The Schiavo case was a sad one, and a despicable display of the
criminal use of guardianship power ‑ not just the right to live
or die, but Schiavo's use of Terri's damage award, while
depriving her of rehabilitation over the years, and Greer's
interest in protecting the guardian instead of the ward, with
all the appellate judges protecting each other, in turn.
On the other hand, it taught Americans that they MUST arrange
for their advance directives, and finally, and most
importantly: IT OPENED THE DOOR TO A LONG OVERDUE DIALOGUE
ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ‑ including unethical lawyers ‑ thanks
to you, sir.
Atty. Gary Zerman's reply to your 3/25/05 "These judges
deserve your respect, not your scorn," I must applaud his
efforts in demonstrating why absolute judicial immunity is wrong
I'd also like to add the following:
Omitted from his reply ‑ and from the references he cited, is
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1, states, in part:
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall
hold their Offices during good Behavior..."
Therefore, while there is no authority for absolute immunity,
there most certainly is a prohibition against it. I haven't
checked the annotated cases (which I have long ago begun reading
with a deep distrust of the judiciary), but since you feel the
need to defend the judiciary generally, please answer these
1. Is knowingly acting without jurisdiction "good" behavior?
2. Is knowingly violating an individual's constitutional
protections "good" behavior?
3. Is granting blanket immunity to judges sued in their
individual capacities "good" behavior?
4. Is showing favoritism to one side over another "good"
5. Is a failure to even read pro‑se papers "good" behavior?
6. When judges prohibit pro‑se litigants from filing papers,
preventing them from making a complete record for appeal, is
that "good" behavior?
7. Is depriving a pro‑se litigant of appellate review by a
three‑judge panel and ignoring appellate issues raised by such
litigant "good" behavior?
8. Is failure of any judge to obey controlling authority "good"
These are just some samples of the usual bag of dirty tricks,
but well documented
SO MUCH FOR THE MYTH OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY!
an example, consider these specific questions which I presented
to the U.S. Supreme Court last year on behalf of all pro-se
Whether the use of "inherent authority" or "power" of a district
court judge to sua-sponte dismiss an unrepresented Sec. 1983
claimant's action at the pleading stage, thus preventing and
avoiding an adversarial proceeding with pretrial proceedings
available to other litigants, is constitutionally repugnant and
a violation of 1st (access), 5th (due process/equal rights), 7th
(jury trial) Amendment guarantees, as encompassed in the 14th
Whether clearly disparate treatment of lawyered and nonlawyered
cases by a Circuit court or judge, such as failure to apply
Supreme Court and Circuit precedent uniformly, e.g., de novo and
abuse-of-discretion reviews applied in lawyered cases but not in
nonlawyered cases, is a deprivation of the constitutional
guarantee of due process of law and equal protection of the
Whether this Court, in its supervisory capacity, will enforce
its own orders on certiorari to a Circuit which fails to obey
its clarification of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
requirement for an adversarial disposition of an action on the
merits, as opposed to dismissal at the pleading stage?"
These issues are of national importance, affecting the rights of
all pro-se litigants, based on an unlawful precedent set in my
case. Does refusing to hear the petition constitute "good"
behavior? And doesn't that give judges incentive for corruption?
Justice O'Connor, in an overseas speech last year, said
"...judges have to give reasons.". But supreme court denials of
most petitions for certiorari don't give any reasons whatever!
Many federal judges use one-word responses to motions: "Denied."
Other judges fail to support their decisions with supporting
authority, or to state what papers they read, in addition to all
the legal aberrations they indulge in, with impunity, to date.
We are aware that since Pulliam v. Allen (1984), state
judges were lobbying their federal brethren for immunity. It
took 12 years to finally accomplish some form of liability
protection from Sec. 1983 suits, in a downright SNEAKY amendment
to the Civil Rights Act. In 1992 law reformers stopped such an
amendment from even going to committee, but in 1996 they were
otherwise engaged. That amendment must be revisited, as
repugnant to the Constitution..
"It is a Maxim among these Lawyers, that whatever hath been done
before, may legally be done again: And therefore they take
special Care to record all the Decisions formerly made against
common Justice and the general Reason of Mankind. These, under
the Name of Precedents, they produce as Authorities to justify
the most iniquitous Opinions; and the Judges never fail of
-- Jonathan Swift: Gulliver's Travels, Part
IV; Chapter V; 1735
ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY BY JUDICIAL FIAT,
THE ALMOST ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION WE HAVE EXPERIENCED SINCE,
WILL BE THE DOWNFALL OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM!
As Mr. Zerman said, respect is earned. It can't be enforced
through judicial tyranny. And as far as lawyers are concerned,
their image is at the lowest ebb, ever! No amount of public
relations will help, as long as judges carry bar cards.
The cause of all of this is that all three branches of
government are run by lawyers, working together for their common
good, instead of for the general welfare. (Preamble to the
Also See Lori's Original Response:
Strictly on the Law: "Judges Deserve our Respect"?