, Feb 27, Rena Starks, Nevada
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/255360209 Stop Floridians from loosing their homes -- I did!

10:07 am PST, Feb 25, Daniel Smith, Pennsylvania
I have a story of of historical significance relating to unprecedented "official and entirely thru the ranks" crime and conspiracy and multi-billion dollar fraud ongoning in the State of Pa for over the past six-years and have over six feet of official proof of it. running out of internet time will send docs and proof soon

7:34 pm PST, Feb 22, Stolzynski Janet, North Carolina
Moral turpitude refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general. Moral turpitude has been defined as an act which is per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, or malum in se, so it is the nature of the act itself and not the statutory prohibition of it which renders a crime one of moral turpitude. Judge Jolly Dear Sir, Is it no longer a moral turpitude for a judicial official to shack up with someone? You have appointed a lady that freely and openly lives with a drug detective. This is bad for the kids and the general public to have to even think about. This same lady that goes around bragging about being a judge that cannot be replaced is rumored to hang out in beer joints and clubs in South Carolina. Both her and her live in boyfriend take advantage of the public and people that end up with problems threatening to throw away the key. Do not believe this anonymous letter? Ask others and discover for your self. This lady brings shame of disrepute on your office and spews vile and hateful comments to parents that have to go in front of her. Is it proper or ethical to make people go in front of a judge that is no better than the people that she sits in review over? Is this the kind of lifestyle that our court system wishes to project to the general public? Are the shenanigans the duo pulls on their crime-ridden victims ethical or legal? I hope not. The public is aware that this judge used to work for Mr. Hill and that she cannot be removed easily. That she makes known quiet often. She could however be asked to clean up her life for the sake of the public’s perception of old lady justice. Your friend, a voter and a concerned taxpayer that believes in family values and the Bible.

2:32 pm PST, Feb 16, Anton Oscar Iorga, Canada

4:31 pm PST, Jan 31, Vanessa Cartwright, California

4:32 am PST, Jan 30, Cathie Rockwood, Florida
When will this end? My family and many others are victims of the good old boy club in family courts.

8:24 pm PST, Jan 25, Johanna VonGeldern, Florida
Judge McClellen in District 14 has violated my constitutional rights, and I have lost my two year old daughter for 6 months so far (temporarily) on an ex parte order. The trauma to her being placed in foster care then with her and my abuser is an outrage! I have never even been to court yet to discuss her safety!! This has caused me the loss of my teaching career, the break up of my family, and over 400k in legal fees and other expenses. THIS NEEDS TO STOP! THIS IS AMERICA, NOT A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY!

10:08 pm PST, Jan 19, Marian Scirrotto, Florida
I can't tell you the thing I have seen and heard in the court rooms of Lee County Florida. I am a court watcher and have seen the civil and constitutional rights violated by the state attorneys office and the Judges, It makes me sick and sadden by the corruption I have witnessed. Innocent people are sitting in our overcrowded jails and taking pleas to get out of the system. Victims are the criminals and the attorneys are afraid to defend their clients. Media is afraid to report the real news and residents are afraid to call the local law enforcement for help. This State is corrupt and no one is being held accountable for their actions, Elected Officials are refusing to help us and no one will give us answers. Florida residents need help and our governor ignored all of our pleas. I also have started a petition for the same thing to bring national attention to this state. Please sign and spread around we need all the support we can get, We need to stand up to corruption and make it stop, we need to email and call daily. Governor Crist; We want our rights back, we don't want to live in fear of the system is meant to protect us.... Please help.... I am willing to talk to anyone who can help us: please email me at: comments2marian@yahoo.com or visit myspace.com/karma4all and read the blogs I have written . My petition site is : http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/651965100 I have a web site being designed that will be a direct link with Project Prevent and we will bring national attention to this corrupt State and it's corrupt elected officials, If we all stand up together and scream foul and demand change now ! We can do it if we band together and work together, cover every county and put court watchers to witness and record the violations and abuse of the system. name, names bring out and let everyone know who they are, Florida residents need to stop sitting on their hands and fight back. They work for us and we should have the right to demand they be held accountable from local to State, every department of this government needs to be cleaned out..... Please write me and tell me you want to be involve ! Go to; " Get off the Bench" , "Americas Injustice", "Project Prevent" and tell them your stories, bring out in the open live on air Nationally ! I am tired of being a victim of this system and desperately need help ! Please write to me: comments2marian@yahoo.com

