As we begin the new year of 1996, if someone asked you what the number one problem is that exists in our judicial system, what would your answer be? Would it be the *violation* and *depri- vation* of our *constitutional rights* that are so precious to each individual citizen? Do you personally think that *our courts are doing enough in protecting our individual constitutional rights*? Do you personally think that *some corrupted lawyers knowingly, intentionally, maliciously and illegally violate our constitutional rights*? Do you personally think that *some corrupted judges knowingly, intentionally, maliciously and illegally deprive us of our constitutional rights*?
There is a clear and very important distinction between the
"violation" of our constitutional rights and the "deprivation" of
our constitutional rights.
The "violation" of our constitutional rights occurs as a result of
wrong conduct committed against us by lawyers, by employees of law
enforcement agencies, by employees of subdivisions of government,
by employees of organizations such as corporations, foundations,
etc. and by fellow citizens, which wrong conduct is of a nature
which "violates" rights, privileges or immunities secured by the
Federal and State Constitution or secured by Federal or State law.
The "violation" of our written constitutional rights can only be
legally *remedied* by means of an *order of a court* of competent
jurisdiction.
Therefore, since the only "legal remedy" for the "violation of our
written constitutional rights" is by means of "an order of a court
of competent jurisdiction," it is a fact that only a judge can
"deprive" us of our "written constitutional rights." It is also a
fact that *only a judge can protect and enforce our written con-
stitutional rights.* If a judge either refuses or fails to protect
and enforce our written constitutional rights, *then in such case
our constitutional rights become merely words written on a piece
of paper and are of no more value or benefit to us as an individ-
ual citizen.* It is our prayer that this fact "be ever present in
a judges consciousness and conscience." Justice Harry Lee Anstead,
Nova Law Review, Volume 18, Number 2B, page 1278
Suppose *a judge is corrupt and either refuses or fails to protect
and enforce our written constitutional rights?* Can an individual
citizen sue a corrupt judge for money damages? The *United States
Congress* says *YES!* The *United States Supreme Court* says *NO!*
Who is right? More importantly, *what should be right?*
In the *United States Code* the *United States Congress* says that
*a judge can be sued for money damages for deprivation of a
citizen's constitutional rights. We now quote *42 U.S.C. 1983*
verbatim as passed by the *United States Congress* as follows:
"1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory
or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this
section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to
the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a
statute of the District of Columbia" (R.S. 1979; Pub.L.
96-170, 1, Declaration of Independence. 29, 1979, 93
Stat. 1284.)
The above-quoted federal law as presently contained in our present
*United States Code* as *42 U.S.C. 1983* first became a part of
our body of federal law as *1 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of April
20, 1871*. To a reasonable person the congressional intent and
purpose should be very clear. In the year 1871 and prior years a
*condition of lawlessness* existed in certain of the States, under
which *people were being denied their constitutional rights*.
Congress *intended to provide a remedy* for the wrongs being
perpetrated. In the year 1871 the members of the *United States
Congress* were aware that *members of the judiciary (judges) were
implicated in the condition of lawlessness* that the *statute was
intended to rectify*. In fact, in the year 1871, *the courts were
in many instances wholly corrupted* as to the impartial adminis-
tration of law and equity and *the United States Constitution was
being defied by judges*.
The statute is *not* ambiguous. *42 U.S.C. 1983* is *not* ambiguous.
The *United States Congress* clearly *intended* that "EVERY PERSON"
who caused the "deprivation" of "constitutional rights" "shall be
liable to the party injured in an action at law." We repeat, *the
statute is *not* ambiguous. "EVERY PERSON" to us simple, reasonable
citizens means just what it says, "EVERY PERSON" which the *United
States Congress* clearly *intended to include judges and lawyers*.
Yes, "EVERY PERSON," including *judges and lawyers,* must respect
the constitutional rights of "EVERY PERSON" who is a citizen of
the United States.
The *United States Supreme Court* says *NO*, a citizen *cannot
sue a judge for money damages for depriving a citizen of
constitutional rights*. In a long line of cases the *United States
Supreme Court* has held that *judges are immune from liability for
damages for acts committed within the their judicial discretion*.
In the case of *Pierson v. Ray,* 87 S.Ct. 1213 (1967) the *United
States Supreme Court* at page 218 in part held that:
"This immunity applies even when a judge is accused of
acting maliciously and corruptly ------."
