Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« OBJECTION Re: Stewardship of the Earth | Main | Joseph Ruben Hill and Gloria Reeder have been RAILROADED: IT'S SO PAINFULLY OBVIOUS »

Anent Speculation on Non-Judicial Immunity

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: Donald T Grahn <jd.consultants@live.com>
cc: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:36 AM
subject: Re: Speculation on Non-Judicial Immunity
mailing list: supremelaw.googlegroups.com
 
It's a complicated issue:

In defense of the concept, whenever a qualified judicial officer
acts in a judicial capacity, EVEN IF his ruling is not correct,
he cannot be sued for that error.  In many ways, this is
a sound approach, because the system would break down
and become much less efficient than it already is 
if every dissatisfied litigant were allowed to sue the
presiding judge for that outcome.

On the other hand, this doctrine of judicial immunity
is not unlimited:

(1)  if a judge lacks jurisdiction, then s/he is liable
to all parties for all consequential damages;
federal courts, in particular, are presumed to LACK
jurisdiction unless there is positive proof of
original jurisdiction in the INITIAL COMPLAINT;
 
(2)  of course, if a "robe" lacks credentials, 
a number of federal felonies are being committed;

(3)  the ICCPR places additional limits on
judicial immunity:  if a judge violates a Fundamental Right
of a litigant, that litigant is entitled to an effective remedy
NOTWITHSTANDING that the violation was committed
by persons acting in an official capacity.

(4)  the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges is also
very relevant here, particularly the section dealing
with their administrative and supervisory responsibilities;
but, enforcement of that Code of Conduct has become
very problematic in recent years e.g. since 1948;
 
(5)  in general, complaints of judicial misconduct
have gone nowhere, because that system is
fraught with conflicts of interest and it has become
an ugly protection racket.

 
There is a long treatise on judicial immunity here,
in the Dixianne Hawks case:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/dixianne/

e.g.:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/dixianne/appeal9c.htm

However, John E. Wolfgram is another UNlicensed
California Attorney.


Hope this helps.


p.s.  In general, feel free to search the SLL yourself 
when questions like that arise e.g.

Bing site:supremelaw.org "judicial immunity"


/s/ Paul


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Donald T Grahn <jd.consultants@live.com> wrote:
Paul, Any comment?


Pastor Don

Donald T Grahn - on FB & YT

Celebrating 10 + years of producing truth-telling TV on www.SeattleCommunityMedia.org Ch.77  / 23
w/ live-streaming and on-demand 24/7   3 shows per week 10 AM & PM Tues, Weds & Thurs.
& 11:30 PM Sundays for 3 hours!

  1.  Tues.  Call 4 Investigation, - 10 AM & PM & 1:30 AM Mon.   
Link:  http://seattlecommunitymedia.org/node/10434/list-shows


            2.   Weds:  
            All-Ways Pursuing Truth,   Documentaries    10 PM  & 10 AM Saturdays & 11:30 PM Sunday nites.  
Link:   http://seattlecommunitymedia.org/node/7578/list-shows

      
       3.   Thurs:  Truth vs. NEW$, Inc.       10 AM & 10 PM Thurs. & 12:30 AM Mondays.   
Link:  http://seattlecommunitymedia.org/node/10422/list-shows






Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 07:05:53 +0000
From: rcsnydersr@yahoo.com
To: ronjdav9@gmail.com
Subject: Fw: [New post] Speculation on Non-Judicial Immunity

This is very interesting but are the Supremes honest? With our system, I doubt it very much.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Adask's law <comment-reply@wordpress.com>
To: rcsnydersr@yahoo.com 
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 4:43 PM
Subject: [New post] Speculation on Non-Judicial Immunity

Adask posted: "The following email got me thinking:   Dear Mr. Adask …………….. I sent the letter to you below back on 22 December 2014 and have been following your emails since then and so far no mention of the issue I presented.  Since then I have gone through "
Respond to this post by replying above this line
 

New post on Adask's law

Speculation on Non-Judicial Immunity

by Adask
The following email got me thinking:   Dear Mr. Adask …………….. I sent the letter to you below back on 22 December 2014 and have been following your emails since then and so far no mention of the issue I presented.  Since then I have gone through the Federal District Court System and the Federal […]
 
 
Comment    See all comments
 

___

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

10:51 AM (24 minutes ago)
 
to Donald, SupremeLaw
 
 
 
 
The writings of Dr. Les Sachs are very relevant here
e.g. corrupt robes are abusing judicial immunity
to "immunize" themselves from the consequences
of their own criminal misconduct:

http://supremelaw.org/authors/sachs/


Notice also the sheer number of Federal "robes"
in California who failed or refused to produce
evidence of their licenses to practice law
when they were admitted to the State Bar:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm
 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/crowd.funding.option.htm  (Join Us!)
http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)

June 15, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink