Tag Archives: Judicial Immunity

CITIZENS ARE THE MOST POWERFUL “LEGAL PERSON” IN COURT

Standard

===========================================

NOTICE:

THE FIRST 1-2 ARTICLES ON THIS SITE ARE

PERMANENT STICKY POSTS SCROLL DOWN OR VISIT ARCHIVES

TO VIEW NEW ARTICLES

===========================================

King Crown

 

A DIFFERENT THEORY ON:

HOW TO DECLARE CITIZEN’S SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY

AS A CONSTITUTIONAL CREATION: A CITIZEN

 

Some of our readers have asked us about “Sovereign Citizen Movements” and they have asked what our opinon is (as if it matters in court).

THE BAD NEWS FOR SO CALLED SOVEREIGN CITIZENS:

Without taking a stand one way or the other on the legal theories offered by sovereign citizen movements such as Posse Comitatus etc. Our position is simple. “Sovereign Citizens” rarely win in court and the complex legal arguments are rarely helpful to anyones cause (whether they are right or wrong).

 

THE GOOD NEWS:

We don’t believe that anyone needs to give up their drivers license or pitch a conspiracy theory to a Judge to claim Sovereignty.  We believe that CITIZENS ARE INHERENTLY “THE SOVEREIGN” with or without their Drivers License or Social Security Card.

The Sovereignty  of citizen / the people is recognized by the Constitution of the United States of America, visa vi the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which states (in toto):

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

(Clearly the Constitution recognized both the sovereignty of the state and the people by expressly establishing that both have inherent power / authority independent of the Federal Sovereign, and independently from each other!)

 

THE MOST POWERFUL LEGAL PERSON IN COURT:

 

  • A pro se / Self Represented Litigant Appears as at least 5 “legal persons”:

1. A citizen (A Constitutional Creation) who claims ownership of the authority of; The Court, The Executive Branch, The Legislatrure (as the primary sovereign Authority in America)

2. As Attorney-in-Fact (A  Legal  Person) with Litigation Privileges Equal to an Attorney at Law)

3. A Witness-of-Fact (A Legal Person) with the authority to speak to the facts of the matter thereof, and put them before the court (Neither Lawyer or Judge may do this)

4. A Real-Party-of-Interest (A Legal Person)  with rights to advocate for their individual legal interests in the matter before the court, without being either representing the Defendant or Plaintiff in the matter before the court.

5. A Natural Man in the Flesh (A Sovereign Creation) empowered with INALIENABLE RIGHTS that pre-date the Magna Carta (With the Power to reform Government and arrest any criminal)

CONVERSELY

JUDGES & ATTORNEYS LACK SIMILAR AUTHORITY & RIGHTS:

 

  • A Judge appears: ONLY AS as  the highest ranking an officer of the Court at trial & Neutral Fact Finder.

    • A Judge enters the court in this single capacity (not as citizen, or sovereign, but only as agent to the sovereign)
    • A Judge: CAN NOT ACT AS WITNESS TO THE FACTS OF THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT, (except with regard to facts of the matter that occurred during the court proceedings)  (Citation: N.J.R.E. 605, F.R.E. 605)
    • A Judge Can Not Over-rule a Citizen Jury at trial.
    • A Judge Can Demand a Verdict From a Jury BUT A JURY CAN NULLIFY A CASE AND REFUSE TO PROVIDE A VERDICT!, because they are sovereign citizens… IN FACT THE JURY IS THE “4TH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT”, per  U.S. Supreme Court  Justice Scalia

(Citation Williams v. United States, 1996)

 

  • An Attorney-at-law appears: ONLY as an officer of the Court at trial on behalf of a client.

    • An Attorney HAS NO RIGHTS, JUST PRIVILEGES, which can be taken at away at the whim of the court or B.A.R. Association
    • An Attorney can only advocate for their privileged title / position (if taken away) by invoking their rights as a citizen – but not while acting as a retained lawyer.

 

 

…AS SUCH:

NO PARTY IN COURT HAS MORE AUTHORITY & RIGHTS THAN

A PRO SE CITIZEN

 

 

 

 

 

HERE IS OUR THEORY ON CITIZEN SOVEREIGNTY

&

THE FACT THAT CITIZENS ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN JUDGES

 

 

YOUR HONOR – TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THIS THESE FACTS:

The American Form of Government (and our legal system’s) primary difference with the British Common law is that we rejected the concept of divine sovereignty of royals, and instead recognized the sovereignty of natural men and their rights to self-govern with sovereign power.

AS SUCH:

WE hereby assert that WE (THE CITIZENS) have the sovereign authority to now hold you (JUDGES) accountable for these transgressions in open court today. 

WE make this assertion with out making any claim to the disputed or conspiratorial theories espoused by so-called “Sovereign Citizens”.

