To: fathersmanifesto@usa.net, manifesto@pemail.net, fmanifesto@hotmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Status: RO
X-Status: 



Gentlemen,

Your comments on the following would be greatly appreciated!

Fight on!

Sincerely,


John Knight


ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

Absolute Judicial Immunity is something our forefathers didn't believe
in, which is why they added Section 9, Article 8 to the Constitution:

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States".

What did that mean?  Did it mean that American citizens, no matter who
they were, were not allowed to walk around with crowns on their heads?
 Did it mean that they couldn't sit on gold thrones?  No, it meant
that none of them, not the President, not Governors, and particularly
no the judiciary, would be above the law.  It was to ensure that
everyone would be subject to the US Constitution, and that nobody, not
even the President, would be treated like a King.  Every citizen, evey
branch of government, every public servant, and particularly every
judge, was to be subject to all of the laws of the land, and
particularly to the Constitution.

This principle was reaffirmed by Congress in 1871 when it passed the
Civil Rights Act of 1871, which included such discussions:

"I answer it is better to invade the judicial power of the state than
permit it to invade, strike down, and destroy the civil rights of
citizens.  A judicial power perverted to such uses should be speedily
invaded.  The grievance would be insignificant."  Member of the House
Judiciary Committee, Representative Lawrence.

The Civil Rights Act of 1871 was passed just 2 years after the Supreme
Court attempted to undo a century of constitutional progress by
granting themselves judicial immunity in 1869:

"Judges of superior or general jurisdiction courts were not liable to
civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts, in excess
of jurisdiction, are done maliciously or corruptly." Randall v.
Brigham, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 19 L.Ed. 285 (1869).

The current era of "Absolute Judicial Immunity" is not the first time
the judiciary attempted to unilaterally unseat this vital
Constitutional principle and grant itself "titles of nobility", but
the last time it tried to do this, Congress acted swifty and
responsibly and upheld the Constitution.  This Act of Congress has not
been challenged, repealed, amended, modified, or in any other way been
determined to be invalid or inconsequential, and it would require at
least an Act of Congress to do this.  We the people have not clamoured
for the judiciary to be granted titles of nobility.  Three quarters of
the state legislatures have not suddenly determined that the courts
need to enjoy such immunity to get their jobs done.  So it is still
law, right?  Wrong!

Even as late as 1967 the courts recignized the folly of such a concept:

"Immunity fosters neglect and breeds irresponsibility, while liability
promotes care and caution, which caution and care is owed by the
government to its people". Rabon v. Rowen Memorial Hosp., Inc. 269

But in the 1970s, this all changed. The Act of 1871 did not change. 
An amendment to the Constitution, ratified by three quarters of the
states, which would have been the proper and legal way to suspend such
an important 200 year old Constitutional principle, was not passed or
even proposed.  Neither Congress nor the President nor the Governors
nor we the people deemed that the judiciary's ability to conduct its
business required or warranted it to have the "maximum ability to act
fearlessly and impartially without an atmosphere of intimidation or
harassment".  The judiciary decided this on its own, and unilaterally
suspended this vital Constitutional principle, which upset 200 years
of social and economic progress, and which benefitted nobody except
our global economic competitors.  The judiciary ignores the 200 years
during which judicial immunity of any kind was barred, and instead
cites cases like Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 11, 112 S.Ct. 286,
116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991), Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243-1244 (9th
Cir. 1996), Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199-200, 106 S. Ct.
496, 88 L.Ed. 2d 507 (1985), and Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075
(9th Cir. 1986) as justification for suspending this key principle
from the American landscape.

The result is that no judge in the land feels compelled to uphold the
US Constitution, even though he takes an oath to do so.  He might just
as well take an oath which states:

"I promise before God to give each and every American citizen $1
Million".

What good is such a promise from someone who believes he is above the
law, and who might believe that God is inferior to himself?  Why
should he concern himself about something as meddlesome as a
Constitution?  Isn't this why there are now so many stories from
fathers who report that their judge flatout stated:

"You don't have any Constitutional rights here, because I make the law
in my courtroom"?

What is the result?  Has the judiciary used this newly discovered
power responsibly?  Are they better able to fight crime? Are those who
are so irresponsible that they see nothing wrong with failing to hold
responsible those whose sole job it is to uphold the Constitution to
be trusted?  Can we expect "nobility" to act responsibly?  Has this
right of judges to "act fearlessly and impartially" made them act
fearlessly and impartially, or has it made them intimidating and
harassing?  Have society, the economy, family stability, fatherhood,
constitutional rights, religion, Christianity, education, or even the
legal establishment benefitted in any way since then?  Can upsetting a
principle which served the nation so well for the 2 centuries from the
1770s to the 1970s have a silver lining?

First, take a look at crime.  To "fight crime", the US incarceration
rate quadrupled, reaching a rate per capita which is 14.4 times that
of Japan.  But rather than decreasing, the RATE at which Americans
abused each other increased dramatically.  The RATE at which Americans
murder each other increased three times.  Has this newfound ability of
the judiciary to "act fearlessly and impartially" caused them to
ignore such serious problems because they are really acting
irresponsibly and unconstitutionally and even ungodly?  Not only did
an increase in the incarceration rate FAIL to stem the increase in
crime, but it managed to do the impossible--it somehow encouraged
murder?  How could this be?  For one thing, the "clearance rate" (the
percent of murders resolved) decreased from 92% to 66% right after
judges started acting "fearlessly and impartially".