1:10 pm PST, Jan 19, Barbara Scis, Pennsylvania

3:20 am PST, Jan 12, Benajmin Ruiz, Illinois

7:50 pm PST, Jan 7, Dennise Brunner, Nevada

4:39 pm PST, Jan 1, Anne Martinez, Arizona
Dr. Ron Paul is our last hope for freedom and justice in this country! find out more at www.RonPaul2008.com "we the people" are speaking - if they won't listen, we'll make them! want to do more? contact: "giving it all for Ron Paul" - theunitedfreaks@gmail.com

4:25 am PST, Jan 1, Simos Tarabatzis, Greece

3:08 pm PST, Dec 25, Cheryl Warren, Michigan
I am located in Michigan. We need to band together as a nation and stop judicial corruption nationwide! How do we organize to do this. Each State Supreme Court rules over attorneys, who cause much of the judicial corruption. The United States Supreme Court (over one Nation) rules over the State Suprme Courts. So, lets get a petition going in each State?

2:56 pm PST, Dec 25, Steven Leighton, Florida
You must remind the Governor of your state that he was elected to uphold the laws of the state and nation. When a judge breaks the law it is called treason. I suggest that you also remind him that BUSH will be removed very soon and he will be left standing holding the bag. I also suggest that you write a letter/e-mail to your future candidate or better all of the 2008 candidates and ask what they are going to do about the corruption that occurres in our court system. I have and Clinton/Obama no answer, Ron Paul promises reform. I suggest that you do the same.

7:48 am PST, Dec 19, Theresa Otero, Florida

6:36 am PST, Dec 19, Name not displayed, Florida

3:42 pm PST, Dec 18, Name not displayed, Florida
I first entered the court room this year and found that nothing I believed about the system to be true. Justice, Truth, ect. Instead I found a cocky, condescending judge who has no respect for indigents, pro se litigants, and women. They dont support the law, only the attorneys fund. Its important to sign this because if you happen to need to use this service, you best be an attorney or your case will be disregarded.

8:42 am PST, Dec 13, Brenda Taylor, Florida
I haven't been personally affected, but have heard of several friends who have.

3:35 pm PST, Dec 11, Rebecca Pooter, Florida
I was refused a trial as my ex husband a pilot for southwest airlines paid a lot of money for an attorney who paid off the judge and I was not allowed a trial. Email me if you have any suggestions: rjpotter@bellsouth.net

4:34 pm PST, Dec 1, Karen Sordiff, California

7:55 pm PST, Nov 24, Barney Fife, Mississippi
Check out my website at how a judge in Mississippi dismissed a case involving a sexual assault against a 7 year old little girl in Booneville Mississippi and the little girls own lawyer tried to force the mom to sign papers that would harm the little girl. This is a very disturbing case read it NOW and see the most horrific misjustice you have ever read http://www.freewebs.com/barneyfife1/

