For over a decade, official, expert and media reports have documented widespread corruption of the Los Angeles Superior Court and refusal of the US federal government to take action. Based on the Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission, which I authored, the UN Human Rights Council concluded: Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California".
Gary,
Not sure how you jumped from the pic I posted to Chemerinsky, whom I knew and considered a friend.
Watching him in tough negotiations was a spectacle: he is the ultimate underdog... but often wins the day.
In his writing over the past decade, Chemerinsky also:
* Pointed out the fact that judges today conduct on a regular basis sham/simulated litigation.
* Called Citizens United a license to bribe.
* Called police infiltration of the Occupy movement from its inception a serious violation of the First Amendment and chilling effect on the political process in the United States.
The story of Erwin Chemerinsky is of course a sign of our times:
He gained the unique distinction of winning similar editorials by NYT and WSJ, blasting the University of California for withdrawing the contract it offered Chemerinsky of Founding Dean of the UC Irvine Law School, under pressure from corrupt then California Chief Justice Ronald George.
Following the editorials, UC reinstated the contract, but Chemerinsky is largely muzzled today, compared to what he used to be.
One of Chemerinsky's many distinctions is his resignation from the Rampart Scandal Blue Ribbon Review Panel, following a contract by the City of LA, which required members to keep all materials confidential, and never get involved in a lawsuit against the city in the future. Instead, he took the time and issued his own report on the Rampart Scandal.
Chemerinsky's report, like the Blue Ribbon Report pointed out widespread corruption of the LA Superior Court as central to the Scandal, unlike media, which largely focused on corruption of the LAPD:
*"This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."
Notice that he calls LA County already in 2000 a Police State...
One cannot avoid the intended pun in the titled of his paper, which summarized his Rampart Scandal report:
The criminal justice system of Los Angeles County, California.
Which is of course, why Ronald George could not stand seeing him as a Dean of a California law school... one who considers California judges by and large criminals...
I bother to remind people of these events, since Ron Branson mistakenly sees the federal government, FBI, or the 9th Circuit as caring about corruption in LA County.
Why they decided to clamp down on Sheriff Baca remains unknown (possibly part of action against sheriffs in general, since they are part of the surge in popular resistance against the feds?)
The opposite is the truth. For decades (at least since the Ronald Reagan presidency and Iran-Contra wholesale cocaine trafficking to LA County by CIA), the feds effectively considered LA County and extra-constitutional zone.
By now, of course, this designation is expanded to include the entire United States...
JZ
P.S. The Blue Ribbon Panel Report and Chemerinsky's opinion that corruption of the LA Superior Court was central to corruption in LA County, was also the opinion of then Dean of Loyola-LA Law School, David Burcham.
LINKS:
[1] 11-08-01 Zernik, J: Los Angeles Superior Court - widespread corruption and refusal of US government to take action, 16th World Criminology Congress presentation
[2] 00-09-01 The criminal justice system of Los Angeles County, California - by E Chemerinsky 57 Guild Prac 121:2000
[3] 01-00-00 Burcham, David and Fisk, Katherine - Loyola Symposium: The Rampart Scandal - Policing the Criminal Justice System. (2001)
[4] 06-07-15 Rampart Reconsidered: LAPD's Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
[5] 10-10-01 Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the UPR of the United States, as it appears in the United Nations Human Rights Council site
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session9/US/HRAlert_UPR_USA_S09_2010_Human%20rights%20alert1.pdf
____
 |
When somewhere along the line, we had the paradigm shift from Peace Officer, Constable, to Law Enforcement. And more recently, the invention of the term 'First Responders'. We the citizens used to be the first responders - and we then largely took care of ourselves and did not need this cancerous behemoth federal government.
Of course, there were problems back then also. There are always going to be a problem when you give some one power (whether it be a badge, a gavel, a title, the power of the state), as it will usually be abused. Then when grab immunity, even more trouble.
Immunity is just flat out wrong, as it inverts the entire Constitution, by elevating the servant(government) over the master (We the People) and making the master the servant. It places government over, above and beyond the People.
