As long as a judge violates the law without "impure motives", that's ok

Here is what the website of the New York State Administration says about retirement of attorneys from the practice of law:

So, full-time judges are deemed retired from the practice of law and may not practice law as a requirement of two provisions:

I. New York State Constitution:

• Article VI paragraph 20.b(4)

• b. A judge of the court of appeals, justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of claims, judge of a county court, judge of the surrogate's court, judge of the family court or judge of a court for the city of New York established pursuant to section fifteen of this article who is elected or appointed after the effective date of this article may not (4)  engage in the practice of law, act as an arbitrator, referee or compensated mediator in any action or proceeding or matter or engage in the conduct of any other profession or business which interferes with the performance of his or her judicial duties.
• Article VI paragraph 26 (j)(2) - temporary assignment of judges;
•              "(2) In addition to any temporary assignments

             to which a judge of a city court may be subject
             pursuant to paragraph one of this subdivision,
             such judge also may be temporarily assigned
             by the chief administrator of the courts to the
             county court, the family court or the district court
             within his or her county of residence or any
             adjoining county provided he or she is not
             permitted to practice law."

II.  22 NYCRR 118.1(g)

Yet, despite the above requirements of the law, judges give legal advice left and right to litigants, their attorneys, engage in secretly giving legal advice to friend and family members and, when caught red-handed, claim that they really did not do any harm, as Judge Robert Harlem said in his affidavit to the Otsego County Surrogate Nettie Scarzafawa (see my blog post the Blanding saga).

This is what the retired Judge Robert Harlem said in his affidavit to the Otsego County Surrogate's Court:

Apparently, it is not enough for the judge that he has violated his constitutional oath of office and the court rule pertaining to full-time judges deemed to be "retired" from the practice of law, 22 NYCRR 118.1(g), with all consequences of such retirement, that a retired attorney may not continue to practice for a fee.

The fee of Judge Harlem from Beatrice Blanding was tremendous see the will he has drafted with multiple bequest to himself listed in the Blanding saga post.

Yet, to Judge Harlem, violating the State Constitution, the court rule and his own oath of office to uphold the State Constitution is not bad enough, and he is trying to justify himself by his closeness to the decedent and by not having "impure motives".  Obviously, self-bequests of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property was not impure motives in the late Judge Harlem's eyes.

Judge Nettie Scarzafawa accepted that argument, did not sanction the retired judge and her own predecessor for unauthorized practice of law and defrauding the court, and, soon after that decision, stepped down from the bench in 2000, allegedly to take care of her elderly mother.

Retired Judge Nettie Jean Scarzafava was married to John Scarzafava until his death in 2014.  John Scarzafava was hired by Richard Harlem as a trial attorney in the Mokay action, a complete discqualification of which Richard Harlem knew. 

Richard Harlem also hired the law firm of my husband's disciplinary prosecutor (who was supposed to prosecute Richard Harlem and his father on my husband's complaint about their fraud).

John Scarzafava had the good grace to eventually refuse to represent the Mokay plaintiffs in the Mokay saga.  

John Casey's law firm, Hiscock & Barclay of Albany, NY, didn't have such good grace, and continue to claim attorney fees (which Judge Lebous, retaliating against exposure for his personnel's ex parte communications with Richard Harlem's attorney, granted).

John Casey and his law firm are exposed at this time to liability for antitrust violations, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's new pronouncement in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC in February of this year.  We will see how that lawsuit will proceed.

The interesting part about availability of discipline against judges practicing law is that attorney disciplinary committees refuse to prosecute them, claiming that any conduct committed by a judge during his or her judgeship is subject to only judicial discipline and not attorney discipline.

An even more interesting part is that retired judges who discharge judicial functions as judicial hearing officers are not subject to judicial discipline, because they are no longer sitting judges (and the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct claims it does not have jurisdiction over their discipline) and are not disciplined by attorney disciplinary committees, because for attorney disciplinary committees such retired judges appointed as referees or judicial hearing officers are still "judges" and, as such, are beyond attorney discipline.

Attorney discipline and judicial discipline in New York are two fascinating subjects...

Now, try violating the law and then appearing in a court of law, admitting the violation, but claiming that you really did not have impure motives to violate the law.

See how far you will get with that argument if your are not a judge.

Of course, you should choose to run this experiment in your mind - if you are not a judge.  It may have dire consequences for you, because not only your lack of "impure motives" does not matter if you violated the law, and knowledge of the law that you violated is PRESUMED in EVERY PERSON - and, of course, it was presumed in a Supreme Court judge and Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Administrative District, as Robert Harlem was.

So - once again, let's raise our glasses for the rule of law in the State of New York that exists in our aspirations - and nowhere else.

Judge Dowd spawns oral orders blocking my access to the Mokay exhibits

I wrote in this blog a couple of days ago about Judge Dowd's efforts, transmitted to me through Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk Kelly Sanfilippo, to block my access to trial exhibits received by the court on April 7, 2015.

I asked Kelly Sanfilippo to provide a written order blocking my access or sealing or temporarily sealing those exhibits, with papers upon which the order was granted.

