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.
The case of Ulrich v. Butler case # 09-7660, was a civil case attempting to hold the Court to limits as defined by Constitutional and Statutory Law. Here is the US Supreme Court decision. Here are the details; fasten your seat belt:
In the Eleventh Judicial District of Illinois, Woodford County, in a civil case, an individuals civil and constitutional rights were denied as the third judge in the case (first two Judges were recused after review by the Judicial Review Board) did deny multiple requests to have all proceedings recorded, did state that no motions or petitions as filed by the individual would be heard, did illegally incarcerate the individual without regard to Habeas Corpus, did knowingly ignore Illinois state statutes, and not only violated due process of Law, but denied equal protection under the law.
Failure to obtain substantial Justice in state courts lead to suits being filed in Federal Court under Title 42 United States Code standard 1983.This suit asks for Relief of all orders made in violation of the Law, that Due Process of Law be allowed, and further issue relief as the court deems appropriate.
The Federal District Judge in the Case stated that although the Court does not know the details of the case that a Judge performing Judicial Functions enjoys absolute immunity and further stated that a Jury would not be allowed in the case. The appellate court without allowing a brief supported this order. 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.
Written by CB DEAN Jr.