|Subject: * * * Understanding Judicial Immunity * * *|
|Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 01:50:06 -0800|
|To: "wshipley" email@example.com|
|CC: "To JAILers World-Wide" VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org|
----- Original Message -----From: wshipleySent: Monday, December 05, 2005 4:19 PMSubject: Verification.
I am writing my letter to the Editor of the Madison, S.D newspaper and I have a question.
Quote: "but it covers all persons shielded by judicial immunity ... meaning every school board, city council, county commission, professional licensing board, in fact every citizen board in the state exercising quasi-judicial powers."
Barbie, is this true? I think it's a great idea, but I didn't realize it was that far-reaching.
I'll hold my letter until I hear from you
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. II Chronicles 7:14:"The germ of destruction is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." - Thomas Jefferson.
Bill Shipley, I believe the newspapers are saying this to give the impression that everyone in government is going to be sued under J.A.I.L. The J.A.I.L. Initiative clearly defines who are judges; "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." Everyone of these positions call for the exercise of judicial discretion.If administrative officials in government are going to consider themselves "judges covered by judicial immunity," then they fit the definition of judges for purposes of J.A.I.L. However, by statute they do not fit the roll as a judge since they are forbidden to adjudicate constitutional issues. The California Constitution specifically states in Art. III, Sec. 3.5, "An administrative agency... has no power a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute... b) To declare a statute unconstitutional; ..."Obviously, such constitutional prohibition declares that such government entities cannot exercise judicial powers, so I ask the question of how in the world can they be covered by judicial immunity if they cannot exercise judicial discretion?However, if the courts, for political purposes, are going to declare non-judges to be judges covered by judicial immunity, then for purposes of J.A.I.L., they may be placed on trial as judges. Of course, what J.A.I.L. will do is cause all government and administrative officials to refuse to acknowledge the "judicial declared political protection" of judicial immunity.I once sued a default clerk for failure to do her administrative job in entering a default. The statute clearly states that there is no exercise of discretion for a clerk to refuse to do her statutory job, nevertheless the judge in the case declared she was covered by judicial immunity. So if a court clerk, who has no discretion under law to adjudicate anything, yet enjoys judicial immunity, then she can be sued under J.A.I.L. You know what is going to happen. The entire system is going to abandon this judge-made "law" that everyone in government, regardless of the branch they serve, is a judge.I have little doubt that after the passage of J.A.I.L. someone is going to challenge the doctrine in the courts on the question of whether "quasi-judicial powers" is nonetheless a judicial power that is covered by judicial immunity, and that such a question will be pursued through the appellate and supreme courts, and then to the People on the Special Grand Jury to hear the question of whether their willful violation of law and the Constitution was the act of a "judge" or of a "non-judge." And of course, then questions of fraud may enter the equation. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. I do not here pretend to answer what the findings of the SGJ will be, but I do know that many in the government would rather duck facing this question before the SGJ. If government behaves itself, then we are satisfied, as our goal is not to sue for suits sake.Your question is a very good one. You get five Brownie Points for your excellent question. God bless you, Bill.-Ron Branson