10:58 pm PST, Nov 20, Ryan Shields, Arizona

4:56 pm PST, Nov 13, Francis Knize, Connecticut
%uFEFF Any law or case which grants or forms a basis for Judicial Immunity is Unconstitutional, Vague, and against International treaties. Judicial Immunity evinces a design to reduce the people under absolute Despotism and creates an illegal Oligarchy/Nobility, and limitation on the power of the people of the United States. Ordering transfer of the underlying assets of a Limited Liability Company, for which members (Mr. Knize) have no ownership is NOT a function normally performed by a judge. Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts. Defendant gives notice he will place a challenge to Subject Matter Jurisdiction in event of dismissal from the court on grounds of immunity. A Motion to Dismiss invariably violates the Separation of Powers; judges may NOT legislate from the bench, Congress%u2019 will to provide relief for injury cannot be ruled away by the Judiciary. In a non-criminal proceeding, there are still grounds to abolish immunity; the Constitution never granted Judges the power to give themselves the privilege, granted the people the privelege to say no to it, and Am. 9 guarantees first to citizens the right to sue government officials. I demand Strict Scrutiny be employed on the Question in a proper hearing. Further, we can assume arguendo that the Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984) decision applies equally in Bivens actions against judges. In 1996, Congress enacted the Federal Courts Improvement Act ("FCIA"), Pub.L. No. 104- 317, 110 Stat. 3847 (1996), in which it amended §§ 1983 to provide that "injunctive relief shall not be granted" in an action brought against "a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity ... unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." The ACT is Unconstitutional and I challenge it through strict scrutiny xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Woe unto them that call evil good (Judicial Independence), and good evil (accountability); that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!...who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent" Isaiah 5:20, 21, 23 "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."%u201D It [is] inconsistent with the principles of civil liberty, and contrary to the natural rights of the other members of the society, that any body of men therein should have authority to enlarge their own powers, prerogatives or emoluments without restraint." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Allowance Bill, 1778. Papers 2:231 This Court must, and has a duty to address the Questions of Law through Strict Scrutiny Test surrounding this claim at a proper hearing. Marbury v. Madison (1803) states: %u201D The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. [The] government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right. . .%u201Dqrqr If the government is a government of men, the review standard is found in the common community, and not by judges who wish to protect their own nobility of black robes: %u201CGovernments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:4 %u201CThe will of the nation is the only thing essential to be regarded." -- Thomas Jefferson to Governor Morris, 1792. ME 9:36 If we are a government of Laws, all the laws must stem first from the Constitution: "[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights." - Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:178 Judges who we trust with preserving the rights of freedom and liberty guaranteed by our Constitution to protect our people from tyranny and government oppression by prescribing limits upon the Constitution show bias to our government, rule against the people and the constitution, destroy of our prosperity and happiness, and make us victim to their abuses and tyranny through their obvious abuses of power. Nothing in the Const. grants immunity. See U.S. Constitution Article VI, Paragraph 2 and three: %u201CThis Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in the pursuance thereof; %u2026under the authority of the United States, (the fifty states individually) shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.%u201D "The true principles of our Constitution... are wisely opposed to all perpetuations of power, and to every practice which may lead to hereditary establishments." --Thomas Jefferson to Messrs. Bloodgood and Hammond, 1809. ME 12:318 "A court has no affections; but those of the people whom they govern influence their decisions, even in the most arbitrary governments." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1785. ME 5:12, Papers 8:228 "The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1807. FE 9:68 %u201CThe rights of citizens are not limited to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment protects all other rights that are retained by the people, and that are not specifically named."It is an essential attribute of the jurisdiction of every country to preserve peace, to punish acts in breach of it, and to restore property taken by force within its limits." -- Jefferson to Governor Morris, 1793. The balance of Title 42, section 1981 of the Civil Rights Code states, ".citizens shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind" Under Title 42, section 1981 of the Civil Rights Code, as long as they remain citizens, judges would be unconstitutional to allocate privileged rights to their own immunity So, this challenge under Strict Test is necessary. Immunity deprives me, and other citizens of their First and Fourteenth Am. Rights. It is not narrowly tailored for judges to say they are free to commit crimes or even be malicious without due recourse. Also abiding by Treaties follows a necessity: The United States is bound by Treaties, entered in good faith with the United Nations, requiring that it provide effective remedies and redress for violations of Constitutional Rights, "notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity" and to "develop the possibilities of judicial remedy." See The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; U.N. Gen. Assem. Res. 2200 A(XXI) of 16 Dec. 1966; Ratified by the U.S. Senate in June 1992. See Article 2. See also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U.N. Gen. Assem. Res. 217- A(III) of 10 Dec 48; Art. 8. It states: "Everyone has the right to an EFFECTIVE REMEDY by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law." [emphasis added]. It is time to look at the full breadth of law. It is long overdue for the Federal Court (District Court must address the treaties violations before it should rule a failure to state a claim because they