Has the judiciary been so distracted by the profitable enterprise
which exists in penetrating fundamental Constitutional rights of
law-abiding taxpaying citizens that it flagrantly disregards such
problems as murder now so it can harvest the existing crop?  If they
can't be held responsible, even if they flagrantly commit crimes
themselves, even if they act maliciously or corruptly, then how can
they be pressed to concern themselves about such trivialities as
murder when there are profitable businesses and successful businessmen
to be looted?  What are you going to do about it?   Call ghostbusters?

We can pretend like all is well and ignore or dismiss a Constitution
which worked so well for so long, which millions of our fathers and
brothers fought and died to protect, which created the world's once
highest standard of living (circa 1973), which once made the US (and
the American woman) the envy of the world.

If the judiciary was able to survive and even thrive for the 200 years
prior to having the "maximum ability to act fearlessly and impartially
without an atmosphere of intimidation or harassment", then why does it
need immunity now, and who is the beneficiary?  Obviously murder
victims and their families weren't.  Was this "maximum ability" used
for any other purpose than to invade the Constitutional rights of
fathers, families, businesses, companies, corporations, educational
institutions, etc., and did any members of these organizations benefit
by losing their rights?  Suspending this key Constitutional principle
empowered the judiciary to make simple management and personnel
decisions which they are incapable of making, for which they are not
rewarded if they make a good decision, for which they are not punished
if they make a bad decision, and for which they become bigger fish in
bigger ponds if they make BAD decisions.  Company and corporate
managers and owners, whose money was on the line, who benefit from
good decisions, who suffer from bad decisions, were prevented from
making simple personnel choices, which quickly led to noncompetitive
US products, which caused US GDP to plunge from a solid first place in
the world to a shaky 17th place, which caused US incomes to decrease
by two thirds since 1973, which virtually wiped out US Personal
Savings (now at the all-time low of $203 Billion), and which increased
the Public Debt to $6 Trillion.  A few months' interest on the Public
Debt would wipe out Personal Savings completely.  

One of their biggest tools was affirmative action, which was always
unconstitutional, but which the judiciary refused to act on, and which
the federal courts held up for a full year after the voters of
California soundly and responsibly rejected it.  It was their duty to
uphold the Constitution, but they didn't have to, because they can now
"act fearlessly and impartially" without worrying that "intimidation
or harassment" will force them to obey the law of the land.

Since granting themselves this right, the divorce rate doubled and the
illegitimacy rate quintupled, leaving almost 40% of the nation's
children fatherless.  Such rampant family instability is sufficient
itself to destroy a nation, and this pathology is directly traceable
to "Absolute Judicial Immunity".  The irony is that the same judiciary
which thinks it can prosper by looting the assets of taxpayers from
the productive side of the economy will soon have nothing more too
loot, and most likely will become such a target themselves.  Consider
the following summary of the social and economic indicators of the
success of their plan:

Since the 1960s: 

1) the divorce rate more than doubled 





2) the murder rate doubled while the solution rate for murders
declined from 90% to 60% 



3) the value of the dollar declined almost to a quarter of its
previous value by the Consumer Price Index and by 10 times by
the gold standard (from $38/oz to $380/oz) 



4) more has been spent on welfare than the entire asset value of every
Fortune 500 corporation and every acre of farm land
combined 



5) the percent of the world's autos supplied by the U.S. declined from
60% to 20% 



6) the prison population increased four fold to a rate 4 times that of
China who we accuse of human rights abuses 



7) the average weight of an American has increased 25 pounds. 

Since the 1970s: 





1) GDP per worker declined 70% by the gold standard 



2) the savings rate is less than 2% versus 25% in Japan 



3) the public debt is up 8 fold AND the U.S. is the largest debtor
nation in world history 



4) abortions more than doubled 



5) cocaine use rose 45% in spite of the world's harshest "drug war"
and a 10 fold increase in criminal justice system
expenditures which now exceed the budget for national defense 



6) the trade deficit increased from being in the black to $123 Billion
per year in the red 



7) government spending as a percent of the average American's income
exceeds 40% and is rising, compared to 27% in Japan
and 32% in the U.S. 3 decades ago 



8) drunk driving arrests are up 5 fold while the motor vehicle
fatality rate increased from 30% lower than Germany's to 45%
higher in the same period 



9) health services costs are up 8 fold and the paperwork required to
meet government regulations costs 3% of GDP 



10) SAT scores declined 75 points 



11) the percent of children living with married parents declined from
39% to 26% 



12) the amount of time PER DAY that children watch TV increased from 5
hours to 7 hours 



13) the number of the world's Top 40 Banks which were U.S. declined
from 22 to only one (with assets of $120 Billion while
24 were Japanese with assets of $5,000 Billion) 



14) we have 50 times more lawyers than Japan while Japan has 4 times
as many engineers 



15) the ratio of manufacturing employees to government employees
declined from 2.5:1 to less than 1:1 



16) total US "Personal Savings" are $212 Billion while Japan has
$12,000 Billion (that is $12 Trillion) just in their "Postal
Savings Account" 



17) "a 560% increase in violent crime, a 419% increase in illegitimate
births, a 3000% increase in single-parent households,
and a drop of almost 80 points in SAT scores." (source: The Guardian) 








_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


From response_1@yahoo.com Mon Jul 27 16:05:19 1998
>From response_1@yahoo.com  Mon Jul 27 16:05:18 1998
Received: from mx03.netaddress.usa.net (mx03.netaddress.usa.net [204.68.24.140])
	by pony-2.mail.digex.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA14347
	for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:05:17 -0400 (EDT)