Importantly WE take no stance on any of the purported theories of such Sovereign Citizens, nor do WE attempt to claim any allegiance to any groups that advocate for such theories (e.g. Posse Comitatus, or their ilk)

Unlike the Posse Comitatus and their ilk:

 

I / WE make claim to my citizenship & sovereignty BY ASSERTING MY CITIZENSHIP RATHER THAN DISAVOWING IT AS SO-CALLED “SOVEREIGN CITIZENS” PURPORT TO DO.

I / WE  do not believe that consenting to hold a drivers license or Social Security Card interferes with OUR sovereign authority as a citizen.

 

… INSTEAD WE MAKE THE FOLLOWING CLAIM:

 

I / WE MAKE OUR CLAIM TO SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY BECAUSE I / WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL CREATION.

I / WE ARE CITIZEN(S) OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND I / WE  ARE A CITIZEN OF NEW JERSEY.

 

AS SUCH:

I / WE ARE MEMBERS OF THE MOST POWERFUL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, AS CITIZENS.

AS SUCH:

I / WE HAVE AN OWNERSHIP STAKE IN ALL FOUR BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT

(Executive, Legislative, Judicial, and Jury (Grand Jury & Petite Jury) )

 

To this point I /WE demand you take judicial notice of the following widely known facts:

 

1) The system of Self-Government embodied by the Federal and State Constitutions recognize the power of citizens to form or reform the government however we so choose, because the power of the sovereign is recognized to originate from the citizen class.

 

2) Citizens are the alpha-omega of sovereignty in the American Legal System:

The Government is simply a result of our sovereignty, as such it is indisputably the “BETA” to the citizens “ALPHA” position within the legal construct of Government.

Citations: Declaration of Indpendence 1976 (in toto / in whole), Constitution of the United States of America, original Jurisdiction 1787 (in toto), State Constitution of New Jersey 1947 (in toto)

 

3) Citizens own and control the FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT (THE GRAND JURY). This was confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the majority Opinion written by Justice Scalia in United States v. Williams (90-1972), 504 U.S. 36 (1992).

Citation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1972.ZS.html

 

4) The American Form of Government (and our legal system’s) primary difference with the British Common law is that we rejected the concept of divine sovereignty of royals, and instead recognized the sovereignty of natural men and their rights to self-govern with sovereign power.

 

5) Citizens are among the only Constitutional persons who can completely disregard the doctrine of separation of powers between each of the branches of government, because we own all four branches.

Citizens own the authority’s granted to the Governor

Citizens own the authority granted to the legislature

Citizens own the authority granted to the court

Citizens are the authority of the Jury (Both Grand and Petite)

Citizens of New Jersey are the only persons constitutionally empowered to both arrest and prosecute the a criminal matter, which the same (person/)citizen witnessed

Citizens are the only constitutional creation who can conspire to reform all four branches of government by the sheer power of their will.

While the individual branches of  Government lack the sole authority to control AND fund a well armed Militia… We the citizens can fund and control a Well Armed Militia, in fact in some rare cases – WE ARE the Well Armed Militia.

 

 

WHAT WE DO WHEN A JUDGE ACTS UNLAWFULLY TOWARD

“THE SOVEREIGN”

Boston Tea Party

WE DECLARE A MISTRIAL

&

WE DECLARE OUR SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY TO DO SO

======================================================
YOUR HONOR, GIVEN THE ABOVE:

IN CASE YOU MISSED THE NEWS A FEW YEARS AGO:

…. A FEW OF US CITIZENS THREW SOME TEA IN THE OCEAN AND….
======================================================

 

YOUR HONOR, YOU HAVE INSULTED, DEMEANED, AND DIMINISHED THE INTEGRITY OF THIS COURT.

AS YOUR SOVEREIGN I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT A SECOND LONGER.

 

LIKE A CHILD WHO DISOBEYS THEIR PARENT YOU HAVE DISAPPOINTED ME AND WILL NOW BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO YOUR PARENT.

 

YOUR HONOR, YOUR BIGGEST MISTAKE WITH REGARD TO MY LEGAL AFFAIRS AND YOUR BIGGEST SIN HAS BEEN YOUR ARROGANCE.

TODAY I WILL ASSURE YOU I  WILL REMOVE THAT CONCERN FROM THIS COURT FOREVER.

 

AS YOUR SOVEREIGN I DEMAND YOU STEP DOWN FROM THE BENCH WITH REGARD TO THIS MATTER.

YOU ARE NOT CLOAKED IN ANY JUDICIAL IMMUNITY GIVEN THE TRANSGRESSIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE (YOUR COURT ORDERS), YOU ARE NO LONGER NEUTRAL, AND YOU ARE NO LONGER THE JUDGE OF THE FACTS THEREOF IN THIS MATTER…

BEGONE I SAY…

BEGONE NOW OR:

I WILL PLACE YOU UNDER ARREST.

I WILL DEMAND YOUR TREASON BE FULLY PROSECUTED BY THE STATE, AND

BE ASSURED THAT ANY MISDEMEANOR CRIMES MAY BE PROSECUTED BY MYSELF AS A PRIVATE PROSECUTOR PURSUANT THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION AND:

MY COMMON LAW RIGHT TO HAVE YOU CRIMINALLY SANCTIONED AT TRIAL!

King Crown

 

I remind the court that I hold more powers and privileges than

any other legal person in the court today.

 

Citizens appear in court as:

5 DISTINCT LEGAL “PERSONS” SIMULTANEOUSLY!

1) I am a “Citizen” of New Jersey (“a legal person”) empowered with the right to:

a) Arrest criminals who commit crimes in my presence (even a Judge can not do this while on the bench)

b) Prosecute crimes privately per the New Jersey Constitution of 1947 (even a Judge while on the bench)

c) I have the right to conspire to reform any of the three representative branches of Government without regard to the Separation of Powers Doctrine

2) I am an pro se “Attorney-in-Fact” (a “Legal Person”) for the cause before the court with the right to

a) File my pleadings without adhering to the court rules (neither a judge or a member of the bar can do this)

b) Access the court in whatever legal manner I desire to with regard to resolving my legal matters

3) I am a “Witness-of-Fact” (a “Legal Person”)

a) I have the power to testify to facts-of-the-matter-thereof, unlike an attorney or Judge

b) A judge can not do this according to N.J.R.E. 605 / F.R.E. 605  because: “a judge may not serve as witness and judge in the same matter”.

c) A lawyer can not testify to facts of the matter if those facts are also within the Knowledge of their client… only a pro se, citizen can testify in this manner.

 

4)I am a “Real Party” (a “Legal Person”) with rights greater than a witness-of-fact or citizen

1) A Real Party of Interest is a party with a stake or claim to the underlying legal proceedings

2) A Real Party of Interest has the right to be notified of court proceedings affecting their interests and they have the right due-process.

3) All court orders which result without providing opportunity for a real party of interest to be heard are voidable, even if they were issued years ago.

 

5) I am a “Natural Man” (a “Sovereign Creation”)

a) I have INALIENABLE RIGHTS which pre-date the Declaration of Indpendence, the Magna Carta, and the corpus of common-law.

b) American Jurisprudence and law is founded on the idea that every man has inalienable rights such as freedom and pursuit of liberty

CONCLUSION:

Gavel Broken

WE BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE FILE WITH THE COURT WE SIMPLY NEED TO INVOKE THE RIGHTS OF ALL 5 LEGAL PERSONS WITHIN THE MOTION PAPERS TO ASSERT THE RIGHTS DESCRIBED ABOVE.

 

IN OTHERWORDS:

Expressly include in our motions:

Plaintiff/Defendant

appearing as the following legal persons:

pro se, attorney-in-fact;

Citizen of New Jersey & United States of America;

witness-in-fact;

real party of interest; and

Natural Man

(herewith invoking legal all rights and  privileges applicable to the aforementioned legal persons)

 

ITS A CUMBERSOME SOLUTION BUT, ITS A RESULT OF HAVING MORE LEGAL TITLES THAN ANY OTHER PARTY IN COURT.

 

OUR MOTIONS WOULD THEN INCLUDE:

A SHORT LEGAL ARGUMENT

SUPPORTING OUR AUTHORITY AS THE AFOREMENTIONED LEGAL

PERSONS AND OUR SOVEREIGNTY PURSUANT THE 10TH AMENDMENT.

 

The End Writing

ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY – NOT ABSOLUTE IN NEW JERSEY ANYMORE!

Standard

Gavel Stopper

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

Greatest American Hero

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:

 KIRKLAND v. DILEO THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 2014

Lady Justice Soldier

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…)

Scales Flaiming

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:

NOTABLE HISTORY AND CONTROVERSY OF

“JUDICIAL IMMUNITY”

Serfs Dont fight back

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”.

Notably:

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.”[11] Stating that it was “factually untrue”[11] 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.”[12]

Justice Stewart also denounced it as “legally unsound” to rule that Judge Stump had acted in a “judicial capacity”.[12] “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.”[12]

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.[13]

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.”[14] 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.[15]

WORSE STILL:

PEIRSON V. RAY: GRANTED IMMUNITY TO ANY JUDGE WITH SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.

TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH:

  1. ALMOST ALL STATE JUDGES IN SUPERIOR COURTS HAVE GENERAL JURISDICTION
  2. 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”…..

Court Order Judge

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

0001910cba29056841e3b2e8ca7f16074ab

READ IT AND THEN THINK

…WOW!!!