Judicial Accountability and Constitutional Rights: Challenging Judicial Immunity and Legal Corruption

Restoring Constitutional Governance and the Role of Juries in Upholding Justice

7 min read1 day ago

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time even as much as 15 (fifteen) years after a judgment has been entered. Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are mandatory requirement to be complied with by all courts, state and federal and leave those courts no discretion as to whether or not to comply. The following Supreme Court cases set out the mandatory requirements that must be complied with.

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

“Where there is no jurisdiction over the subject matter, there is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

“Generally, a plaintiff’s allegations of jurisdiction are sufficient, but when they are questioned, as in this case, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.

“Judgment rendered by court which did not have jurisdiction to hear cause is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

“It is elementary that the first question which must be determined by the trial court in every case is that of jurisdiction.” Clary v. Hoagland, 6 Cal.685; Dillon v. Dillon, 45 Cal. App. 191,187P. 27.

Key Questions on Judicial Accountability, Constitutional Rights, and Limits of Judicial Authority

These questions are designed to make it more difficult for judges to overlook constitutional issues and force a thorough engagement with objections regarding judicial immunity and overreach.

Where in the Constitution of the United States do “We the People” grant the judicial branch the authority to immunize itself from liability in a suit at law or equity for violating the Constitution, thereby limiting “We the People’s” right to seek redress for constitutional violations?
What specific language in the Constitution grants the judicial branch the authority to knowingly maintain actions or omissions that violate constitutional rights, even after such violations have been brought to the court’s attention by the parties before it?
What justification exists for why the matter of judicial immunity would not present an inherent conflict of interest for a judicial officer ruling on such immunity, particularly when their own immunity is at stake?
Given that judicial immunity applies to judges as a class, how can a judge’s impartiality be assured when ruling on judicial immunity, considering the potential self-interest involved in protecting this doctrine?
What authority grants a judge the power to elevate case law or judicial doctrines above the Constitution of the United States or the laws made in pursuance thereof, especially in light of the clear language of the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI, Sec. 2)?
Which constitutional authority mandates that judges must exclusively consider Supreme Court precedents and other court decisions over the explicit text of the United States Constitution, given that judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution itself, rather than to uphold the precedents set by previous court decisions?
Which constitutional authority grants a judge the power to refuse hearing a case involving a constitutional challenge to a legal doctrine, particularly when the application of that doctrine could prevent redress for a violation of a constitutionally protected right?

Supporting Case Law on Judicial Immunity and Accountability

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982): Established the qualified immunity defense, shielding officials unless they violated a well-established constitutional right.
Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978): Official immunity does not protect individuals acting outside their jurisdiction.
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978): Judges retain immunity only when acting within their judicial authority and jurisdiction.
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554–555 (1967): Immunity applies only when the judge is acting within his jurisdiction.

These cases challenge judicial immunity by framing the argument that it does not apply when judges act outside their authority, jurisdiction, or violate constitutionally protected civil rights.

The Fallacy of Judicial Immunity: A System of Self-Preservation

The Supreme Court’s distinction between a “clear absence” of jurisdiction and an “excess of jurisdiction” is a legal maneuver designed to preserve judicial immunity while appearing to impose limits. If a judge acts outside the scope of his authority, he is both in excess and outside jurisdiction, making the distinction meaningless. The logical conclusion should be that once a judge steps beyond his defined authority, he forfeits any claim to immunity.

The argument that judicial immunity is rooted in common law, specifically the “King can do no wrong” doctrine, contradicts the very foundation of our constitutional republic. The Treaty of Paris (1783) made it clear that we have no king and want no king, yet judicial immunity preserves a legal aristocracy where judges are functionally above the law.

Jurisdiction Can Be Challenged at Any Time

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even as much as fifteen (15) years after a judgment has been entered. Decisions of the Supreme Court are mandatory requirements that must be complied with by all courts, both state and federal, leaving no discretion as to whether or not to comply. The following Supreme Court cases set out these mandatory requirements:

Melo v. U.S., 505 F2d 1026: “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction; the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.”
Joyce v. U.S., 474 F2d 215: “Where there is no jurisdiction over the subject matter, there is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.”
Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416: “Generally, a plaintiff’s allegations of jurisdiction are sufficient, but when they are questioned, as in this case, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove jurisdiction.”
In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846: “Judgment rendered by court which did not have jurisdiction to hear cause is void ab initio.”
Clary v. Hoagland, 6 Cal. 685; Dillon v. Dillon, 45 Cal. App. 191,187P. 27: “It is elementary that the first question which must be determined by the trial court in every case is that of jurisdiction.”

Historical Context: Corruption in the U.S. Legal System

The 14th Amendment and Its Controversial Ratification

Coercion of Southern states into ratification.
Legislative irregularities and ignored rescinded ratifications.
Congressional overreach in imposing conditions for state representation.

Judicial and Attorney Corruption, Judicial Immunity, and the BAR’s Influence

Judicial immunity shields judges from accountability, even in cases of constitutional violations.
The ABA and state BAR associations exert significant influence over all three branches of government.
Attorneys operating under the title “Esquire” raise constitutional concerns regarding Titles of Nobility Clauses.

The Federal Corporation Argument and Legal System Structural Issues

28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) defines the “United States” as a federal corporation, leading to claims of governance outside the original constitutional republic framework.

Jury Rights, Due Process, and the Role of “We the People”

Georgia v. Brailsford (1794): Juries have the right to determine both law and fact.
Monell v. Dept. of Social Services (1978): Local and state governments can be sued for unconstitutional policies.

Restoring Jury Sovereignty and Challenging Unfair Legal Practices

Step 1: Decline a Statutory Jury Trial and Demand a Trial by Jury in a Court of Record

A statutory “jury trial” follows modern procedural rules where the judge dictates the law to the jury. A “trial by jury” under common law ensures that the jury has the final authority over both fact and law.

Step 2: File a Motion Affirming the Jury’s Right to Judge the Law

Motion to Affirm Jury’s Right to Judge the Law
“I, [Your Name], respectfully move this court to acknowledge and affirm the jury’s inherent right to judge both the facts and the law applicable in this case. This motion is grounded in the principle that jurors possess the authority to interpret the law and its application, as supported by historical legal precedents.”

Step 3: Cite Constitutional Provisions and Supreme Court Precedent

Seventh Amendment: Protects trial by jury under common law.
Georgia v. Brailsford (1794): Jurors have the right to decide both law and fact.
United States v. Moylan (1969): Juries retain the power to acquit even against judicial instructions.

Step 4: Challenge Unfair Jury Selection and Judicial Control of Jury Instructions

File a motion challenging jury selection biases.
Object to judge-controlled jury instructions that limit jury authority.

Conclusion

The legal system in the United States has been corrupted by the expansion of judicial immunity, BAR influence, and unconstitutional legal doctrines. The 14th Amendment’s contested ratification, the improper granting of privileges to attorneys and judges, and the erosion of jury rights all contribute to a system that prioritizes judicial protectionism over constitutional justice. To restore fairness, it is necessary to challenge these doctrines, reaffirm jury sovereignty, and demand judicial accountability.

By asserting the People’s authority through constitutional arguments, jury sovereignty, and legal challenges, we can begin the process of reclaiming a truly just legal system where no judge, attorney, or government official is above the Constitution.

The only fair and legitimate way to determine whether judicial immunity should be upheld, altered, or abolished is through a trial by jury, where impartial citizens, not conflicted judges, decide its validity. Leaving it in the hands of judges presents an obvious and insurmountable conflict of interest — they will never rule against their own power.