This excerpt is from the paper (still in draft) A FURTHER LOOK AT JUSTICE STEPHEN J. FIELD AND THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY (attached), at page 22-26 (particularly see the evelen [11] reasons given why immunity is wrong at p. 24):
Of course, there were problems back then also. There are always going to be a problem when you give some one power (whether it be a badge, a gavel, a title, the power of the state), as it will usually be abused. Then when grab immunity, even more trouble.
Immunity is just flat out wrong, as it inverts the entire Constitution, by elevating the servant(government) over the master (We the People) and making the master the servant. It places government over, above and beyond the People.
This excerpt is from the paper (still in draft) A FURTHER LOOK AT JUSTICE STEPHEN J. FIELD AND THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY (attached), at page 22-26 (particularly see the evelen [11] reasons given why immunity is wrong at p. 24):
Although Professor Chemerinsky criticisms of absolute immunity for judges does not go far enough, as his book also is absent any discussion or analysis of whether there is a constitutional basis for absolute immunity, he is to be commended because he goes much further than most and in fact cites Bradley v. Fisher twice under “Absolute Immunity for Judicial Act.”
Professor Chemerinsky also wrote “SEE NO EVIL – Sovereignty Immunity Puts States Above the Law, Implying They Can Do No Wrong,” March 21, 2001, Los Angeles Daily Journal, p.6. Done shortly afterBoard of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, ___ U.S. __ (2001) decision was delivered, Chemerisky there wrote in part:
“This is the latest in a series of decisions that have accorded state governments broad immunity from suit in federal and state courts. …”
* * *
“The underlying questions in all these cases is whether sovereign immunity is justified. I believe that sovereign immunity is an anachronistic relic that is inconsistent with basic precepts of constitutional law. Simply put, the Supreme Court’s sovereign-immunity decisionsput protecting state governments ahead of safeguarding people’s rights.
* * *
“The Constitution does not mention sovereign immunity. The only relevant provision is the 11thAmendment, but it only bars suits against state by citizens of other states and citizens of foreign countries. The 11th Amendment was adopted early in American history to repeal a specific clause of Article III of the Constitution, which authorized such suits.
* * *
“Sovereign immunity is a doctrine based on a common-law principle borrowed from English law, which assumed that ‘the King can do no wrong.’ However, Article VI of the Constitution states that the Constitution and laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law and, as such,should prevail over claims of sovereign immunity. [P] Yet, sovereign immunity is inconsistentwith a central maxim of American government: that no one, not even the government is above the law. The effect of sovereign immunity is to place government above the law and ensure that some individuals who have suffered egregious harm will be unable to receive redress for their injuries.
“The judicial role of enforcing and upholding the Constitution is rendered illusory when the government has complete immunity to suit. Moreover, sovereign immunity undermines the basic principle, announced in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch.) 103 (1803), that ‘[t]he very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.’”
Professor Chemerinsky was correct. His title says it all: Sovereign Immunity Puts States [and the federal government] Above the Law, Implying They Can Do No Wrong. Clearly sovereign immunity would include judges, and would include the federal government. He is correct again, that with immunity – government will See No Evil – see no wrong on its part. (FBI sniper Horiuchi illegally killing Vicki Weaver, Judge Stump signing the order to sterilize Linda Sparkman.) He just did not go far enough. Because all of the arguments that Professor Chemerinsky makes against allowing immunity for a state, would equally apply to the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity and to the federal government.
1. immunity is an anachronistic relic;
2. immunity is inconsistent with basic precepts of constitutional law;
3. immunity puts government ahead of safeguarding people’s rights;
4. immunity is not mentioned in the Constitution;
5. immunity is borrowed from England – “the King can do no wrong”;
6. immunity is contrary to Constitution (Art.VI) being the supreme law;
7. immunity is contrary to the central maxim no one is above the law;
8. immunity places government above the law;
9. immunity ensures some citizens injured by gov’t. will have no remedy;
10. immunity renders the judicial role-upholding the Constitution illusory;
11. immunity undermines the very essence of civil liberty.
