Judges have absolute immunity to civil lawsuits for things they do in their official capacity. This is much like the qualified immunity police have, but taken up to 11 -- a judge can deliberately commit every abuse of power in the book with regards to railroading someone, and you cannot ever sue them.
Absolute immunity, like qualified immunity, doesn't stem from any actual law -- Congress did not create a law granting either sort of civil immunity (and it would have been unconstitutional if they did), and courts cannot create new laws. But that's exactly what the US Supreme Court did, in making police, prosecutors and judges exempt from lawsuits. The court simply refuses to hear the case and jails the plaintiff for contempt if they don't shut up when told to.
But there's a bright side to this, at least in theory. NO ONE has immunity to criminal charges, and violating any civil, statutory or constitutional right under color of law (aka in their official capacity while employed by the government) is a federal crime.
Even the most minor violation by an individual official is a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of a year in prison. If two or more work together to violate a right, it's a felony and the penalty jumps to ten years in prison. If someone dies as a result of the violation, life without parole or execution are on the table.
I said in theory because it is VERY hard to get the Department of Justice to prosecute a cop, let alone a prosecutor or judge, despite the law saying in plain English what it criminalizes.
I can counter with one that is just as vile -- the Left's crusade against self defense in the form of gun control.
The US system assumes that as you are the most interested in your continued well-being, you will take the necessary action to preserve yourself. This is why police in the US have zero responsibility to protect citizens. Every gun control law takes and takes and takes from the capability of defense, but replaces it with...nothing. No gun control law has ever created even the tiniest responsibility by the government that is taking your means of defense, to defend you.
Prior to shooting, Pai had scoped in on his foot so closely he cannot see anything but foot through the scope, and every expert except his paymasters were screaming at him not to shoot.
He shot anyway.
And we're left wondering whether he knew it would hurt before he pulled the trigger, or if he was just unaware that he was being lied to?
Re: Re: Windows Media Player is NOT same. You are LYING, Timmy.
Most vertebrate species have all the tools they need to kill their own species from birth. Humans are no exception.
More people are killed in the US with hands and feet than assault weapons every year, and if anything that can be used illegally must be banned, we'd have to amputate every child's limbs at birth.
Not all killing is murder, though. If it were, you'd need to disarm police and the military too, which is something no gun control law has ever done deliberately and when it has happened by accident the supposedly anti-gun politicians hold emergency sessions to amend in exemptions for police and the military.
If all violence is equally bad, then a woman fighting off a rapist is just as bad as the rapist and worse than the rapist if she kills him even by accident.
If India believes courts have global jurisdiction...
I wonder if they would honor an injunction against that judge to not violate the sovereignty of other nations, issued by a court in a country that is not India?
Re: Corporations that have global reach are SUBJECTS globally.
The problem with declaring that corporations do not have rights is that corporations are made of people that do.
If one person standing alone has the right to do something, why does that person lose their human rights because the person they are standing next to agrees with them?
Fun fact: there is no requirement anywhere in the US Constitution that someone be a citizen to have rights, or that someone even be human.
But there are federal statutes that define anyone who violates a constitutional right under color of lae (aka in the course of their employment by the government) to be a felon.
So the cops decided to stop a crime that at worst would have been a misdemeanor and wound up being just a ticket, by committing multiple felonies — one of which could have resulted in the cops being on the sex offender registry.
That escalation does tend to explain why running away has become a capital crime.
Um, that’s not how a Qualified Immunity defense works.
If QI is successfully invoked by the cops, the lawsuit gets thrown in the trash. Losing their QI claim doesn’t make the individual officers able to be sued, they’re still covered by their department’s lawsuit insurance, and their defense is covered by their department’s lawyers.
If they lose, they might not have to pay a penny if the department insists they followed policy. And if they settle instead of going all the way to a verdict, it’s the department that pays it.
The only time a police department ever throws officers under the bus that way is when the officers have violated department policy and sometimes not even then.
Most of the time, the only officers that get that treatment are the ones most people would consider to be good cops — the ones who deescalate force, hold fellow officers accountable, obey he law, etc.
If they treat CloudFlare the way they treated Backpage, the collateral damage could wind up being so spectacular that it causes the security breach represented by Julius & Ethel Rosenberg to fake into relative insignificance.
This sort of thing is why I have been suggesting for years that while you can certainly sue after the fact, it does little or nothing to deter future misbehavior.
But here's the thing -- anything you could sue in federal court for under Title 42, Section 1983 and win, is also a criminal act (in the handcuffs, booking, jailing and posting bail sense) under Title 18, Sections 241 and 242.
You can make a completely binding, stands up in court citizen's arrest using words alone. The US Supreme Court ruled that if a citizen can make an arrest for a given type of state level crime (misdemeanor, breach of peace, felony, etc) they can also make a federal level citizen's arrest under similar circumstances.
So if you see a cop violating rights while in possession of a firearm, or two (or more) cops acting together to violate rights, use your words and inform them that you are arresting them. You don't even need to have a bystander do it -- being under arrest does not prevent you from making arrests, unless you are doing so as a form of resisting or escaping from arrest.
Judges like to believe they are infallible. Most people do. Courts as a whole like the concept called judicial finality — that once a court declares something to be true, it is indisputably true.
They’ve all forgotten the actual purpose of having judges and courts at all: justice.
Re: Puritanical pinheads and priorites in punishment
Sending a selfie and commentary: legal, first amendment-protected activity.
Having consensual sex while older than the age of consent: completely legal.
Combining those two perfectly legal activities: felony.
If the only the\ing that turns legal activity into a felony is exercise of a constitutionally-protected right, then the child pornography law, as interpreted by the state of Maryland, is unconstitutional.
I find myself wondering if the reason the district court keeps insisting that disallowing Dr Berrier's testimony would be harmless to the defendants is because the court has determined that even if the defendants are innocent, they will be convicted anyway.
I realize the SPEECH Act only specifically applies to libel, but I wonder if it would have an effect on civil court gag orders that would violate the first amendment?
On the post: Senators Wyden And Paul Put A Hold On Dangerous CASE Act; Will Propose Alternative
Re: Diffused a bomb... Hopefully it won't explode in the future.
You mean defused. Bombs are dangerous because they are vigorously self-diffusing.
On the post: Georgia Woman Takes Home $100,000 Settlement After Bogus Criminal Defamation Arrest By Her Ex-Husband (And Current Deputy)
Re:
Judges have absolute immunity to civil lawsuits for things they do in their official capacity. This is much like the qualified immunity police have, but taken up to 11 -- a judge can deliberately commit every abuse of power in the book with regards to railroading someone, and you cannot ever sue them.
Absolute immunity, like qualified immunity, doesn't stem from any actual law -- Congress did not create a law granting either sort of civil immunity (and it would have been unconstitutional if they did), and courts cannot create new laws. But that's exactly what the US Supreme Court did, in making police, prosecutors and judges exempt from lawsuits. The court simply refuses to hear the case and jails the plaintiff for contempt if they don't shut up when told to.
But there's a bright side to this, at least in theory. NO ONE has immunity to criminal charges, and violating any civil, statutory or constitutional right under color of law (aka in their official capacity while employed by the government) is a federal crime.
Even the most minor violation by an individual official is a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of a year in prison. If two or more work together to violate a right, it's a felony and the penalty jumps to ten years in prison. If someone dies as a result of the violation, life without parole or execution are on the table.
I said in theory because it is VERY hard to get the Department of Justice to prosecute a cop, let alone a prosecutor or judge, despite the law saying in plain English what it criminalizes.
On the post: Aussie Censorship In Action: National Enquirer Editor Threats Get Bookstores To Block Sale Of Ronan Farrow Book
Re: Re: PaulT, you're an IDIOT!
I can counter with one that is just as vile -- the Left's crusade against self defense in the form of gun control.
The US system assumes that as you are the most interested in your continued well-being, you will take the necessary action to preserve yourself. This is why police in the US have zero responsibility to protect citizens. Every gun control law takes and takes and takes from the capability of defense, but replaces it with...nothing. No gun control law has ever created even the tiniest responsibility by the government that is taking your means of defense, to defend you.
On the post: Ajit Pai Whines About The Numerous State-Level Net Neutrality Laws He Just Helped Create
Re:
Prior to shooting, Pai had scoped in on his foot so closely he cannot see anything but foot through the scope, and every expert except his paymasters were screaming at him not to shoot.
He shot anyway.
And we're left wondering whether he knew it would hurt before he pulled the trigger, or if he was just unaware that he was being lied to?
On the post: TV Network Declares IPTV Tool Copyright Infringing, Even Though It's Just A Tool
Re: Re: Windows Media Player is NOT same. You are LYING, Timmy.
Most vertebrate species have all the tools they need to kill their own species from birth. Humans are no exception.
More people are killed in the US with hands and feet than assault weapons every year, and if anything that can be used illegally must be banned, we'd have to amputate every child's limbs at birth.
On the post: TV Network Declares IPTV Tool Copyright Infringing, Even Though It's Just A Tool
Re:
Not all killing is murder, though. If it were, you'd need to disarm police and the military too, which is something no gun control law has ever done deliberately and when it has happened by accident the supposedly anti-gun politicians hold emergency sessions to amend in exemptions for police and the military.
If all violence is equally bad, then a woman fighting off a rapist is just as bad as the rapist and worse than the rapist if she kills him even by accident.
On the post: Indian Court Orders Global Takedown Of 'Defamatory' Video From YouTube, Twitter, Facebook
If India believes courts have global jurisdiction...
I wonder if they would honor an injunction against that judge to not violate the sovereignty of other nations, issued by a court in a country that is not India?
On the post: Indian Court Orders Global Takedown Of 'Defamatory' Video From YouTube, Twitter, Facebook
Re: Corporations that have global reach are SUBJECTS globally.
The problem with declaring that corporations do not have rights is that corporations are made of people that do.
If one person standing alone has the right to do something, why does that person lose their human rights because the person they are standing next to agrees with them?
On the post: CBP Official Refuses To Give Journalist His Passport Until He 'Admits' He Writes 'Propaganda'
Re: Re: Re: Signs of the future
Fun fact: there is no requirement anywhere in the US Constitution that someone be a citizen to have rights, or that someone even be human.
But there are federal statutes that define anyone who violates a constitutional right under color of lae (aka in the course of their employment by the government) to be a felon.
On the post: Violating The Fourth Amendment To Break Up An Underage Drinking Party Means No Qualified Immunity
Re:
So the cops decided to stop a crime that at worst would have been a misdemeanor and wound up being just a ticket, by committing multiple felonies — one of which could have resulted in the cops being on the sex offender registry.
That escalation does tend to explain why running away has become a capital crime.
On the post: Violating The Fourth Amendment To Break Up An Underage Drinking Party Means No Qualified Immunity
Re: Re: Re:
Um, that’s not how a Qualified Immunity defense works.
If QI is successfully invoked by the cops, the lawsuit gets thrown in the trash. Losing their QI claim doesn’t make the individual officers able to be sued, they’re still covered by their department’s lawsuit insurance, and their defense is covered by their department’s lawyers.
If they lose, they might not have to pay a penny if the department insists they followed policy. And if they settle instead of going all the way to a verdict, it’s the department that pays it.
The only time a police department ever throws officers under the bus that way is when the officers have violated department policy and sometimes not even then.
Most of the time, the only officers that get that treatment are the ones most people would consider to be good cops — the ones who deescalate force, hold fellow officers accountable, obey he law, etc.
On the post: Feds Investigating Next Round Of Sites Accused Of Facilitating Sex Trafficking
Re: Next...
If they treat CloudFlare the way they treated Backpage, the collateral damage could wind up being so spectacular that it causes the security breach represented by Julius & Ethel Rosenberg to fake into relative insignificance.
On the post: Lawsuit Settlement Over Detainment Of A Journalist Will Force Denver Police Department To Admit The First Amendment Exists
Re: Sure about that?
This sort of thing is why I have been suggesting for years that while you can certainly sue after the fact, it does little or nothing to deter future misbehavior.
But here's the thing -- anything you could sue in federal court for under Title 42, Section 1983 and win, is also a criminal act (in the handcuffs, booking, jailing and posting bail sense) under Title 18, Sections 241 and 242.
You can make a completely binding, stands up in court citizen's arrest using words alone. The US Supreme Court ruled that if a citizen can make an arrest for a given type of state level crime (misdemeanor, breach of peace, felony, etc) they can also make a federal level citizen's arrest under similar circumstances.
So if you see a cop violating rights while in possession of a firearm, or two (or more) cops acting together to violate rights, use your words and inform them that you are arresting them. You don't even need to have a bystander do it -- being under arrest does not prevent you from making arrests, unless you are doing so as a form of resisting or escaping from arrest.
On the post: Cops Digitally Erase Suspect's Facial Tattoos To Make Him Look More Like The Robbery Suspect Caught On Camera
Re: Re:
Judges like to believe they are infallible. Most people do. Courts as a whole like the concept called judicial finality — that once a court declares something to be true, it is indisputably true.
They’ve all forgotten the actual purpose of having judges and courts at all: justice.
On the post: Cops Digitally Erase Suspect's Facial Tattoos To Make Him Look More Like The Robbery Suspect Caught On Camera
Re:
And the proper term for a suspect whose only link to the crime is forged evidence is: acquitted.
On the post: Maryland Appeals Court Says Sexting Teen Is A Child Pornographer
Re: Puritanical pinheads and priorites in punishment
Sending a selfie and commentary: legal, first amendment-protected activity.
Having consensual sex while older than the age of consent: completely legal.
Combining those two perfectly legal activities: felony.
If the only the\ing that turns legal activity into a felony is exercise of a constitutionally-protected right, then the child pornography law, as interpreted by the state of Maryland, is unconstitutional.
On the post: Appeals Court Gives Gov't One More Chance To Lock Up Men For Producing An 'Illegal' Drug Its Own Chemist Said Wasn't Illegal
Re: This judge is so far up the DEA's ass...
I find myself wondering if the reason the district court keeps insisting that disallowing Dr Berrier's testimony would be harmless to the defendants is because the court has determined that even if the defendants are innocent, they will be convicted anyway.
On the post: NYPD's Failure To Remove A Vehicle From Its Stolen Car Database Results In Another Citizen Staring Down The Barrel Of Several Guns
Re:
Or, I hope, the dog.
On the post: Indian Counseling Company Files Criminal Complaint Against Blogger Who Informed It About A Sensitive Data Leak
SPEECH Act
I realize the SPEECH Act only specifically applies to libel, but I wonder if it would have an effect on civil court gag orders that would violate the first amendment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act
On the post: Indian Counseling Company Files Criminal Complaint Against Blogger Who Informed It About A Sensitive Data Leak
SPEECH Act
Next >>