Archive | July 24, 2024

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Extends Quasi-Judicial Immunity to Other Court Personnel

There is a legitimate purpose for Judicial Immunity, but making it “absolute” creates a dictatorship, fascist government, you choose the phrase. Judges can do no wrong. Seriously, if a judge is on the bench and shoots a litigant in the face, there would probably be no civil recourse.

Good luck trying to get the prosecutors and police officers who cow-tow to the judges to ever investigate or charge a judge for a crime.

Now the absolute immunity is extended to police, court reporters and clerks.

Read this opinion coming out of the Eighth Circuit.

Personally, I’ve tried to draw attention to corrupt acts by court reporter Jana Perry and Clerk “JPP” in Southern California District Court. I was too ill and spread too thin to pursue the case against Clerk JPP, but see now it would be a waste of time anyhow.

Institute for Justice Champions the Cause of the Commoner Against Government Misconduct

If you are pro se because you can’t afford an attorney to represent you and legal aid refused your case for any one of a myriad of reasons, give Institute for Justice a try. http://www.IJ.Org.

IJ can’t take every case. When they decline though, they are the most gracious of any firm I have contacted.

IJ is not afraid to go all the way to the Supreme Court and beyond. They often win. This is what they say about their losses:

Even when IJ loses—which has happened only twice—we keep fighting to change the law and get justice for our clients. Following a technical win for the government, James King is still in court, with IJ by his side, fighting to hold accountable the Michigan police officer and FBI agent who misidentified him, beat him, and then lied to make sure he was charged with crimes. And after the Supreme Court ruled private developers could take Susette Kelo’s little pink house, IJ created a grassroots movement for reform and continued to win eminent domain abuse cases in state supreme courts. In the wake of the Court’s widely decried decision, almost every state changed its laws to make it harder for the government to take property and give it to private developers.