The Cure for Bad Marketing in Jail 4 Judges

J.A.I.L (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) Amendment, promoted by Ron Branson in Jail 4 Judges (jail for judges) didn’t sit right with me when I first ran across it a few years ago. See the Florida version below. I write to tell you why I disagreed and what Jail 4 Judges should do to correct it.

J.A.I.L.'s Central Flaws

I thought over the issue of grand juries and bringing bad judges and other "gerps" (government perpetrators of crimes) to justice. Even though I endorsed the implementation of the Special Grand Jury provisions in basic intent and thrust, I sent Ron Branson a revision proposal explaining my difference of opinion. He didn’t exactly give me the middle finger. But he referred to the amendment as it now stands as a fait accompli and refused to change a thing. I disagreed then and do now, not so much because of the purpose, but because of the presentation and circumscribed application to judges only, rather than to all public officers.

J.A.I.L. as an initiative has a central flaw: it singles out judges as the target of the amendment. Even the name of the organization, “Jail 4 Judges” carries with it a message that dooms its efforts because it singles out judges to go jail. Branson obviously thought it a cute name that reveals his purpose. That alone sealed its fate. So far. Promoting jail for judges amounts to political suicide for the initiative.

The name and acronym selection for the organization and the amendment underscore the obvious failure to do and heed well-crafted marketing surveys before formulating the amendment and launching it as a project.

J.A.I.L. has other core flaws.  It should:

• apply to ALL PUBLIC OFFICERS, not merely judges;
• stipulate that any violation of the loyalty oath or code of conduct/ethics makes a public officer subject to investigation and indictment, not allow bar members to serve on the SGJ;
• require that members of the SGJ have college degrees and pass a test showing basic knowledge of the Constitutions of the USA and State, particulary the people’s rights;
• Specify similar rules for all grand juries, particularly that grand jurors must have good educations and be upstanding members of the community (not just non-felon voters), that the state must have on empaneled in every judicial circuit/district at all times, and that it must facilitate presentation of evidence to in person by anyone in the public who wants to submit that evidence, that citizens can bypass the state attorney with any criminal complaint (misdemeanor or felony) against a public employee, that all judges must sign a sworn criminal complaint presented to the court by anyone, and hand it to law enforcement to investigate and upon finding of probable cause make an arrest and hand the evidence to the grand jury AND state/district attorney, not just to the attorney.

I note that the Uniform Law Commission should have proposed a standardized set of grand jury laws, but (not surprisingly) it has not, and all the states should adopt them uniformly, as they have done the UCC. For some reason the legal community believes State/District Attorneys do just fine in determining whether to prosecute someone, but we all know they don’t, in large part because they assume prerogative to “plea bargain” in order to save government money, and this easily results in unreliability of the law, conviction of the innocent, and release of the guilty. J.A.I.L. doesn’t address this at all, but it needn’t if we had standardized grand jury laws.

I also note that the judiciary’s leaders seem to think themselves and their branch above the laws enacted by the legislature. They make their own rules (civ pro, crim pro, evidence, admin, etc) that actually interfere with rights. And the fees they charge, and vexatious litigant classifications, amount to outrageous defeats of the right of access to the court.

Marketing 101 Lessons

Okay, back to the marketing theme. Let’s examine the issue of crafting and marketing an initiative. J.A.I.L. ignores critical lessons from Marketing 101:

1. Always survey to determine:
• Target audience
• The product name that will appeal to them while creating brand awareness
• The product formulation that they need and want
• The emotional level on which to promote the product.
2. Always test-market the product on a small subset of the target audience

Survey Before Selling

You get a bright idea about something you believe people really need and will support. You spend years developing and promoting it. It fails. Why? You never bothered to ask members of your target audience what they need and want, determine their emotional level, and communicate what they need and want to them on that level. Fatal to the campaign, you did not offer them what they need and want on a level they can tolerate and will embrace. Worse, you did not even accurately determine your target audience.

Whom NOT to Target and Why

Okay, so whom do you target with J.A.I.L.? Well for starters you DON’T target the DECIDED. You don’t target your avid supporters (people abused by judges) because they will vote for it no matter what. And you don’t target those who hate you and your ideas, for they will vote against it no matter what. Instead, you target the UNDECIDED. Ron Branson targeted only his supporters. And the noise you hear about the J.A.I.L. mostly comes from its detractors: jurists, members of the group he wants to put in jail. In the end, those behind the South Dakota J.A.I.L. amendment failed - did not succeed in getting it approved by voters. The noise-makers (like well-respected jurists like Sandra Day O’Connor) swayed the electorate into rejecting the amendment.

Purpose of Surveys

Surveys (polling) become vitally necessary to such initiatives because the results guide the promoters. Only with surveys can you find out what the voters need and want, and the emotional level on which to promote the solution. You cannot guess at this because if you do, you will typically suffer defeat.

Act (Promote and Sell) According to Survey Results

And you have to believe your survey results and act accordingly. If you find out that most people think of bad judges as just “naughty” and not truly heinous, then some high-profile jurist like Sandra Day O’Connor will convince them judges must enjoy immunity in order freely to exercise their judgment. I know of no test for judges that determines whether they do or don’t have what we might call judgment, much less “good” judgment, but I’ll save that argument for another article.

I have done a small survey of my own, and discovered that most undecided people don’t want judges in jail. They believe then we wouldn’t have anyone to toss the REAL crooks in jail.

You don’t CHOOSE a name and slogan till AFTER you do the survey and find out what the UNDECIDED voters perceive, need, want, and will support (and what they don’t want and won’t support). You then devise a campaign to inform the undecided that the existing situation gives them what they don’t want, and the proposed solution will give them what they do want. Then they’ll vote for it.

And so, you must promote proofs heavily to the UNDECIDED voters. The promo must make the problem and the solution REAL to them.

• You must show how judges abuse the public with bad rulings just because they enjoy that immunity, and that badly affects EVERYONE, the INNOCENT worst of all.
• You must explain the judicial oligarchy that exists in the states as a consequence of the bar belonging to the judiciary.
• You must show that judges control the legislature and government attorneys in every branch as their army of henchmen.
• You must show that they undermine the legislature and suborn the executive branch by incessantly flouting the laws and creating laws from the bench.
• You must make people fear the government in general and judiciary in particularly as an evil force against the interests of the people.
• You might even show how the wild growth of prison industries, and investment by governments of trust fund (mostly retirement system) money in them, encourages cops and sheriffs to arrest and incarcerate innocent people, and judges to convict them and leave them incarcerated.
• You must show how only the initiative can solve the problem by holding all public officers (not just judges) accountable for disobeying their sworn loyalty oaths and canons of ethics.

Thenn (then and ONLY THEN) can you get undecided voters to decide to support the initiative.

Pick a Name that Sounds Good to the Undecided

But why work extra hard to convince people of something when you don’t have to? With a different name and a different slogan (certainly not Jail 4 Judges) you don’t alarm the rank and file undecided voter. You make it easier to convince them of the sanity of the initiative and make them think of you as intelligent and noble citizens. You make it harder for them to think of you and the initiative as kooks, rabble-rousers, and rebels.

I might, for example, knowing voters generally don’t want judges in jail, pick a name and acronym like these:

• Public Officers Supporting Honesty Amendment (POSH or POSHA) – this makes it seem that public officers stand behind it.
• Honestify Our Republic Amendment (HORA)
• Strengthen Our Grand Juries Amendment (SOGJA)

People already know POSH means “high class.” Upon reading/hearing the name they will automatically think of the proposed amendment as something good and classy, without knowing anything more about it. This uses the law of learning known as Association – people tend to remember something new by associating it mentally with something they already know, and if they consider the thing they know as “good,” they will consider the associated thing good too.