Further, in *Pierson v. Ray the *United States Supreme Court* held
that when the *United States Congress* passed *42 U.S.C. 1983*
Congress did not *intend* to include judges in the phrase "EVERY
PERSON." In *Pierson v. Ray, Mr. Justice Douglas courageously
wrote a blistering dissent from which we quote in part from page
1222 as follows:
"Yet despite the repeated fears of its opponents, and the
explicit recognition that *the section would subject
judges to suit*, the section remained as it was proposed:
it applied to "any person." There was no exception for
members of the judiciary*. In light of the sharply con-
tested nature of *the issue of judicial immunity it would
be reasonable to assume that the judiciary would have
been expressly exempted* from the wide sweep of the
section, if Congress had intended such a result.
"The section's *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 state courts have been instru-
ments of suppression of civil rights*. The methods may
have changed; the means may have become more subtle; but
*the wrongs to be remedied still exists."*
At footnote 6 on page 1224 of *Pierson v. Ray*, United States
Supreme Court Justice Douglas reasons that:
"A judge is liable for injury by a ministerial act; to
have immunity the judge must be performing a judicial
function. ---The presence of malice and the intention to
deprive a person of his civil rights is wholly incompati-
ble with the judicial function. *When a judge acts
intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his
constitutional rights he exercises no discretion or in-
dividual judgment; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a
"minister" of his own prejudice."*
Reasonable citizens agree with Mr. Justice Douglas that a judge
who acts as a *"minister of his own prejudice" should be liable
for suit in a civil action. As Mr. Justice Douglas correctly wrote
in *Pierson v. Ray*, "the methods may have changed; the means may
have become more subtle; but *the wrongs to be remedied still
exists."*
On *October 11, 1984* the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit located in Atlanta, Georgia "*shook up*" judges
all across America by releasing their opinion in *Dykes v.
Hoseman* 743 F.2nd 1488 (11th Cir. 1984) wherein a panel of three
(3) judges held that, where a judge performs a judicial act
affecting the rights of a party over whom he knows he has no
personal juris- diction, the judge may be liable to such party for
money damages. The news media announced the decision of the 11th
Circuit all across America. Judges from all across America began
to pressure the 11th Circuit to change their decision as announced
in *Dykes v. Hoseman*. The 11th Circuit yielded to the pressure
and agreed for the entire court to *reconsider Dykes v. Hoseman en
banc.*
On *November 18, 1985* the 11th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
in Atlanta, Georgia rendered a second decision in *Dykes v.
Hoseman*, 776 F.2nd 942 wherein the court en banc reversed the
three (3) judge panel's decision in case one, *Dykes v. Hoseman*,
743 F.2nd 1488. All judges on the 11th Circuit yielded to the
pressure of their fellow judges except *The Honorable Joseph W.
Hatchett* who couragously wrote a scholarly dissenting opinion
from which we now quote in part from pages 954-955 as follows:
"---The en banc court holds that judicial immunity is
complete, unqualified, and without exception. According
to the majority, judicial immunity even protects a judge
who acts without subject matter jurisdiction, without
personal jurisdiction, and who unlawfully *conspires*
with a party *to violate another party's federal con-
stitutional rights. --- With the filing of the majority
opinion, this important enactment for the protection of
citizens of the United States may as well read: "Every
person, [except a judge in Florida, Georgia and Alabama]
---" *Judges in these former states of the confederacy
*will be able to deal willy nilly with the rights of
citizens without having to account for willful uncon-
stitutional actions*. This important congressional enact-
ment is amended by this opinion to apply only to state
officials in the legislative and executive branches. It
is another whittling away of section 1983's application.
I respectfully dissent. ---
The prophesy of Judge Hatchett is being fulfilled daily as judges
all across America *"deal willy nilly with the rights of citizens
without having to account for willful unconstitutional actions*.
*The United States Congress* should revisit *42 U.S.C. 1983* and
make clear that *Judges can be sued for depriving a citizen of
constitutional rights. Who makes the laws America lives by? The
*United States Congress* or *The United States Supreme Court?*
We here at *The Corruption Chonicles* express our thanks and
sincere appreciation to the *Honorable Judges and Honorable
Lawyers* who are *honest* and who are walking in the way of
*integrity*. We fully support you and we urge you to take very
aggresive action and *fulfill your DUTY,* by *reporting any and
all corrupt judges and corrupt lawyers who commit unprofessional
conduct or criminal acts. "We The People"* are *demanding that
corrupt judges and corrupt lawyers be cleaned out and removed from
our judicial system.
In a state with a political climate which is hostile to
freedom of association, *a judge could repeatedly inter-
fere with constitutional rights without being held
accountable*.---
It is difficult to understand how *every person* in the
United States may be held accountable in damages for
conspiring to violate another person's federal consti-
tutional rights, *except those persons trained in con-
stitutional guarantees, charged with interpreting the
constitution*, and *oath bound to deal fairly with
parties to litigation."