Judges: 3 Strikes, You're Out! Abolishing Judicial Immunity

I propose something that the "Vanguard of the Public Trust", Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna, would never propose.

While the AG offices propose to undo the advances made by civil rights groups, when they successfully abolished "sovereign immunity" in 1961, and while the American Civil Liberties Union seems to be an unsuccessful mitigator in this state, I propose greater advances for the rights of the public. I propose that the outdated protective law of "sovereign immunity" for Judges, is abolished.

The initial point of giving Judges "immunity" from lawsuits, was to enable them to dispense judgement without a fear of, having made an honest mistake, they are sued. It was to prevent them from being "afraid".

This is the same lousy argument that the lobbyists make for protection doctors from lawsuits, claiming their doctors would be "afraid" to practice because if they make an honest mistake, they could get sued.

This has been a powerful and misleading argument made by lobbyists, appealing to emotion rather than reason.

By the same argument, ANY American, in ANY course of business, could be "afraid" of being sued. So when then, are all of the other Americans open to lawsuits for negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress, but not the especially designated "privileged" who so happen to be "privileged", usually, by the fact that they are backed by huge insurance companies?

The small business owner who has a restaurant, could be said to be in "perpetual fear" of being sued over ice outside of his place, on the sidewalk. He might be "afraid" of a slip-and-trip lawsuit. So do we outlaw lawsuits for this kind of thing? or give business owners "immunity" out of the argument that if we don't, they won't be "comfortable" dispensing services? No, instead, the knowledge that one might be sued for not salting the sidewalk, or trying to take reasonable safety measures, MOTIVATES most persons to then do what is in the best of the public good, and salt or shovel their walkways.

A lawsuit cannot even be brought, for negligence, for a simple honest mistake, at least not as often as it for very serious negligence, as in "any normal and reasonable person would have, and should have, as an adult with normal intelligence and experience in the real world, known."

A lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress is when the act is not merely an "accident" but can be shown to have been deliberately made, in order to knowingly cause the suffering of others, or, knowing that the result would likely result in distress, as a secondary effect.

Restaurant owners, do not get "immunity" from lawsuits. Construction owners, who are responsible for the safety of the roads or buildings we occupy, do not get "immunity". Real Estate agents do not get "immunity". Childcare workers and teachers, some of the most important persons in our society, who are charged with the care of raising and instructing children, do not get "immunity." Janitors do not get "immunity". Food and sanitation workers do not get "immunity". Auto makers, whose work affects the entire population that drives vehicles, and mechanics, do not get "immunity". Soldiers do not get "immunity". Electrical workers and other contractors for public utilities, do not get "immunity." Wall street brokers and traders and mutual funds managers, do not get "immunity".

Until the civil rights reforms of the 60s, The State of Washington sat on a high horse and had "sovereign immunity", which the people decided, was NOT in the best interests of the people. It is wrong, we decided, to allow government workers or the government, to have "immunity" as if they had no accountability.

Still, our Judges receive the benefit of an archaic "immunity" that NO ONE has anymore. Even police and federal prosecutors do not have the kind of immunity that Judges have. Police and prosecutors have what is called a limited immunity, which simply means they have a reasonable amount of protection for mistakes made, if in the course of duty, where it really was not preventable. However, police and prosecutors and others, can still be sued.

When has a Judge been sued last?

When a Judge has the kind of "sovereign immunity" that they are given, it does not simply serve to protect a judge from "error", that is, honest error. What it does, is allow any Judge to be as malicious as they want to be, and get away with not only negligence, but outright intentional infliction of emotional distress. A Judge can knowingly ignore laws of due process, knowing it will harm and traumatize someone, and can railroad right over a disliked person's rights, knowing all the while, that he is completely immune from lawsuit and secure.

Sure, he might have someone down the line call decisions into question, but a Judge has a nice Wonderwall of protection from some of the fellow Judges too.

Isn't it funny, how the case reports "concur that the court erred" on matters such as...gulp...depriving a criminal defendant the right to a public defender, or allowing a defendant to recuse a Judge for prejudice and then ending up in the slammer, or any very basic law violations of due process which any competent Judge is aware of, or should know about? these are true cases...Judges have refused to respect the requests of defendants, to invoke powers of the law which are available.

The cases always read to the effect of "we concur that the court errred" as if these kinds of mistakes are mere err. In the case of Judges, "To err is human but to destroy is divine." I am sure anyone could think of all kinds of sayings that might fit..."To err is human but immunity is divine."

The next King of England, Prince Charles, can be sued. And he has been sued.

But not an American Judge.

If just about everyone can be sued except Judges, wouldn't it seem that the very best job to have, if you're corrupt by nature and want protection for getting away with it, might be as a Judge? It would also seem that certain persons who have the most power and money, might wish to nominate and put into place Judges who will act as the Boss's Enforcer, and keep the crime flow going in the direction of a certain group, whether they're corporate criminals or another kind of mob.

Why not?

We're not stupid.

Are we stupid Americans?

If you need someone in your corner and want to infiltrate to protect your own, wouldn't the main man be The One who is Untouchable?

The only thing a Judge cannot do is kill a person with a weapon or his bare hands in court. Anything else, pretty much goes.

A Judge can effect more harm to the public, to a particular group, or to an individual, than any other person, and if you align a Judge with corrupt public defenders or lawyers and a few bad apples in law enforcement, you have your own personal step-ladder.

First rung, you get the low-level snitch to make a complaint.
Second rung, you get the corrupt officer to be on duty at the same time the snitch makes their complaint
Third rung, you make sure a public defender is assigned who is on your side,
Fourth rung, you make sure to get the Judge you want by knowing their schedule and who takes what kind of cases on what day

This is a strategy that law enforcement can use, if they really have it in for someone, or any gang or set of individuals who "know someone" they feel is in their way and want to do something about it. It is not difficult. Anyone with common sense, who has an adversary they fear, if they are corrupt, could do this.

You can have a "snitch" who lies and makes false claims and set anyone up for false arrest, if desired. By the time that person gets cleared, the intended effects have already been acheived.

Gang rivals can do this, to their advantage in taking control of an area and retaining their jurisdiction, just as easily as corporate criminals or anyone who wants to "get rid of" someone for any reason at all.

The Judge is naturally set up to be the person who will call all the shots and if he or she does a fair job with at least 9 out of 10 cases, to keep up appearances, you just employ the dirty stuff for the one individual, the Jesus Christ, that you really want.

We have Judges in the United States of America who act as sleeper agents for the mafia.

And when I say mafia I include in my definition traditional and non-traditional kinds of groups.

It is not "error" when a Judge intentionally disregards the most basic and commonly understood rules of due process. That is not "error" and the "court" did not then "err". What it is, is an intentional and flagrant disrespect for the laws of the land. Laws that any lawyer, even out of law school, knows, and laws which sometimes even the common layperson knows about and understands. It is not "error" but willful disobedience to the oath one took when sworn into that office to begin with.

I do not believe the public should suffer this kind of abuse by Judges. There should be no "sovereign immunity" for Judges who, if they cannot uphold the basic rules, are either malicious or incompetent.

We have the RIGHT to not have incompetent and malicious Judges affecting the lives of others. Someone who is malicious should not be serving as a Judge of others, because they are unable to weigh both sides and be objective as their job requires. Someone who is incompetent as to the most preliminary basics of due process should not have the job to begin with and should not, and cannot, claim ignorance when they went to 4 years of law school at least, and then had years of practice besides.

Therefore, I would propose that any Judge who fails to honor the laws of due process 3 times in a row, is out.

STRIKE 1: Maybe you forgot. We don't know how in the world you forgot. The law is right here, for anyone to read and we reminded you too, but maybe you wanted to be mean. Okay, mean and unjust Judge, we will forgive you as we the taxpayers pay for the damage you caused by then forcing the defendent to appeal (which costs us money) and maybe go to prison (which costs the taxpayers money). But we will hope there is some explanation and we won't axe you immediately, in case we should happen to discover you have a brain tumor or strokes, or late onset of a severe mental illness or alzheimers.