And, POSHA sounds like Porsche, the high-quality, high-performance sports car. It causes a similar mental association with something good.

Google HORA for its various meanings, none of which have anything bad associated with them. To Latinos “a hora” means “now.” In Greek mythology, it means “at the correct moment” or one of three goddesses who bestow ripeness. Israelis and Balkans know the term as a form of circle dance.

Putting a vowel at the end of an acronym makes it more acceptable and friendly to Ibero-Americans, about 50 million people in the USA. That will more easily get the Latino vote, without any further explanation of the meaning.

Always Survey Before Selling

Take note that I have made suggestions without surveying them, and one should always survey the target audience before devising a name or campaign for final distribution, then test a campaign in a small subset of that target audience before launching. Regardless of what you think of my suggestions, they might work or not work, and you cannot know with relative certainty whether they will work until and unless you survey the target. Always survey before selling your product or service.

Oh, I didn’t survey YOU to find out if you need or want my comments about this, did I? Tell me… did I waste my time? If I did, then I feel thankful this only cost me time and not a bunch of money. Think of the enormous cost in time, money, and black P.R. of the failed J.A.I.L. amendment. You’ll see the sense of surveying BEFORE selling.

I realize that most lawyers don’t need surveys because people desperate for their help in the legal services monopoly will beat a path to their doors, thanks to UPL and the general hostility of judges to pro se litigants. Nevertheless, if you have an interest in learning how to craft a survey that works, let me know.

Bob Hurt ▪ 2460 Persian Drive #70 ▪ Clearwater, FL 33763 ▪ (727) 669-5511
Donate to my Law Scholarship
Let Jurisdictionary teach you to litigateStay updated on legal issues with the Lawmen Newsletter
Get Free Downloads from the Lawmen Archives

Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.)

(a) Preamble. We, the People of Florida, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; and when judges abuse their power, the people are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend under Article I, Article V of our Constitution with these provisions, which shall be known as "The Judicial Accountability Amendment."
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this amendment:

1. The term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void judgment or order.

2. The term "judge" shall mean justice, judge, magistrate, commissioner, judge pro tem, private judge, judicial mediator, arbitrator and referee, and every person shielded by judicial immunity.

3. The term "Juror" shall mean a Special Grand Juror.

4. The term "seat" shall mean a situs and facility that is suitable for usage by the Jury.

5. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision.

6. Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural.

(c) Immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shall be extended to any judge of this State except as is specifically set forth in this Amendment. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of Florida or the United States.

