In many of my articles regarding the law and my angst regarding the fact that Judges/Attorneys will not go further into a Citizen’s rights under the Constitution, is a problem. In all cases as I have mentioned, especially in the Third Judicial Circuit, the cases are based upon the Good Ole Boy indoctrination of those associated with the law.
No Judge wishes to go against a Town, a County or The State or Other Attorneys,but rather they will take apart the individual as they did in our Civil Rights Case even though the Town Administration lied about Joe Griffin and what he had done, including his public record requests, for which we had record from the accounting department that only 403 Transactions were done in a period of ten years…If there were 2500 like the Town Stated, it was because you have to make multiple requests for the same things. The sad part is they were to allow our first Amendment rights and it was not intended to drag on as it did nor was it to cost money on the part of the Town. It was meant to be an education to the Town regarding public records and first amendment laws…but the Town made it into a $70,000 plus suit on our end and who knows how much the Town paid.
Now I can get over a multiple of things, fairly easily, but in our case the Lies that came from the Administration about Joe were horrid and as a result even though I was considered “innocent” at the time, the Judge basically listed me as “Joe’s spouse” and therefore I was “Joe” and subject to the same smear tactics I guess. And of course, the Town listed both Joe and I as “criminals” in the Newspapers but never expressed the truth.
To this date those who knew we were railroaded by the Town, never apologized which is the least which could have happened. Even the new ASA knew this was a railroad Job against both Joe and I. But unlike the current cases where people seem to wish to help those being persecuted, like Miller, we had no one to stick up for us but rather the Town continued to tarnish Joe and my reputation through multiple lies of our character . And it is not surprising,the treatment by the townspeople who frequently ask for our assistance and we willingly give it, continue to treat us pretty much like dirt or the plague; They will request our help by e-mail or phone but God help them if someone sees them talking to us, even though all we have ever done is to provide the citizens of White Springs transparency and look to fight for their rights. And I had better not report the truth as transpired in the meeting because I will get phone calls berating the hell out of me, which I do not need. The truth is the truth, so live with it.
But let’s go into the Cases of Helen Miller and our many Ethics Complaints about the action of the Town. Although Miller’s attorney fought the fact that it was a quasi-judicial hearing rather than a legislative hearing as Judge Decker III so stipulated and failed to show the rules of a Town Manager who is required to assist council members, who are the Manager’s superiors per the Charter.
But in reading all the complaints and all of the court proceedings in an attempt to determine how to get fairness under the law from someone, there always presents itself a common denominator and that is “Managerial Employment Decisions” Managerial Decisions”, etc. A good portion of Judge Decker’s motion in favor of the Town’s decision to oust Miller from her seat was due to the Judge not wishing to become involved in “Management” decisions of the Town. This has been one of the excuses in each one of our “Complaints to the Ethic’s committee as well. Now in Miller’s oral arguments 2-1 Judges decisions have come strictly to “Town’s decisions” If the Town/Management decides something, then the Judge will not go against a Town or its Administration; nor will the State’s Attorney’s office or anyone else. And obviously, we were took to the cleaners in our Federal Case by a liberal Federal Judge. So what can a person do? Basically nothing and we expect more ethic complaints to be denied as “management/Town decisions” which they cannot deliberate a “Legal sufficiency” judgment.
Therefore, the citizens, and we as citizen activists, no matter how hard we try, will have every complaint quashed by reason that if a Manager/ Management/ or the Town made a decision, to hell with one’s civil rights under the constitution.
(From “caught.net” an interesting summation)
While a Judge performing Judicial functions may enjoy Immunity, denial of constitutional and civil rights are absolutely not a judicial function and conflicts with any definition of a Judicial function.
Response to denials were Motions to reinstate using the Constitutional Articles as a major Guide, along with the Judges Oath of Office, and canons of Judicial Code of Conduct. The responses also included page after page of case law where both appellate courts and the Supreme Court did hold judges accountable when their knowing and willing actions fell outside the boundaries of their job description. That failure to follow simple guidelines of their post makes a judge’s action no longer a Judicial act but an Individual act as the act represents their own prejudices and goals. Case Law also states that when a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, he then loses subject matter jurisdiction and the Judges orders are void, of no legal force or affect.
In a limited government, a government limited by the constitution, the violation of a citizens rights should never be justified due to the overriding government goals or objectives, and that no branch of the government be allowed to extend it’s power beyond it’s legal limits. The above issues are one of the outstanding reasons why the framers of the constitution installed Trial by Jury as the Seventh Amendment. In a government of the people is it not a threat to our way of life to allow Government actors to ignore the guidelines that define their power.
Also check out Stephen Ulrich’s Motions regarding judicial immunity
Read the case of Judge Antonio Almeida who took bribes and refused to cooperate when caught. This case has an excellent brief against absolute judicial immunity and the court’s response. Fasten your seatbelt…again.
Karin for the blog