STRIKE 2: What the HELL is going on Judge? Did you get that psychological evaluation you were supposed to have? Did you have the physical? Are the results in or what? What is UP. Judge, if this happens too close to the last time you "erred" in such a manner, we are going to have to temporarily suspend your bench privileges until you get some things checked out. We don't want to believe you just made the same mistake twice or that you would do this intentionally so we are willing to consider that you may have some extenuating circumstances that are affecting your judgement. Judge, you might think it's a small thing, but you should KNOW that a basic element of due process is allowing the defense to have continuation until they receive discovery or to at least get that discovery at all. Why would you allow the prosecution to proceed without allowing at least even ONE continuance in order to obtain evidence to clear the person of the charges alleged? You refused to allow even ONE continuance when you know this is a right, to be permitted for the good of the defense? We think you're looking sort of gangster, but we might give you one more chance.

STRIKE 3: Sorry Judge. But you know what, you have not only injured citizens of the United States, who we claim as our own by the mandates of the Constitution, you have injured the public confidence. You're also costing us a shitload of money which we the taxpayers, do not want to put into public defenders who don't seem to be doing much good anyway, or jails, when we keep finding out some of these people were innocent to begin with or never had a fair chance from the start. Judge, you had time to get those psych and psychical evals done, and we find no excuse for your behavior. If you are not physically ill, or mentally ill, you are only one of two or three other options--A. deliberately malicious and willing to cause intentional infliction of emotional distress, B., incompetent in the most rudimentary elements of your job, or C., you're easily bought and bribed and do not care about the consequences. Rather than allow you to continue to destroy the public confidence, we are going to retire and remove you before you are able to do greater harm. We DO understand about legal interpretations and how having a different opinion in translation of the law can cause disagreement. We are not going to retire you for this kind of "error". But when you fail to obey the basic, common rules of civil or criminal procedure, when there is no room for "translation" you are out.

I do not propose to let a Judge go for a difference of opinion which a higher court could call "error" but for disrespect for the most basic laws which create the framework of the justice system and ensure due process and equal protection. Any Judge who cannot remember or enforce these basics, should not be in a position to be Judge at all. There is a little more leniency for translation matters, where it's more splitting hairs over whether a tort applies in a certain situation or not. But if the law says one can request a continuance at least ONCE, for example, in order to prove they shouldn't have a charge against them, and then thereafter be set up and trapped by something they shouldn't be entrapped by, there is something wrong with that Judge. A Judge who neglects to tell someone they are going to represent themselves Pro Se and then hangs up on them, refusing them to even allow them a chance to defend themselves and allowing the State to win by default, isn't worth the butter for the bread. Such a Judge is rancid.

Judges should not have sovereign immunity, period. They should not have immunity anymore than the State should have immunity.

This is the United States of America and while we claim democracy and liberty and how we are different from, and better than other countries, and initially, England, it seems the UK is more advanced than the U.S. Well maybe not, if their Judges also have "immunity". The point to America, is that NO man is "King" or is above the law, or "immune" or gets special privileges above anyone else. Yet Judges have the only position in the United States of America, where they can do whatever they want, and be protected. To continue to allow for Judicial Absolute Immunity is setting up the Justice System, as a whole, for failure and for corruption.

I believe there could be a provisional immunity, or limited one, such as police have, in general, but no more than that.

By the way, if the Attorney General's offices of Washington State really cared about public interest, probably Rob McKenna would be promoting THIS idea for saving taxpayer's money and eliminating the deficit. Instead of making a self-protective plea for the State to have "immunity" from lawsuits, he would be promoting something that could really save us all some money--eliminating bad Judges and the costs that are accrued because of them and their poor choices, through abolishing immunity of Judges from lawsuits and holding them accountable to more stringent standards.
*************
This truck just went by with "Nakata Orchards" on the side. One of my Judges has been Judge Alicia Nakata but I don't know if she is connected to orchard money in the area. I've never heard of Nakata orchards.

She is the judge who refused to allow even 1 continuance so I could get my evidence in, to defend myself against a restraining order by State worker Michelle Erickson. I couldn't believe it, and then I was set up by an officer shortly after, to be charged for violating this order. I had tried to put in a motion to terminate the order because of evidence, actually for 2 different matters, and I've never had a response. I listed my address for mail as General Delivery and there has been no mail at the post office.

I have heard a lot of things about Nakata and have always been unwilling to repeat what I've heard. But I was very shocked by her refusal to respect 1 very basic rule and right and she knew it would affect me and be to my detriment and has been.