(d) Special Grand Juries. There are hereby created within this State two twenty-five member Special Grand Juries with statewide jurisdiction having power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county grand juries. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a judge would be frivolous and harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge complained of.
(e) Professional Counsel. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. Notwithstanding the one year, a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute current cases in which they are involved through all appeals and any complaints for judicial misconduct.
(f) Establishment of Special Grand Jury Seats. Within ninety days following the ratification of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a seat for each Special Grand Jury. No seat shall be located within a mile of any judicial body, and each seat shall be reasonably placed proportionately according to population throughout the state. Should the Legislature fail to so act within ninety days, its members shall permanently forfeit their salaries and per diem pay, beginning on the ninety-first day, until such time that it abides by the terms of this (f) section.
(g) Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be deducted two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into the exclusive trust account created by this Amendment in paragraph (k) for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph (h), surcharges under paragraph (i), forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph (q), and fines imposed under paragraph (r).
(h) Filing Fees. Attorneys filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Grand Jury in behalf of their client, shall at the time of filing, pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Grand Jury in their own behalf as a matter of right, shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of fifty dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee.
(i) Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph (g)), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to make this Amendment self-supporting.
(j) Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to a Circuit Court judge, prorated according to the number of days actually served.
(k) Annual Budget. The Special Grand Juries shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries of the fifty Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the State Controller. Should the trust balance within any budget year drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of thirty Circuit Court judges, the State Controller shall so notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the State Controller shall return such excess to the state treasury.
(l) Jurisdiction. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought before it, unless such case is transferred to another Special Grand Jury to achieve caseload balance. A transfer shall not prejudice a docketing deadline. The Special Grand Jury first docketing a complaint shall have sole jurisdiction of the case. Except as provided in paragraphs (s) and (w), no complaint of misconduct shall be considered by any Special Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period. (Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Juries become functional. This provision applies remedially and retroactively.) Should the complainant opt to proceed to the United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the disposition by that court.
(m) Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and have been an inhabitant of Florida for two years immediately prior to having his/her name drawn. Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons.
(n) Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn by public lot by the Secretary of State from names on the voters' rolls and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing.
(o) Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Juries, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two persons shall be rotated off the Special Grand Jury and new Citizens seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror drawn to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.
(p) Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed complaint upon the subject judge and notice to the complainant of such service. The judge shall have twenty days to serve and file an answer. The complainant shall have fifteen days to reply to the judge's answer. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions for good cause.) The Special Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. Each Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with its reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, serving on all parties its decision on whether immunity shall be barred as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Grand Jury within fifteen days with service upon the opposition. Fifteen days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination within thirty days. All allegations of the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring a perception of justice and accountability of the judiciary, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this Amendment against a State judge shall not commence until the rendering of a final decision by the Special Grand Jury. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen shall determine any matter.
(q) Removal. Whenever any judge has received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office, and thereafter shall not serve in any State judicial office, including that of private judge. Judicial retirement for such removed judge shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such person would have otherwise been entitled. Early retirement shall not avert third-strike penalties.
(r) Indictment. Should the Special Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge against whom a complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such judge except where double jeopardy attaches. The Special Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal relationship, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, the special trial jury shall have exclusive power of sentencing (limited to incarceration, fines and/or community service), which shall be derived by an average of the sentences of the trial jurors.
(s) Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct of a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury upon all the following prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.
(t) Public Indemnification. No judge complained of, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment.
(u) Enforcement. No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of the Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt.
(v) Redress. The provisions of this Amendment are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.
(w) Challenges to Amendment. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge to this Amendment, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class-action, or by any adversely affected person.
(x) Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflict with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision. The foreperson of the Special Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July. Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.

---

The original legislation was written by Ron Branson for California, but I, Sherree Lowe, adopted the legislation with the approval of Ron Branson and rewrote it to conform to Florida Constitution, and Statutes, so that it was approved by the Division of Elections, and assigned a bill number, 0206, so that the Initiative Petition collection could commence to put the legislation on the ballot.

Dealing with Sovereign Immunity

 

 

Contents

Executive Summary    3

The Impact of Judicial Immunity    3

What You Can Do About Judicial Immunity and Crooks in Government    4

Autocrat Remedy: When Sovereign Immunity Obstructs or Denies Official Remedy    5

The Militia: The Autocrat-Citizen's ultimate tool for defeating Government abuse    6

No Militia? Well, how about Autocratic Guerilla Activism?    6

Anti-Gerp Activism, or Tyranny: Your Choice    7

U.S. Supreme Court - Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984)    8

About the Author    10

 

 

Executive Summary

Sovereign immunity constitutes the scourge of America. It allows people in government to ignore their loyalty oaths to support the Constitution, and whimsically commit all kinds of crimes with impunity that you would get jailed for committing. Of all the pockets of crime in government, the judiciary and law enforcers compete for low honors. To the end of revealing a remedy for this, I want to focus your attention on the judiciary and judicial immunity, discuss the remedy for lack of remedy for government perpetrators of crimes (Gerps), and explore the challenges within in that collective or autocratic remedy.

