THE BIG NEWS
3 FEDERAL COURT JUDGES PLAY ROLE OF THE HEROES!!!
Today the New Jersey Law Journal has published a short article describing the amazing decision of the Third Circuit Judges Today.
BE ADVISED THIS IS HUGE NEWS, BECAUSE LAWSUITS AGAINST JUDGES IN FEDERAL COURTS HAVE BEEN DEAD ENDS FOR DECADES
THEY ARE ROUTINELY DISMISSED
YET TODAY WE NOW HAVE A “NEW DEAL” IN NEW JERSEY DUE TO THIS CASE
HERO JUDGES OF THE YEAR:
The Third Circuit panel of:
- The Very Honorable Judge Michael Chagares,
- The Very Honorable Judge Joseph Greenaway Jr.,
- The Very Honorable JudgeThomas Vanaskie
THESE FINE DISTINGUISHED JUDGES STATED THE FOLLOWING
IN THEIR 16 PAGE UNANIMOUS OPINION:
(edits included for style and emphasis (bold, line breaks, etc)
“we must decide whether the Complaint set forth allegations that, taken as true, establish that the application of an exception to the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity is “above thespeculative level .Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521, 526 (3d Cir. 2009) (We have stated that, indeciding a motion to dismiss, all well pleaded allegations of the complaint must be taken as true and interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and all inferences must be drawn in favor of them.”) (internal quotation marks and alter ations omitted).
For the reasons set forth below,[:]
we agree with the District Court’s determination that[:]
Judge DiLeo is NOT entitled to absolute judicial immunity.The well – established doctrine of absolute judicial immunity shields a judicial officer, who is performing his duties, from lawsuit and judgments for monetary damages. Mireles v. Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Gallas , 211 F.3d at 7 68. This doctrine derives from the belief that a judge should be able to act freely upon his or her convictions without threat of suit for damages. See Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349 , 355 (1978) ( stating that a “judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, [should] be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of p ersonal consequences to himself ”) . That said, it is an equally familiar principle that judicial immunity is not absolute. See Mireles , 502 U.S. at 11; Gallas , 211 F.3d at 768. Indeed, there are two exceptions: “First, a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e. , actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity. Second, a judge is not immune for 8 actions, though judicial in nat ure, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles , 502 U.S. at 11 – 12 (internal citations omitted). If the Complaint contains allegations sufficient to establish that either exception applies, Judge DiLeo ’s motion to dismiss on grounds of a bsolute judicial immunity must be denied. See i d . ; s ee also Stump , 435 U.S. at 355 – 69 ; Gallas , 211 F.3d at 768 – 73 .”
THE NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL WROTE IN PART:
Remarkably these judges: “rejected DiLeo’s defenses based on absolute judicial immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity, and also upheld counts against Linden based on direct liability and conspiracy.”
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU GET THE 16 PAGE DECISIONS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT BECAUSE THEY ARE DAMNING TO JUDGES WHO BREAK THE LAW.
SEE THIRD CIRCUIT OPINION HERE:
Today the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals PIERCED JUDICIAL IMMUNITY.
THIS DECISION MAY HELP SET A LEGAL PRECEDENT IN NEW JERSEY & PA
(OFFICIALLY HOWEVER THE DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL…)
FOR OVER 100 YEARS AMERICAN JUDGES HAVE PLACED THEMSELVES
ABOVE THE LAW.
ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES THEMSELVES: Judges have decided that they can not be sued for their actions as judges, in fact they have decided they can not be criminally prosecuted for committing crimes while acting as judges.
- While Congress nor any state legislature has ever passed a law providing immunity for Judges, the judges within the United States have granted immunity to themselves. Often despite local and state statutes which EXPRESSLY recognize OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT as a crime that any public office holder can be convicted of.
Judges have often reinterpreted the law to exclude themselves and their peer group from any criminal or civil liability, as such Supreme Court precedents and follow-on lower court rulings have built up a massive library of precedential rulings that support JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. Cases such as:
- Bradly v. Fischer (1873)- Is Recognized by Scholars as the first case granting judicial immunity in
- Stump v. Sparkman (1978)- Judge was immune after unlawfully ordering a womans reproductive organs removed
- Pierson v. Ray (1967) – Immunity is available only when a judge has jurisdiction over the subject-matter
NOTABLE HISTORY AND CONTROVERSY OF
Stump v. Sparkman was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court and became the law of the land. It is often cited as grounds for absolving a Judge of any criminal or civil liability under the “doctrine” of “Judicial Immunity”.
Stump v. Sparkman was a contraversal decision – even for the Supreme Court. Two Justices entered dissenting opinions and called the decision of the Supreme Court’s Majority “Beyond the Pale”:
Justice Stewart’s dissent
(In Stump v. Sparkman)
Associate Justice Potter Stewart entered a vigorous dissent. Agreeing that judges of general jurisdiction enjoy absolute immunity for their judicial acts, he wrote, “…what Judge Stump did…was beyond the pale of anything that could sensibly be called a judicial act.” Stating that it was “factually untrue” that what Judge Stump did was an act “normally performed by a judge,” he wrote. “…there is no reason to believe that such an act has ever been performed by any other Indiana judge, either before or since.”
Justice Stewart also denounced it as “legally unsound” to rule that Judge Stump had acted in a “judicial capacity”. “A judge is not free, like a loose cannon,” he wrote, “to inflict indiscriminate damage whenever he announces that he is acting in his judicial capacity.”
Concluding, Justice Stewart argued that the majority misapplied the law of the Pierson case:
Not one of the considerations…summarized in the Pierson opinion was present here. There was no “case,” controversial or otherwise. There were no litigants. There was and could be no appeal. And there was not even the pretext of principled decisionmaking. The total absence of any of these normal attributes of a judicial proceeding convinces me that the conduct complained of in this case was not a judicial act.
Justice Powell’s dissent
(In Stump v. Sparkman)
Joining in Justice Stewart’s opinion, Justice Lewis Powell filed a separate dissent that emphasized what he called “…the central feature of this case – Judge Stump’s preclusion of any possibility for the vindication of respondents’ rights elsewhere in the judicial system.” Continuing, he wrote:
Underlying the Bradley immunity…is the notion that private rights can be sacrificied in some degree to the achievement of the greater public good deriving from a completely independent judiciary, because there exist alternative forums and methods for vindicating those rights.
But where a judicial officer acts in a manner that precludes all resort to appellate or other judicial remedies that otherwise would be available, the underlying assumption of the Bradley doctrine is inoperative.
PEIRSON V. RAY: GRANTED IMMUNITY TO ANY JUDGE WITH SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.
TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH:
- ALMOST ALL STATE JUDGES IN SUPERIOR COURTS HAVE GENERAL JURISDICTION
- THIS HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS TO MEAN THEY ALWAYS HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND ARE ALWAYS IMMUNE
….. BUT TODAY WE GOT SOME GOOD NEWS
IN THIS ABUSIVE AREA OF “THE LAW”…..
THE BACK STORY ON
TODAY’S FEDERAL COURT RULING (3rd Circuit):
Judge Dileo, a former Judge of Linden, NJ Municipal Court convicted two defendants of crimes at a trial in which the Prosecutor was not present. READ AN ARTICLE HERE FOR DETAILS:
The Judge acted as prosecutor and let a police officer cross-examine the defendants at the “trial”. This violated the constitutional rights of the accused according to the complaint filed by the Defendants in Federal Court.
Judge Dileo later resigned from office after this issue came to light.
The New Jersey A.C.J.C. (Judicial Conduct Watchdog) publicly sanctioned Judge Dileo AFTER HE RESIGNED. The Supreme Court of New Jersey barred him from acting as a Judge in New Jersey as a result
See the ACJC documents and the N.J. Supreme Court Order Describing the JUDGE DILEO’S OUTRAGEOUS ACTS HERE