We fought a revolution because the King did wrong, and did a lot of it. We did not throw off the yoke of the King and secure our independence, our liberty, and our sovereignty, to then be under the yoke – and tyranny - of judges. Absolute immunity is repugnant to the Constitution. Judges giving judges immunity flies in the face of separation of powers.
One of the best criticisms of judicial immunity found in my research was Robert Craig Waters’ paper “Judicial Immunity vs. Due Process: When should a Judge Be Subject to Suit,” the Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.8 (Fall 1987), page 461.[i] Mr. Waters starts his paper:
“In the American judicial system, few more serious threats to individual liberty can be imagined than a corrupt judge. Clothed with the power of state and authorized to pass judgment on the most basic aspects of everyday life, a judge can deprive citizens of liberty and property in complete disregard of the Constitution. The injuries inflicted may be severed and enduring. …[Waters then provides egregious examples: Stump v. Sparkman, Lopez v. Vanderwaterm, 620 F.2d 1229 (7th Cir. 1980), Dykes v. Hosemann, 776 F.2nd 942 (11th Cir. 1985) and Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 (10th Cir. 1985).]
* * *
[at 462] … the simple expedient of disguising a corrupt act as a routine judicial function guarantees immunity from suit. In no other area of American life are public officials granted such license to engage in abuse of power and intentional disregard of the Constitution and laws they are sworn to defend. Those who are harmed, no matter how extensive and irreparable the injury, they are deprived of any method of obtaining compensation. …
* * *
[at 469] … [Stump] In this way, the Supreme Court excused a gross departure from due process that would have subjected virtually every other sate official to suit. The effect was plain: under the doctrine of judicial immunity, a victim can be forced to bear the full burden of a serious, irreparable injury inflicted by a state-court judge in blatant violation of the Constitution.
The Stump test for immunity affords no impediment to a corrupt judge. At best, it cloaks a judge with immunity if he merely indicates his official status while performing any act not expressly prohibited by law. (ftnt. 44 omitted.) At worst, it offers a road map for corruption with total impunity. Those subject to a corrupt judge’s power may find little comfort in the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that judicial immunity in effect is a necessary evil, the price to be paid for a ‘fearless’ judiciary.45[45 See Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193 (1970)]. With power to abridge liberty and seize property, state-court judges are the masters of everyday life in America. …
* * *
[at 470] Few would question the worthiness of such abstract principles as impartiality and fearlessness, even if the Supreme Court’s assessment of judicial courage is surprisingly pessimistic. However, high-flying abstractions often sever only to hid the underlying issue, which this in this case is the injury a corrupt judge can inflict on innocent people. Congress and the court must seriously question any device that affords greater protection to the unscrupulous than to the principled. In this instance the, the risk of such a disturbing result is very grave. By resort to the current immunity doctrine, an unscrupulous judge could escape liability even for acts of revenge, gross favoritism, improper seizure of property, unjust incarceration, or serious injury inflicted in ‘in a judicial capacity.’ …
* * *
[P] … The irony is unmistakable: those who are the guardians of the Constitution are themselves privileged to violate it with corrupt impunity. Any damage inflicted on innocent citizens must be borne by the injured, not by the state of its insurers. Due process, one of the most hallowed and ancient of rights, apparently has no place in the law when a citizen attempts to seek recompense from a judge who has wrongfully caused an injury. [P] … The judiciary in effect is wielding a judge-made rule of law to limit a constitutional right, turning the idea of constitutional supremacy on its head. When a local judge chooses to act corruptly, the logical result of any sweeping immunity doctrine is the destruction of due process rights. Instead of fearless impartiality, the doctrine thus protects only malice and arbitrary administration of the laws.
* * *
… Judges should not be privileged to violate rights of citizens unfortunate enough to find themselves in a biased, corrupt or irresponsible court. … [P] … To preserve the integrity of the judicial process, the courts always should presume that a trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction. But they should permit a plaintiff to overcome this presumption by showing that the judge acted with actual malice, consisting of a knowing or reckless disregard of due process. Specifically, if the court is to enjoy immunity, it must afford three things—notice, a chance to be heard, and a method of appeal. Then, and only then, would an irrebuttable presumption of immunity exist requiring dismissal of any subsequent suit against the judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment