CommentsVIEW FROM HERE-The California judiciary has become a criminal enterprise and has caused grievous harm to individuals and to society.
The complex doctrine of judicial immunity is key to the creation of this new criminal class – the judges and justices of the California judiciary.
Immunity means that someone may not be sued in civil or in criminal court for engaging in certain behavior. Most government employees have some form of immunity for their job-related actions. Presently, qualified civil immunity for police office is under attack. Many people do not understand why police officers should not be civilly liable for the harm which they cause, especially when they seriously maim or kill civilians.
Activists argue that if a cop knows that he will be financially liable for the harm he causes, he will be deterred. In reality, people will be deterred from becoming police officers. In California, removing the qualified immunity from officers and allowing the injured party to sue the cop and the city, county or state who employed the officer would further damage the victims. Juries would likely find the cop like Minneapolis’ Derek Chauvin is 100% responsible for the injuries or death. The jury’s finding would mean that cop would have to personally pay the full multi-million-dollar award while the city would not have to pay anything. Cops don’t have millions of dollars. The injured person would end up with nothing, like the Goldman’s did in the OJ civil trial. Immunity is a complex discussion.
Judicial immunity is split into two sections: civil liability to the victims (like Britney Spears) and criminal liability to the State. In California, judges enjoy de jure immunity from civil suits and de facto liability from criminal prosecution. “De jure” means that the law itself confers the immunity. “De facto” means that as a practical matter, judges know they will never be held criminally liable for conduct related to their judicial duties.
Judges easily evade liability for being a criminal while presiding over a case by authorities’ calling the criminality “a civil matter” for which there is complete immunity. (Judges who engage in criminal behavior while off the bench such as vehicular manslaughter for drunk driving are not acting in any judicial capacity and hence immunity does not apply.)
Thus, the civil immunity can be expanded to cover a judge’s criminal acts from the bench. Judges who accept bribes are not classified as criminals.
“According to the general rule, a prior, private agreement by a judge to rule in favor of one of the parties to a lawsuit is a judicial act within the scope of judicial immunity. It has even been held that where a judge conspires to rule against an individual and thereby denies the individual's constitutional rights, such action, while clearly improper, is nonetheless judicial in nature and therefore immune from civil liability.” (“Judicial Immunity from Civil and Criminal Liability,” Jeffrey M. Shaman, San Diego Law Review 1990 p.12)
When one understands judicial immunity, one can understand Britney Spears’ dilemma. The very institution on which she has to rely for justice is fatally corrupt and has immunity for its criminal behavior. All the courts have to do is re-classify bribery and criminal fraud as “civil.” As pointed out in my CityWatch article on June 28, 2021 (“The Britney Spears Case – A Window on Judicial Corruption”), the probate judges set up wealthy persons, such as Britney Spears, by forcing them into a mediation which will impose a “mediation settlement agreement” on them, thereby depriving them of their liberty and their property.
The Judiciary Has Other Laws to Facilitate Their Criminality
The judiciary does not have to respond to any request for documents under California’s “Freedom of Information Act” (Gov’t Code, § 6250).
No one may record a court hearing without the judge’s permission and then it may only be used for the person’s private notes. This means that if the judge alters the official transcript, the private record may not be used to show transcript’s falsity.
Cal Const Article VI Section 10 –Judges May Do Whatever They Wish
Perhaps the least known protection for judges is found in Cal Const. Art VI Sec 10 which the California Supreme Court has repeatedly agreed authorizes judges to discriminate against Jews, (Jewish troublemakers who would refuse Jesus Christ), allows judges to alter evidence, permits judges to alter official court documents, permits sidebars and ex parte communications from which one party is excluded, and to coerce attorneys to abandon their clients or face financial ruin.
The Court’s Interpretation Art VI Sec 10 Is Absurd
It states: “The court may make any comment on the evidence and the testimony and credibility of any witness as in its opinion is necessary for the proper determination of the cause.” In California’s bizarre judicial world, Jews are troublemakers and may be excluded from sidebars where the judge and opposing counsel discuss the trouble making propensity of Jews. “Comment” on evidence seems to extend to lying about evidence. For example, if a witness testified that the blue car had the green light, the judge may state that the witness said, “the blue car had a red light.” “Proper determination” does not mean fair or just decision but whatever the judge wants to determine. Simply put, a judge may do anything he wants provided he does not step on the toes of a more important judge.
Courts Extend Immunity to Others
As Lord Acton said, unlimited power leads to unlimited corruption. One case in point resulted in the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of homeless people. In December 2016, when SaveValleyVillage objected to the destruction of rent-controlled housing so that a developer could build projects, the plaintiff alleged that the city council’s vote trading system was criminal in that it violated Penal Code, § 86. Judge Richard Fruin ruled that the conduct of the city council was “non-judiciable” which meant the court could not constrain the city council’s criminal voting practices. Judge Fruin could not use the word “immunity” since statutes already had waived the city’s “immunity.” Thus, Judge Fruin used “non-justiciable,” a word which did not appear in the statutes, but which had the same legal impact. The mass destruction of rent-controlled units resulted in thousands of Angelenos becoming homeless and about 300 per year died from homelessness (while the overall homeless deaths per year were over 1,000 from all causes).
But for the concept of judicial immunity and its sister word, “non-justiciable,” Britney Spears and the homeless crisis would not be daily headlines. The worst is yet to come!
(Richard Lee Abrams has been an attorney, a realtor and community relations consultant as well as a CityWatch contributor. The views expressed herein are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch. You may email him at [email protected])
