Oath of protection

I hear all the time about "sworn officers" and their "presumed" integrity - while at the same time, as an attorney working in criminal courts, in family courts, in federal courts in civil rights litigation, all I see is that police, prosecutors, social services, judges can do anything they want, with complete impunity, and no disciplinary rules, no criminal investigations, no rules of ethics, no civil lawsuits can reach them, no matter what kind of open, arrogant and blatant misconduct they commit.


Those "sworn officers", being it police officers, judicial officers, attorneys for the government or private attorneys (albeit "officers of the court") are, once again, "sworn" to protect the local laws, federal laws and the U.S. and the State Constitutions (in the state where they are in).


At the very same time, all kinds of "immunities" have been invented by courts, to the point that, for example, it is impossible to prosecute a judge even for malicious AND CORRUPT conduct while on the bench.  I learnt the hard way (dismissal of federal lawsuits, with sanctions), that what constitutes "conduct ON the bench" somehow includes a lot of conduct OFF the bench, simply because federal judges are also judges and simply ignore pleadings stating that certain conduct was OFF the bench and, thus, is not covered by their elaborate self-given immunity.


Apparently, if you are a judge, ANYTHING you do is absolutely immune.


The same is for prosecutors - in their "prosecutorial" capacity.


As to "investigative capacity" of prosecutors - they are entitled to "qualified" immunity, which is nearly always found.


What concerns police officers - "qualified immunity" is deemed so broad that legal scholars claim that it is practically impossible to get accountability of police officers for using excessive force, to the point of killing people.


As a recent example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that officers were covered by qualified immunity when:


1) they wanted to stop a motorist for a light that did not work;


2) the motorist took off speeding (a bad decision, but not entitling police officers to shoot to kill - wouldn't you think?);


3) the police chose no better than to engage in a high-speed chase, thus, in my humble opinion, PERPETUATING that chase - the speeder would not be speeding if they would not be speeding after him, and it was only because of one bad light on the car;
4) the police shot at the motorist SEVERAL TIMES - and finally killed the motorists.


The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the officer were covered by qualified immunity, because as "reasonable officers" they were - guess - extinguishing a public safety hazard, a high speed chase.  Not by stopping - but by shooting to kill.


I absolutely "love" what the court said in the civil rights lawsuit against judges who were convicted in connection with the "Kids-for-Cash" scandal - I put it on top of this blog.




                “Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act
                in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune
                from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his '
                conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will,
                but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently,
                cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain
                that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”,
               District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al,
              Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
              District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009.


Think about it once again:


             It is the OATH that a person is alleged to have VIOLATED FOR PERSONAL GAIN
             that REQUIRES - THE COURT OF LAW - YOUR PUBLIC SERVANTS - TO ABSOLVE
             OTHER PUBLIC SERVANT - WHO IS IN THE SAME CLASS OF
             PUBLIC OFFICIALS AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE - to absolve
             the possible VIOLATER OF CONSTITUTIONAL OATH  -
             FROM ANY - ANY - LIABILITY TO THE VICTIMS OF SUCH VIOLATIONS.


Is there anything as warped as this logic?  And as lawless?  And as self-serving?


Based on all the above, one inevitably comes to a conclusion that the so-called "constitutional oath of office" is simply a "trigger point of protection", because, in the opinion of Judge Caputo of the federal district court in Pennsylvania - it is!  The oath TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION is the basis of the conclusion that VIOLATING THAT OATH will not have any consequences to the person who took that oath, BECAUSE he took that oath.


Once again - this is a judge who HIMSELF has been sworn to uphold the Constitution.  And the U.S. Constitution does not give permission to ANYBODY to violate it.


Obviously, the necessity to protect the judiciary as members of the same "corporation" is much stronger than the duties imposed by the oath of office.


The logic that the oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution is only a trigger of protection, and is meaningless otherwise, is so deeply entrenched in governmental - and judicial culture - that raising constitutional arguments in courts has become dangerous business, often leading to sanctions for "frivolous" conduct, especially if the claims of constitutional violations come against powerful governmental officials.


If oaths to UPHOLD the Constitution are only used to UHOLD VIOLATIONS of that same Constitution - do we really need the oaths of office?


Maybe, we need to eliminate all of them, as well as all immunities for violating them, and introduce clear and transparent system of duties and accountability for violating those duties for all public officials, with direct monitoring by the people - through, possibly, investigative grand jury power?


Since I do not see any other democratic mechanisms working to eliminate this perversity of justice, resurrection and empowering of investigative grand juries with criminal prosecutions of violators of public trust and state and federal laws and Constitutions should be in order.


And a legislative and, possible, constitutional reforms, on state and federal levels, are needed to implement that.


Otherwise, the so-called "rule of law" as it is now is truly a joke and is, in fact, the "rule of the few".