Proposed clear rules against violators of constitutional rights make clear sense. Legislators, any implementation?

The recent blog of an outstanding contributor to the Forbes.com blog on issues of constitutional rights, George Leef, is about knowing violation by a president of a State University of the State of Georgia (Valcosta State) of a student's free speech rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

George Leef rightfully questions why the $900,000.00 settlement and legal fees pertaining to obvious misconduct by the State University's president, in obvious violation of the student's constitutional right, must be borne by taxpayers and not by the violator.

A commentator to George Leef's blog proposed this rule as to government actors who knowingly violate people's constitutional rights, with an addition to the rule by George Leef:

So, the proposed rule, as stated by a member of the public plus a venerable commentator, is:

If you knowingly violate (let's take it more broadly) people's constitutional rights, you are fired and you are made to indemnify (let's take it more broadly, too) the taxpayers and the victims of your misconduct out of your own pocket.

There mere possibility of being hit in the pocket will drastically reduce constitutional violations, that's a guarantee.  

Another recent settlement came to mind, of $600,000 that New York taxpayers had to pay in the case that lasted 4.5 years and involved clear misconduct of several high-ranking judges and their assistants in retaliation against a court employee who refused a judge's bid to engage in political espionage against another judge and Democratic judicial candidate.

That is the case of Bobette Maurin v James Tormey et al.

New York taxpayers also had to pay for the obvious misconduct of a judge, and the judge was, for some inexplicable reason, represented at the expense of taxpayers, even though his actions for which he was sued, were nowhere near his judicial authority.

That's why I would pose the question broader - why public officials who knowingly violate people's constitutional rights are not fired and are not made to indemnify victims of their misconduct - both the direct victims and the taxpayers who are made to pay for the misconduct?

And why the laws that condone, support or promote such a travesty of justice are not yet repealed, in our democratic society?

Will any legislators be bold enough to propose a bill repealing any and all absolute immunities of any and all public officials, and to leave, if even that is unconstitutional, only qualified immunities, to be tried to juries.

Tormey did not lose either his job or his license as a result of his shenannigans, and is now used by the court system as the ultimate "closer" of lawsuits against judges, as I found out, because he was assigned to three lawsuits (Bracci v Becker, Neroni v Zayas, Neroni v Follender) that I brought where a defendant is either a judge or claimed being part of a court (as a member of an attorney disciplinary committee - which made no sense because a member of the court may not investigate and prosecute under the doctrine of separation of powers), whether he was sued for what he did as a judge or not.

Tormey engaged in an ex parte communication in Bracci v Becker (the NYS Court Administration concealed that evidence, refusing to release to me courthouse videos in answer to my FOIL request under a laughable pretext), punished me for suing his own valuable self in federal court in Neroni v Follender, with an illegal anti-filing injunction and sanctions, and while misrepresenting the record, and dismissed Neroni v Zayas on "lack of service" where service was waived.  A true closer.

I did not expect anything less from a judge whose level of integrity is as low as is described in the Maurin v Tormey lawsuit.

Since Tormey was not made accountable for his misconduct in the Maureen v Tormey lawsuit, he continued his shenanigans, and is being sued once again at this time, with taxpayers paying for his legal representation once again.

Tormey who, as I already wrote on this blog, has a distinct tendency of discriminating against women, is not unique in his misconduct.  Other public officials, knowing that the state attorney general will represent them at public expense, and that federal courts will bend over backwards to absolve them of any liability, stretching the unconstitutional concept of immunity illegally created by judges beyond its declared logic and beyond any point of rationality, do whatever they want and think that they are the law because nobody can question or contain them when they are out there to strike in retaliation.

Only hitting them in the pocket will help.

It will not take much to send them a message that their misconduct is not tolerated.

Just issue the law repealing all kinds of absolute immunities, and make the law requiring that, when qualified immunity is asserted, it must be decided by the jury, not the federal judge - as any mixed issues of fact and laws should be decided - and that will be it.

I would also repeal all the laws allowing public officials to be represented at the taxpayers expense when they are sued for knowing constitutional violations.

People will then be more cautious when they run for public office.  It will not reduce influx of real talent, but it will definitely reduce the influx to public office of unscrupulous crooks who come their to do their business with their friends and to wield revenge against their perceived enemies, at taxpayers' expense and in violation of state and federal constitutional laws.