think JI exist) to revisit cases which granted judges immunity in light of the impact of Constitutions on the evolution of "well ordered systems of jurisprudence." Bradley was eighty years out-of-date when it was written to create JI. Its teachings are now two centuries past their prime and cannot survive in a world of limited government and constitutional rights. The Treaties mentioned are the "handwriting on the wall" before the entire world: "Judicial Immunity" is an embarrassing, and dying institution. "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:193, Papers 1:125 Placing the judges above the People, turns the principle that the People are sovereign and destroys a government by the consent of the people. In Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), an 8/1 decision written by Chief Justice Warren, that affirmed immunity for judges (clearly voidable) under section 1983 civil rights statute, rights which held explicitly imposed liability on: Every person who, under color of [law] %u2026%u2026 subjects or causes %u2026%u2026 any citizen of the United States .. to the deprivation of any rights ...secured by the constitution and laws... is a decision that is absent of any Constitutional basis/authority for absolute judicial immunity. To his credit, Justice Douglas wrote in his lone dissent at 559: %u201C%u201C%u2026%u2026 The court%u2019%u2019s ruling is not justified by the admitted need for a vigorous and independent judiciary, is not commanded by the common-law doctrine of judicial immunity, and does not follow from inexorably from our prior decisions. %u2026%u2026 [P] To most, %u2018%u2018every person%u2019%u2019 would mean every person, not every person except judges.%u201D%u201D [Continuing at 562:] The position that Congress did not intend to change the common-law rule of judicial immunity ignores the fact that every member of Congress who spoke on the issue assumed that the words of the statute meant what they said and judges would be liable. %u2026%u2026 [P] The section%u2019%u2019s purpose was to provide redress for the deprivation of civil rights. It was recognized that certain members of the judiciary were instruments of oppression and were partially responsible for the wrongs to be remedied. The parade of cases coming to this Court shows that a similar condition now obtains in some of the States. Some states courts have been instruments of suppression of civil rights.%u201D%u201D Continuing at 565:] %u201C%u201CThe argument that the actions of officials must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny because to do so would have an inhibiting effect on their work, is but a more sophisticated manner of saying %u2018%u2018The King can do no wrong.%u2019%u2019 (ftnt. 5 omitted.) Chief Justice Cockburn long ago disposed of the argument that liability would deter judges: %u2018%u2018I can not believe that judges ... would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences %u2026%u2026 from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small and would be easily disposed of. While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged.%u2019%u2019 Dawkins v Lord Parulet, LR 5 QB 94, 110 (C.J. Cockburn, dissenting).%u201D%u201D %u201CCongress by its words and meaning enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and that meaning included judges to be held responsible to an injured plaintiff for the deprivation of Constitutional Rights. Any judge made case (BRADLEY) finding to the contrary is hereby challenged as unconstitutional and unlawful. No Court has ever challenged the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and therefore said Congressionally enacted legislation stands as law. The only way to change an act of Congress is by an act of Congress. No judge can change it and any such findings and changes are not to be upheld in Federal Courts as lawful. No changes in the wording have ever been made to Title 42 U.S.C.A. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 and therefore these Congressionally enacted laws are enforceable in the Federal Courts.See RANDALL V. BRIGHAM, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 523, 19 L.Ed. 285 (1869). BUTZ V. ECONOMOU, 438 U.S. 506, 98 S.Ct. 2910 (1978) A look at what some legal commentaries have said on the issue is helpful here. In... %u201C%u201CLiability of Judicial Officers Under Section 1983%u201D%u201D 79 Yale L.J. 322 (1969), it is written at p.322: %u201C%u201C%u2026%u2026 This Note contends that the congressional intent of Section 1983 and the policies underlying this exemption do not support a grant of judicial immunity, but rather argue for judicial liability under an actual malice standard. (ftnt. 3 omitted.) [Continuing at 337:] [P] But whatever the long term results of imposing liability, there is no adequate rationale%u2014%u2014in history or policy%u2014%u2014for altogether exempting judicial officers from liability under section 1983 %u2026%u201D%u201D In %u201C%u201CSuing Judges: History and Theory%u201D%u201D 31 South Carolina L.Rev. 201 (1980) Jay M. Feinman and Roy S. Cohen wrote at p.203: %u201C%u201CWe conclude that statements such as that in Bradley are inadequate history at two levels, reflecting judicial misunderstanding of both what the law was and how and why it developed. Actually, English law began with a position of general judicial liability and developed only limited exceptions on ground irrelevant to a discussion of judicial liability today. When the English law was received in the United States, this limited immunity was expanded significantly, notably by James Kent, to limit liability, and throughout the nineteenth century a mixed pattern of judicial liability and immunity existed in America. In Bradley, Justice Field provided a confused reformation of the law, which led to a further limitation of liability. At no point, however, were the advantages and disadvantages of judicial immunity fairly examined. Because the case for immunity is inconclusive and unpersuasive on historical grounds, we also examine the issue on policy grounds; our analysis proceeds from a thorough review of the case law and literature. We conclude that immunity is indefensible on policy grounds as well %u2026%u2026%u201D%u201D [Continuing at 205:] %u201C%u201CMost of the major judicial liability cases use the common-law origins of judicial immunity as a justification for the doctrine. For example, as noted above, Bradley v. Fisher, { U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871)} the case principally relied on by the Court in Stump, used extensive discussion of English case law to show the authority of the rule and to support its continued application. [P] In this section, we demonstrate that these conclusions about English law simply are incorrect. A careful analysis of English law shows that the basic rule was one of liability, that no simple rule of immunity ever existed, and that applications to American law of those instances in which immunity was granted have been inappropriate. In sum, the English law provides little support for a rule of absolute judicial immunity.%u201D%u201D Continuing at 279:] %u201C%u201C%u2026%u2026 It is our belief that the decision in Stump should be rejected as too protective of judicial prerogative because it violates a basic tenet of the legal process %u2013%u2013 the right of review %u2013%u2013 when there would be little cost to the legal system from imposing liability. In %u201C%u201CFEDERAL JURISDICTION%u201D%u201D (3rd Ed) Aspen Law & Business, Aspen Publishers, Professor Erwin Chemerinsky wrote at p.495: %u201C%u201CIn numerous specific cases %u2013%u2013 ranging from the scope of judicial immunity (ftnt.6 omitted) to the availability of punitive damages (ftnt.7 omitted) %u2013%u2013 the Court has focused extensively on the common law of immunities as it existed when section 1983 was adopted. This historical approach is subject to substantial criticism. First, it assumes that the common law was clear about the nature of the immunity to be accorded to particular government officers. Yet usually there was great divergence among the states and there was no firmly established rules. For instance, the Court has emphasized the common law immunity to suits for damages under section 1983. (ftnt.8 omitted.) However, in 1871 only thirteen of thirty-seven states accorded judges such immunities for suits. (ftnt.9 omitted.) In fact, in adopting section 1983, many members of Congress were particularly concerned about unconstitutional conduct by judges. (ftnt.10 omitted.) [Continuing at 496:] %u201C%u201CAdditionally, even if common law principle were clear and discoverable, their relevance to modern doctrines is questionable. The fundamental premises of tort law have changed dramatically over the past 130 years, as have views about the Constitution and individual rights. Undoubtedly many officers occupy far different positions that they did in 1871. Furthermore, there is strong argument that common law tort immunities have little relevance in determining the scope of responsibility for constitutional violations. Some suggest that the Court should abandon the immunity inquiry and leave the entire matter of immunities to the legislature. (ftnt.14 omitted.) Others would prefer a more functional approach to determining the nature of immunities. (ftnt.15 omitted.) Nonetheless, for now, the starting point in the Court%u2019%u2019s analysis of immunity remains the common law of 1871.%u201D%u201D Note, absent from cited sources are the questions of whether the Court ever had the constitutional authority/power to give itself immunity and whether that would violate the doctrine of separation of powers. The Courts used Common law rationale: %u201CThere is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be local in their nature or 'general,' be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts. - Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) "The sentiment that ex post facto laws are against natural right is so strong in the United States that few, if any, of the State constitutions have failed to proscribe them. The Federal Constitution indeed interdicts them in criminal cases only; but they are equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases, and the omission of a caution which would have been right, does not justify the doing what is wrong." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:327 The effect of the 4th Amendment is to put the courts [232 U.S. 383, 392] of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority, and to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law. This protection reaches all alike, whether accused of crime or not, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all intrusted under our Federal system with the enforcement of the laws. The tendency of those who execute the laws of the country to obtain property by means of unlawful seizures should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights. Article 6 - This Constitution%u2026%u2026. shall be the Supreme Law of the land%u2026Judges in every state shall be bound thereby , any laws%u2026%u2026to the Contrary notwithstanding %u2026%u2026judicial officers %u2026%u2026 shall be bound by Oath Affirmation, to support this Constitution. Cases (Bradley, Pierson) and Congressional Acts (JCDA) that concluded JI without consultation to our Constitution are hereby declared VOID by this citizen. The United States 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". Cooper Vs. Aaron. 358 U.S. 1 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). If a judge does not fully Comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, in re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is Without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts TREASON Judicial Immunity was developed by means of an unlawful ex post facto law in relation to the Constitution.. Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive legislation. Furthermore, it is improper to exclude the U. S. Const. and furthermore improper to not refer to it as a primary source for instruction. The starting point then, now, and always - is that Constitution- Article III does not grant the judiciary immunity, especially for acts of operating above the law. Maybe that is why Justice Field did not mention the Constitution in Bradley. The Supreme Court has thereafter ignored that there is no Constitutional authority/basis for absolute judicial immunity. But, in fact, Judges giving judges absolute immunity %u2013%u2013 over and above the rights of the People violates the sovereignty of the People, the Constitution, and separation of powers. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 %u201Con its face does not provide for any immunities.