The Impact of Judicial Immunity

The supreme courts create rules of procedure and administration to guide judges, but judges still have a lot of autonomy. Every judicial microcosm operates under its own rules and administrative orders as a quasi-independent oligarchic empire.

Judges have administrative and ministerial duties which they MUST perform without exercise of judicial discretion, and judicial duties which they MAY perform as they see fit and according to their own judgment. Judges get immunity from judicial errors, but not from ministerial errors. In other words, you can sue a judge with a tort complaint for failing to perform or flubbing the performance of a ministerial duty that results in an injury to you and consequent damages. But you cannot successfully sue a judge with a tort complaint for malfeasance in associated judicial duties.

Advocates of judicial immunity claim it allows judges to remain independent from adverse influence like the mob, big business, powerful law firms, and the like. They fail to realize that threats of violence to a judge's family, and financial and social entanglements can pressure a judge to ignore the oath. And such pressures happen all the time. Judicial immunity does not protect judges from those influences which have historically proven effective in subverting judges.

The judge can suffer discipline from the Supreme Court and Judicial Qualifications Commisssion for ethics violations, or from the Legislature through impeachment for serious judicial errors or criminal conduct.

You can and should file a criminal complaint against a judge who commits a crime, regardless of the circumstances. Unless the judge commits a truly heinous offense like murder or pederasty in judicial functions, law enforcers will probably not arrest, courts will probably not convict, and legislatures will probably not impeach the judge. But that should not stop you from complaining both to the law enforcers and to the Legislature Committee on the Judiciary in both houses.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Pulliam v. Allen 466 U.S. 522 (1984) (see synopsis below) that the English common law in which judicial immunity has its roots did not prohibit federal courts from awarding injunctive relief to victims of state court abuse. In other words, if a state or federal court judge abuses you by depriving you of your rights, you might get a federal court to enjoin a court from depriving you of those rights, and award you attorney fees and court costs. While that humiliation won't punish the judge or compensate your injury, it can stop the abuse.

Judicial immunity constitutes the single worst policy in government, for it lies at the root of all continued malfeasance everywhere else in Government. Next to that in egregiousness comes any other government prerogative to allow or disallow anyone to sue the government and obtain damages for unlawful injuries. I suppose it makes sense that everyone in government wants immunity from punishment for crimes. But the loyalty oaths the Constitutions and laws require them to swear puts them on notice that we know they will feel pressure to show disloyalty to us, so we require them to state the solem intention and commitment to support the Constitution.

We think, perhaps stupidly, and in many cases wrongly, that their scruples will make them actually obedient to the Constitution in respect to retaining the republican form of government and enforcing the guarantees of our rights. But regardless of what they swear or what we the people think, many, if not most, jurists commit throughout their careers an array of felonies, misdemeanors, and malfeasances against the People through judicial, administrative, and ministerial misconduct.

Because judges can get away with many and varied crimes under the protection of that immunity, they actually do get away with them. In the process, they illegally create laws, interpret laws as meaning the opposite or something other from what the laws say, and they often ruin people's lives willy-nilly with terrible rulings and abuse litigants in fits of rage and retribution. And there's nothing easy you can do about it… not much, anyway.

What You Can Do About Judicial Immunity and Crooks in Government

If you don't like judicial abuse and the undeserved and corrupting immunity judges enjoy, you can take action to correct the situation. You won't find much of this action easy. But at least you can do it, up to a point, without getting killed for it.

1. Internal - I suppose I should add this to the list: "Reform your own scruples, keep yourself moral, ethical, intelligent, educated, honorable, and righteous." For surely you realize that dishonor, corruption, ethics lapses, and criminality among the voting public lead to those same characteristics among public servants. But I'll save that admonition for a Sunday sermon.
   
2. Personal Notice – inform the judge through personal correspondence of the judge's unacceptable behavior and the need to correct it through personal reform.
   
3. Political – change the Constitutions to eliminate immunity from government in general and from judges in particular. Remember that a Republic binds the rulers with the same laws as the ruled. ANY immunity for a government operative constitutes an element of destruction of the Republic.
   
