A legislative proposal of how to transform Wicked Stepmothers into Fairy Godmothers

On October 14, 2015, a federal court in the Southern District Court of Florida, in reliance on a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1994, made an astonishing claim (while dismissing portions of a federal lawsuit made by a suspended attorney Erwin Rosenberg) that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction of federal courts cannot be EXPANDED by judicial decree.

While that is absolutely true, what the court said is also part of a more generalized concept, that under Article I of the U.S. Constitution only the U.S. Congress has exclusive authority to adjudicate, and that federal courts cannot legislate and AMEND statutes, either by EXPANDING its limited jurisdiction given by statute, or to RESTRICT it.

The judge of the Southern District Court of Florida recognized only the prohibition on EXPANSION of jurisdiction of federal courts by judicial decrees in excess of a statute or of the U.S. Constitution while ignoring the matching prohibition on restriction of jurisdiction of federal court by judicial decree.

Yet, as I wrote before on this blog, federal courts engage in RESTRICTION of their jurisdiction, which is not authorized by Article I and Article III of the U.S. Constitution as well as expansion of jurisdiction by judicial decree.

Courts unlawfully restrict their jurisdiction, and thus slam the doors to the courthouse into the faces of injured victims of constitutional violations through the following judicial decrees/judicially created concepts (this may be an incomplete list):

1. comity/federalism;
2. deference to state officials who are sued as defendants in civil rights lawsuits (deference to one of the parties based on the party's status = bias, it is a very simple concept that federal courts would not see even when it is screaming in their learned faces);
3. full faith and credit to state adjudications through courts or administrative agencies that either refused to review federal constitutional claims or had no authority to consider federal constitutional claims/ collateral estoppel/ res judicata on the same grounds;
4. various immunities:
1. absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts;
2. quasi-judicial immunity to a host of people not subject to judicial discipline;
3. absolute prosecutorial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts;
4. qualified prosecutorial immunity for investigative actions;
5. qualified immunity to a host of people, including police officers and social services that is not subject to public discipline;
6. "sovereign immunity" that most states waived (the State of NewYork waived "sovereign immunity" in 1929 through a Court of Claims Act).
5. Various abstentions of federal courts recognizing jurisdiction, but refusing to exercise it on various pretexts, mostly invented after state and federal judiciaries agreed in 1970 through so-called "State-Federal Judicial Councils", a shady quasi-governmental organization with secret membership, to make efforts and "relieve tension" between state and federal judiciary through court decisions of federal courts in favor of state officials brought in before federal courts as defendants in civil rights actions;
6. the Rooker-Feldman bar (claiming that unconstitutional actions by the government had to be brought up in state court and, if not brought up, waived - which is not conceptually correct because under 42 U.S.C. 1983 a civil rights plaintiff is allowed by the U.S. Congress to choose federal courts as forums for federal constitutional claims, without any conditions precedent, and failure to bring such claims in federal court thus does not constitute any bar for exercising this choice);
7. specific pleading requirements in civil rights cases, which transform "claim pleading", as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and 9 into the ancient and long-abolished factual pleading where the plaintiffs are required to do the impossible - plead facts pertaining to conspiracy and shady dealings of state government officials in violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights before discovery;  moreover, civil rights lawsuits are often dismissed for failure to comply with that impossible task, and plaintiffs and their attorneys sanctioned for "frivolous conduct" for such failure.

I bet, those judges who dismiss cases on the grounds of failure to carry out an impossible judicially created pleading requirement, and sanction for such failure to satisfy an impossible task, watched - a lot - "Cinderella" when they were children, and now happily follow in the footsteps of the Wicked Stepmother.

Federal courts not only unlawfully restrict their jurisdiction based on "judicial decrees", but also punish civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys for bringing civil rights lawsuits despite those unlawful judge-created decrees unlawfully restricting jurisdiction of federal courts.

In other words, federal courts unlawfully punish victims of constitutional violations for asking a federal court for help against perpetrators of those constitutional violations.

And this situation has been ongoing for quite a while, since 1970 and became most acute nowadays.

Yet, without novel constitutional arguments, there will be no development in constitutional law, in civil rights movement and in social progress of this country.

I understand that preservation of the status quo and protection of state public officials from lawsuits based on their misconduct is what federal courts consider their duty, Constitutional oath of office be d**ned.

Any law is as strong as its enforcement.

The U.S. Constitution has been made unenforceable for some time through "judicial decrees" of federal courts restricting their jurisdiction and forcing civil rights plaintiffs to involuntarily "choose" as a forum to adjudicate their federal constitutional claims biased state courts that ignore their constitutional claims and punish those who raise them, litigant or attorney.

It is time to reverse this habit of lawlessness by our most "honorable" adjudicators, our Wicked Stepmothers who don't give a fig whether they violate the law and their constitutional oath of office (that they needed only to claim their salary, benefits and power for our LIFE OR DEATH, literally - federal courts handle death penalty cases), as long as they forge connections with the powerful people who appear in front of them as defendants.  

I encourage my readers to contact their representatives in Congress and to demand introduction of legislation to:

protect the Civil Rights Act, legislatively prohibiting :

• any of the above-mentioned restrictions to jurisdiction of federal courts, legislatively providing that 
• the use of any of the above mentioned judicially created restrictions on jurisdiction of federal courts, or of any other, new judicially created restriction to jurisdiction of federal courts which are not reflected in the text of federal statutes or the U.S. Constitution, as well as imposition of punishment upon civil rights plaintiffs and attorneys for filing civil rights actions and raising constitutional arguments, should be grounds for immediate impeachment and removal from office of any federal judge.

Since our Wicked Stepmothers, our federal judges who we recklessly entrusted to be in charge of the "rule of law", 

are spitting on that rule of law from a high bell-tower where they sit and enjoy their salaries and benefits, fruits of our labor as taxpayers, 

the only language they will understand is a boot to their backside for betraying their oath of office, 

and the procedure for removal/impeachment of our beloved Wicked Stepmothers must be legislatively made AUTOMATIC, 

as long as there is evidence that a judge either: 

1. refused to review a civil rights lawsuit on grounds that are not found in the TEXT of a federal statute or the U.S. Constitution, and/or 
2. punished a litigant or attorney for: 
1. filing a civil rights lawsuit, a lawsuit meant to enforce the U.S. Constitution and to obtain a private remedy to the victim of constitutional violations from perpetrators of such constitutional violations, or
2. for making any arguments in that civil rights lawsuit, as all arguments in a civil rights lawsuit are arguments based on the U.S. Constitution.

When that legislation is in place, and is enforced, I bet that our federal judges, our Wicked Stepmothers, will immediately recall their Constitutional oath of office (not just to lash around in blind rage, garner courtier's flattery and gifts or draw a paycheck as they do it now), and will become our Fairy Godmothers.

A transformation from a Wicked Stepmother to a Fairy Godmother - isn't that magical?

Let's create the magic.