%u201D Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2375-76 n. 1 (1994). "If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions." Thomas Jefferson Absolute immunity sets a dangerous precedent, laying the ground-work for further trampling of the rights of citizens, and further acts elevating government over the People. Wrongfully Premised Ruling in Bradley: %u201C[Judicial Immunity] has been 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. "It has, as Chancellor Kent observes, 'a deep root in the common law.'" Bradley v Fisher, 80 US at 649. It is not true. What was, in fact, happening was that the Commonwealth was developing a more civilized law as they came to recognize the "Unalienable Rights" of man that gave birth to the United States. The major premise of Bradley was factually incorrect when made. English common law had grown to permit judicial liability claims. In Kendillon v Maltby, 174 Eng. Rep. 562, 566 (N.P. 1842) (see the Excerpts), Chief Justice Lord Denman stated the law in l842:: "I have no doubt on my mind, that a magistrate, be he the highest judge in the land, is answerable in damages for slanderous language, either not relevant to the cause before him or uttered after the cause is at an end; but for words uttered in the course of his duty, no magistrate is answerable, either civilly or criminally, unless express malice and the absence of reasonable or probable cause be established." AMERICAN LAW ON ENGLISH COMMON LAW: "Under the common law of England, where individual rights were preserved by a fundamental document such as the Magna Carta, violations of those rights generally could be remedied by a traditional action for damages; violation of constitutional right was viewed as a trespass, giving rise to a trespass action. %uF850WIDGEON V. EASTERN SHORE HOSP. CENTER, 479 a.2d. 921 " ghghj What Bradley Got Right: %u201CJudicial immunity is no defense to a judge acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction." BRADLEY V. FISHER, U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871) The Judges acted outside of their jurisdiction in KNIZE and can be sued for damages involving questions arising under the Connecticut or United States Constitutions. (Eleventh Amendment) Title 18 U.S.C., Section 241, 242, 18 US Code Sec. 2511 (d)(20), 18 U.S.C 371, 42 U.S.C 126 SUBCHAPTER IV > § 12202, Title 42,CHAPTER 136 , SUBCHAPTER IX,PART B, Sec. 14141, 18 US Code Sec. 2511 (d)(20) and under violations outlined in 18 U.S.C 371, 42 USC 1983 and 1985, Title 28, U.S.C., § 1655,U.S.C § 1001, 42 USC 1987, RICO 18 USC 1961/1962 (c) (d), section 1344 , section 1503, section 1957 and other laws cited in this Complaint. Judicial Immunity is an abuse and usurpation - against the American Philosophy: %u201C...and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-- Declaration of Independence I demand that the Federal Court form a ruling in such a way, and on behalf of the public interest, which protects with new Guards for future security for the people of the United States %u201Cto throw off%u201D judicial Immunity, lest, by failure to do so will incite rightful public recourse against a government become %u201Cforeign%u201D to our Constitution, and will prove the Judiciary in disrepute of the administration of justice and to hold no integrity whatsoever. Today, the American Bar Association, along with our Judges have craftily constructed our so called Justice system to deny us the protection of our Rights. %u201CThere can be no limitation on the power of the people of the United States. By their authority the State Constitutions were made, and by their authority the Constitution of the United States was established%u201D - U. S. Supreme Court - Hauenstein vs Lynham (100 US 483) "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.%u201D Thomas Jefferson %u201CWe hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that, among these, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; and, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it....Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.%u201D These words from the Declaration of Independence are instructive that judges are to be placed equally among men for their injustices; because not only whenever any form of government, but whenever any government official becomes destructive of the founding purposes, that official or those officials must be held accountable. Judges argue that America cannot endure a judiciary that is subject to political pressures. Their constant refrain is %u201CIndependence%u201D and %u201CFreedom from retaliation%u201D What they really want is, %u201CIndependence from accountability%u201D and %u201CFreedom to retaliate.%u201D We cannot allow the judiciary to spin accountability as %u201Cpolitical pressure.%u201D Ultimately, it is the people who need protection from bad judges, not the other way around. Read sections 1 and 2 of Article III of the U.S. Constitution very carefully. Congress is authorized to make rules for the Supreme Court and create (and by implication, dissolve) the lower courts. Section 1: The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour ... Section 2, Clause 2: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. In 1996 Congress added a phrase to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, %u201Cexcept that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer%u2019s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.%u201D If Congress can make rules for the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court is not %u201Cindependent%u201D of Congress. Congress is the master of the courts. The Supreme Court cannot %u201Crule%u201D away the power of Congress and it cannot %u201Crule%u201D away its duty to put the people%u2019s interests ahead of its own. Judges are supposed to be our public servants. If they disobey Congress, Congress has the right and the power to make them answer for it. We the People want our power and relief re-secured and restored. We don%u2019t accept that our public servants %u201Cdecided%u201D to take it away from us. Congress has formed civil rights laws and they are to be obeyed and enforced by the judiciary. Who dares to argue about that? In Knize declaratory decrees were violated and yet, declaratory relief was unavailable. Deriving Their Just Powers From the Consent of the Governed. I believe the judiciary%u2019s self-granted immunities is conduct that has been destructive to the founding purposes of our nation. The second question addressed by the Declaration's third self-evident truth is, how should government operate? The answer: by the consent of the governed. Consent means agreement or choice. Judges and Congress never asked the people. That places parts of the Judicial Conduct and Discipline Act of 1980 as unconstitutional. Conduct that is prejudicial to the expeditious administration of the business of the courts would be most assuredly voted by the people as offenses which can be sued upon if injury was sustained. The government must, in some way, have our agreement, or else it has no "just powers" over us. Consent has two forms: consent in establishing government and consent in operating government. The first-also called the "social compact "-was well defined in the Massachusetts state constitution of 1780 