4. Legal – file administrative, civil, and criminal complaints against the bastards. Complain in writing to the Judicial Qualifications Commission to get them disciplined, and the House Committee on the Judiciary to get them impeached.
   
5. Administrative – file injury complaints with their insurers an bonding agencies, and the State and County Risk Management agencies, and the bar insurer. In most jurisdictions this will not work without a court order. Fat chance you will get that.
   
6. Social – hire private investigator to dig into their personal lives and expose their dirt to their friends, neighbors, family members, employers, colleagues, fellow members of social clubs and professional associations.
   
7. Guerilla Activism – Read CUSA Amendments 9 and 10 ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
   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.") and review Article I Section 2 of the Florida Constitution of 1838 ("Section 2. That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient. "). These empower you to create remedy of your own where none exists.
   

Autocrat Remedy: When Sovereign Immunity Obstructs or Denies Official Remedy

I want to point out the significance in #6 above, just in case the text I quoted did not "ring" your bell. It means that when you cannot get remedy in and from the law and its practitioners, particularly jurists, for wrongs committed against you in or out of government, you have the right AND (if you can wield it) the POWER to create your own remedy. In other words, the lack of official remedy constitutes the path to remedy by the autocrat: YOU.

For example, let us suppose you try all the administrative and legal methods for making a crooked judge honest and making that judge compensate you for a wrong the judge did to you or permitted someone else to do to you. You lobby your politicians to change laws to remove judicial immunity. You sue to no avail. You file a criminal complaint to no avail. You file bar, JQC, and impeachment complaints, and claims against the judge's insurance policy, to no avail. You dig up dirt on the judge and expose it to the news media and everyone able to pressure the judge to do right, to no avail. Now what do you do?

You may, with permission of the Constitutions of the USA and your state, summarily remove a crooked judge from office, all by your self. And you may do it "in such a manner as" you "deem expedient." Don't look at me or accuse me of advocating anarchy here. I have quoted to you directly from the U.S. and Florida Constitutions. And according to my reading of the quoted text, they do indeed acknowledge (not merely permit, which they have no authority to do) your POWER to create your own remedy when you cannot get one from Government.

The term "power" provides a bit of a bone of contention, for it implies the ability to deploy psychic and/or physical FORCE to accomplish an objective. Obviously, if a judge commands marshals, bailiffs, and the entire Sheriff's department to come after you for trying to remove the judge, you must have the "power" to stave off their attack and convince them to put the judge, not you, under arrest.

Where, oh where, will you get such power? Maybe in the ranks of the veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe in the people getting trained in the Dismal Swamp area of North Carolina known as "Blackwater." Maybe among your family, friends, and neighbors.

In other words, you have the power to take remedial action when the government does not sufficiently provide it, IFF (if and only if) you have and can command and deploy sufficient force. Why? Because they, the crooks in government, will "not go gentle into that good night."

The Militia: The Autocrat-Citizen's ultimate tool for defeating Government abuse

That fact about power should clue you in as to the reason the framers of the Constitutions so readily referred to "the militia." Only a militia can possibly have sufficient force to remove criminals from government forthwith when the government itself won't do it. The militia MUST have local commanders loyal not to government but to the principles of good government clarified in the Constitutions. The militia must have a sufficiently cellular, Rapid-Attack Fast-Escape (RAFE) nature to operate as a guerilla force against a much more powerful national guard or military. The militia must have sufficient armament, surveillance, intelligence-gathering, and planning ability to stand up against a national guard or military.

Reviewing these principles we quickly see how Saddam Hussein and other tribal thugs rise to power so quickly and keep power so long. They command an army that snuffs out opposition by surprise with overwhelming force. And look at the armament and surveillance tools of the modern US military forces – satellite and RPAVs that can detonate a house with an energy beam or smart bomb. What ghost of a chance does any militia have against that, if it comes down to a contest between the two?