as an association "by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good." There is no common good in judges giving themselves the right to not have to abide by laws that they themselves have been authorized to enforce upon the nation. They have then created an illegal Nobility. They have then created more immunity than the United States President. They have become evil tyrants, having perversely bended the law in their own favor in the name of justice. After the people join together to form a government, they must give their consent, upon a regular basis, to its operations. This second form of consent arises from the fact that the right to liberty is unalienable. One cannot rightly consent to a government that rules without going back to the people for their ongoing consent. Due Process in court and freedom of speech are means necessary to ensure this second form of consent. Don%u2019t tread on citizens with a false claim of judicial immunity without going to the people; judges should not change the government that we the people created, for their %u201Clight and transient cause%u201D to say they are not bound to the same laws applicable to all of us. Accountability with overlap into the Legislative and with people%u2019s consent is best officially described in: JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, INTERDEPENDENCE, AND JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: Management Of The Courts From The Judges. Perspective; Institute for Court Management; Court Executive Development Program Phase III Project, May 2006 Pg 11: A review of the separation of powers doctrine and the interbranch conflicts created will enhance the understanding of judicial independence. Separation of powers does not specifically mean creation of a barrier that positively prevents any connection or contact between the branches. Preferably, it finds expression mainly in the existence of a balance among the branches. powers, in theory and in practice that makes possible independence in the context of specific reciprocal supervision.17 Although the judiciary is an independent coequal branch of government, the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers allows some overlap in the exercise of governmental functions.18 This overlap is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of overlapping functions...* Pg 12: There is always a struggle to maintain a balance between the protections of judges from the pressures generated from the public%u2019s expectations with the desire for the courts to be responsible to changes in public views of what is competent administration. Pg 13: Judicial independence and accountability are considered two different sides of the same coin, just as the independence of an individual judge and the independence of the court from which the judge presides, and is best described as follows: %u201CThe capacity of the judiciary to function independently of control by the executive and legislative branches requires the capacity of individual judges to enjoy a measure of extra institutional independence. It also requires that the judiciary, as a system of courts, function and be perceived to function according to law. This in turn requires that individual judges yield some intra institutional independence The judiciary is not exempt from the requirement of accountability to the people it serves for the proper performance of its duties.%u201D Stephen Burbank, Judicial Independence at the Crossroads p. 16 (Sage 2002). Pg 14: To guide their actions while performing adjudicative and administrative duties, judges rely upon the American Bar Association.s Model Code Of Judicial Conduct. Each state adopts its own version of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct and these specified rules that provide guidance to judges in the performance of their administrative and adjudicatory responsibilities. For example, Model Canon 300 (C) (1) of the ABA.s Model Code Of Judicial Conduct provides: a judge shall diligently discharge the judge's administrative responsibilities without bias or prejudice, maintain professional competence in judicial administration... END EXCERPTS Judicial Immunity illegally bypasses the requirement that the judiciary, as a system of courts, function and be perceived to function according to law. It illegally bypasses the requirement that individual judges yield some intra institutional independence, as Judicial immunity must be authorized by the legislative branch of government after it consults with the people in some measure. I end with the pertainent question: "What happens when the constitutional remedy to reform government by the People is blocked by the very government sought to be reformed?" Please refer to the writings of John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government. Government ceases when it ceases to protect the People's rights. People's rights being routinely violated by the power in control is, by definition, not of government, but of a foreign power-- a power foreign to our Constitution that has reduced the People under absolute despotism. Anarchy happens when "there is no longer the administration of justice for the securing of men's rights, nor any remaining power within the community to direct the force, [i.e., no provision by which the People can enforce the Constitution] or provide for the necessities of the public" resulting in the absence of government and the people becoming "a confused multitude, without order or connexion." Anarchy results from the effectual dissolution of government by its failure and refusal to protect the People's rights. The Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690) by John Locke, at Chapter XIX "Of the Dissolution of Government" Sec. 218. John Locke, known as the "Philosopher of Freedom" had the greatest influence on our Declaration of Independence. " Government, according to John Locke, will lose its right to exercise its power, however, when government abuses its people worse than any imaginable group of marauders that might be operating in the absence of a government.%u201D %u201D In Lockean theory, if government abuses the exercise of the power given it by the people, the people have a natural right to rebel, as did the people of New England in 1776." The Theory of Government, By Peter Landry When the Constitution was enacted in 1787, it brought into existence the national government. But there was one stipulation: the national government's powers were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. If a power was not specifically listed, government officials were not permitted to exercise it. Judicial Immunity was never enumerated in our Constitution.

5:10 am PST, Nov 10, Jennifer Gardner, Florida

4:55 am PST, Nov 4, Charmaine Sabri, Pennsylvania

6:40 am PDT, Oct 31, Debbie Harsch, Florida
my brother was wronrful convicted.his web is .www.innocentinprison.org/inmates/ohio/anthonycioffi.html

4:36 pm PDT, Oct 30, Loren Gordon, Montana

10:32 pm PDT, Oct 28, Steven Parham, Florida
To know the purpose that governments were established read the Declaration of Independence (DoI). To know what rights the American Founding Fathers fought and died for read the DoI. It is clear from the DoI that our forefathers fought and died for our unalienable rights given to us by our Creator not governments. So give God, not governments, the glory for your rights. Governments were created by the "We the People" to protect these God-given rights of ours. Who will you exalt: God or government? Who do you fear more? Is God or government your provider?

2:28 am PDT, Oct 28, Steve Klein, Virginia

10:15 am PDT, Oct 19, Jonte White, Maryland

12:32 pm PDT, Oct 18, Lucius Carroll, Florida

1:20 pm PDT, Oct 12, Tiffani Johnson, Arizona

5:07 am PDT, Oct 11, Tony Misner, New Jersey

6:08 pm PDT, Oct 9, David Peters, United Kingdom

7:24 pm PDT, Oct 8, Joyce Miller, Mississippi
lawyer in mississippi and judge does not care about kindergarten girls being sexually assaulted in school

6:54 pm PDT, Oct 8, Jeffery Jernigan, Florida

12:12 pm PDT, Oct 8, Sara DeRuyter, Wisconsin

10:22 am PDT, Oct 8, Madelin Castillo, California

7:12 am PDT, Oct 8, Guido Improta, Florida
Something must be done about the corruption in the Judicial system which many times does not follow the Constitution and law at all.

7:32 pm PDT, Oct 6, Artie Jackson, Georgia
I am a current victim of Judicial corruption in The 17th Judicial Circuit of Broward County. My goal is is to expose my case to the media with hopes of bringing national attention to the criminal actions which have and are occurring on a daily basis. We need to hold demonstrations outside every corruption courthouse in this nation! This is key to getting the nations attention.