Well, local sheriffs don't quite have that kind of power, but they have plenty of force, enough to beat any militia group today, if I don't miss my guess.

No Militia? Well, how about Autocratic Guerilla Activism?

But justice seekers should remind themselves that those who constitutionally remove criminals from government without discovery of their own identities don't necessarily need the backing of a militia. In fact, government snooping makes it difficult to hide communications such as that needed to coordinate militia activities. So maybe a justice seeker must operate alone. So, they could, if so inclined, become autocrats who employ guerilla tactics in their activism to effect honesty in government.

It goes without saying that engaging in the ultimate actions under #6 above will paint a huge target on the actor. But one should also recognize the personal risk in items #1 through #5 above. Those actions would make one known to the establishment as a rabble-rouser or political/patriot activist. Then members of the establishment, particularly powerful targets of the activism, who would become aware of the activist, might engage in pre-emptive retribution or reprisal against that activist. That would disable or cause the demise of the activist, and the crooks in government would go back to their rat-killing. As one ex-cop told me, a deputy or cop could stop the activist in traffic, crack a tail light on the activist's car, interview the activist, have an accomplice toss a rock of crack cocain in the activist's car window, and then bust the activist for possession of narcotics. It has happened before, more than once. Therefore, any such activist should take special precautions to protect his identity, family, posessions, and personal safety.

Do I advocate taking the law into one's own hands? Well, no, for a number of reasons. But I cannot blame anybody from feeling outraged for the failure of government to give constitutional justice to the people, or for protecting crooks in government. And I don't blame anybody for circumventing a system of injustice that guarantees they will lose any case in court not on its merits but because of judicial corruption or malfeasance.

If someone were to ask me whether I'd miss half a dozen of the most crooked judges in any given judicial circuit of Florida, I'd have to answer "No. Good riddance." And it wouldn't matter much to me how they made their exit from office.

But I caution anyone considering how to cause the voluntary or involuntary exit of a corrupt judge from office to think carefully about the ramifications and consequences of the undertaking. If crooked judges started disappearing, the public should first broadly think of those judges as crooks. Otherwise, the public might support a government crackdown to protect crooked judges. Only a concerted effort to expose a judge through formal administrative and criminal complaints, lawsuits, private investigations, blogs, and news media announcements will make the public generally aware of the crookedness of that judge. So even if I did recommend, which I do not, taking out a judge through the constitutional method prescribed in #6 above, I would suggest taking all the other actions above first, and doing it in such a way as to retain anonymity.

Anti-Gerp Activism, or Tyranny: Your Choice

I don't mean to single out Gerps (Government perpetrators of crimes under color of law) as targets for extinction. Actually, I want to witness the extinction of the "crimes" they "commit under color of law." I want to see this happen as a consequence of Gerps becoming honorable and lawful in their activities by their own personal choice. But, I believe they suffer an inertia that makes it virtually impossible, in today's society, for them to do that.

Furthermore, I don't want to go "against" anything in government. For I far prefer to work, lobby, and activate "for" honesty, honor, integrity, and lawfulness in government.

However, I have the country-boy attitude about Gerps the same as about snakes. Whoever stands closest to the snake grab a stick and whack it. Anybody who witness Gerp behavior should take immediate action to reign it in and turn it honorable. If we could effectively do that with words and gestures, we would. But so far, for the history of the world, that has resulted only in tyranny and more tyranny. Converting Gerps into people of honor, honesty, integrity, and lawfulness requires political process backed by brute force. And because America's electorate is itself so effete and corrupt, with upwards or 80 million having insufficient intelligence to graduate from high school, millions upon millions subsising on government handouts and street crimes, and suffrage for virtually every non-felon Citizen over 18, even the ignorant, indigent, stupid, irresponsible, and dependent, we don't have much chance of getting honorable people elected into public office.

So, Gerps abound. And they cause tyranny.

The Masters of Public Servants must do something to get the Gerps to change to full-time honorable behavior, or excise them from Government by whatever means necessary, beginning with the benign methods, and not stop till successful, one Gerp at a time.

If the People do not act effectively in this, Gerps will proliferate until the tyranny becomes abject, then absolute. Thus, you either become a Pro-Honor, Anti-Gerp Activist, or you let the Gerps enslave you to their tyranny.

How will you express your activism effectively? Will you prefer to do nothing? On this very point, Elizabethan literary genius John Donne wrote:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee. Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, Meditation XVII, 1624

You might keep this in mind when you wonder who should toil at the onerous work of reforming government.

U.S. Supreme Court - Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984)

Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/466/522/

Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/466/522/case.html

Syllabus

After respondents were arrested for nonjailable misdemeanors, petitioner, a Magistrate in a Virginia county, imposed bail, and when respondents were unable to meet the bail, petitioner committed them to jail. Subsequently, respondents brought an action against petitioner in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that petitioner's practice of imposing bail on persons arrested for nonjailable offenses under Virginia law and of incarcerating those persons if they could not meet the bail was unconstitutional. The court agreed and enjoined the practice, and also awarded respondents costs and attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976. Determining that judicial immunity did not extend to injunctive relief under § 1983 and that prospective injunctive relief properly had been awarded against petitioner, the Court of Appeals affirmed the award of attorney's fees.

Held:

1. Judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer, such as petitioner, acting in her judicial capacity.

(a) Common law principles of judicial immunity were incorporated into the United States judicial system, and should not be abrogated absent clear legislative intent to do so. Although there were no injunctions against common law judges, there is a common law parallel to the § 1983 injunction at issue here in the collateral prospective relief available against judges through the use of the King's prerogative writs in England. The history of these writs discloses that the common law rule of judicial immunity did not include immunity from prospective collateral relief.

(b) The history of judicial immunity in the United States is fully consistent with the common law experience. There never has been a rule of absolute judicial immunity from prospective relief, and there is no evidence that the absence of that immunity has had a chilling effect on judicial independence. Limitations on obtaining equitable relief serve to curtail or prevent harassment of judges through suits against them by disgruntled litigants. Collateral injunctive relief against a judge, particularly when that relief is available through § 1983, also raises a concern relating to the proper functioning of federal-state relations, but that concern has been addressed directly as a matter of comity and federalism, independent of principles of judicial immunity. While there is a need for restraint by federal courts called upon to enjoin actions of state judicial officers, there is no support for a conclusion that Congress intended to limit the injunctive relief available under § 1983 in a way that would prevent federal injunctive relief against a state judge. Rather, Congress intended § 1983 to be an independent protection for federal rights, and there is nothing to suggest that Congress intended to expand the common law doctrine of judicial immunity to insulate state judges completely from federal collateral review.

2. Judicial immunity is no bar to the award of attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act. Congress has made clear in the Act its intent that attorney's fees be available in any action to enforce § 1983. And the legislative history confirms Congress' intent that an attorney's fee award be made available even when damages would be barred or limited by immunity doctrines.

690 F.2d 376, affirmed.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and REHNQUIST and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 466 U. S. 544

 

About the Author

I consider myself a philosopher, truth-seeker, and perpetual student of the law. I live in Florida with my wife Maria. I play country and classical guitar, read law and The Urantia Book, and write commentaries and post items to the Lawmen group (subscribe at below link).

Bob Hurt
▪ 2460 Persian Drive #70 ▪ Clearwater, FL 33763 ▪ (727) 669-5511
Donate to my Law Scholarship

Let Jurisdictionary teach you to litigate
Stay updated on legal issues with the Lawmen Newsletter
Get Free Downloads from thet Lawmen Archives
Improve your financial fortunes with GetZooks!

Save fuel with this gadget