Today I received a letter from Kelly Sanfilippo stating that there is no such written order, and so Ms.  Sanfilippo cannot provide me with a copy of the order.

I am not aware of a judge's authority to issue ORAL orders blocking a  party's attorney's access to exhibits that were already filed with the court and constitute a public record.

I am filing a Judiciary Law 255 request for access and will report on this blog as to the response by the Delaware County Supreme Court.

Stay tuned.

If you ain't done anything wrong, why hide it? NYS OCA stalls release of data on attorney discipline and attorney disciplinary committees

On April 22, 2015 I filed the following Freedom of Information Request with the New York State Office of Court administration (hereinafter NYS OCA):

On April 27, 2015 I received the following preliminary response from the NYS OCA:

Here is the ONLY record that I received from NYS OCA pursuant to this FOIL request:

While providing some interesting and sometimes revealing information as to the numbers of attorneys per county in New York State, NYS OCA did not release to me matching information as to attorney discipline per committee, or documents pertaining to appointment of members of attorney disciplinary committees, in other words, information that would have brought some light as to how these clandestine bodies of inquisition operate and who they target for discipline.

I have a belief, based on the data so far available to me that the committee members are hand-picked by the courts for reasons other than protection of consumers, and I have a reason to believe that such committees act not to protect consumers of legal services from bad attorneys, but to protect the market of legal services for themselves and their friends from competitors and to eliminate independent civil rights and criminal defense attorneys.

The stalling of information on this topic tends to prove the collective guilty conscience of the Court Administration and only confirms my beliefs.

In addition to the above sheet of paper with statistics, NYS OCA referred me to websites of attorney disciplinary committees which list names only of the current members of disciplinary committees (and disciplinary committees for the Appellate Division 2nd Judicial Department do not do even that).

Such websites do not list members of such committees dating back 10 years, nor do they provide on their websites orders of appointment of each member or staff attorney, nor do they provide on their websites documents supporting such appointments.

Once again, where an essential and meaningful piece of information is sought through a FOIL request, NYS OCA, the organization that is responsible for dispensing justice in the State of New York,  stalls information.

So, the tactic of the judicial system is:

•  to stall release of public records as to how the disciplinary committees are populated and how they operate;
• to preclude public access to disciplinary proceedings, even if it is directly provided by law and the attorney who is the subject of such proceedings wants it and requests it;
• to preclude public access to the files of disciplinary proceedings - even when it is directly provided by law, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, as it happened in my husband's case, where I represent my husband in an ongoing civil rights lawsuit to gain access to his own disciplinary file - 4 years after my husband lost his license and after his file became open not only to him, but to anybody who wants to look at it, pursuant to Judiciary Law 90(10).

I filed this FOIL request parallel to my complaint/petition to the Federal Trade Commission requesting investigation of how disciplinary committees in New York operate.

Chief Judge Lippman created a statewide commission this year, his last year in office, to investigate, research and ensure uniformity, efficiency and fairness of attorney disciplinary proceedings in the State of New York (while populating the commission in a peculiar way by people not interested in pursuing the needs of the majority of actual and potential consumers of legal services).

The creation of the statewide commission oddly coincided in time with the litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court that has ended, surprisingly, in a victory against anti-competitive interests permeating licensing boards, stripping their members of immunity for liability in lawsuits for violation of federal antitrust law.

The statewide commission, as I see, was created not so much to help the consumers - if that would be the case, a fair cross-section of consumers of legal services would have been included into the commission and would have had a decisive vote in it - but for the embattled legal elite to get together and decide how to preserve the status quo in a world that quickly gravitates towards deregulation.

While the statewide commission tries to devise ways of preserving the status quo, and while the FTC investigates my complaint about New York disciplinary process as a tool to lock the market and preserve unfair conditions for consumers favoring market regulators who are at the same time politically connected providers of legal services, the NYS OCA tries to prevent release of information that would help the FTC investigation and undermine the efforts of the statewide commission on attorney discipline to pretend they are doing something opposite to what they are interested in doing.

How fitting.

Of course, I have filed an administrative appeal for the denial of my FOIL request.

I will publish the NYS OCA response to that appeal.

Stay tuned.

 



Judicial immunity in the times of seditious libel, and in the time of the 1st Amendment/freedom of information laws

Today I published a couple of blog posts about judicial immunity.

Each time I read about the Star Chamber public policy justifications - no joke, policy justifications for judicial immunity did come out of a Star Chamber case (see my blog posts describing how the doctrine of judicial immunity emerged, here and here) - and each time I re-read those same policy justifications re-appear in decisions of modern-time federal courts, I keep wondering if federal judges spawning these justifications actually read the U.S. Constitution that they are all sworn to uphold - or if they care what it says.

In the Star Chamber England, the King was a sovereign and had absolute power.

It was a crime to criticize the King or other members of the government - a crime called "seditious libel", punishable by life in prison.

The crime of seditious libel was established by the same infamous Star Chamber in a case De Libellis Famosis in 1606.

The crime was to criticize the sovereign (King), his heirs, or the established government structure and order and bring the sovereign and government in disrepute, or to advocate for changes in the government.

Seditious libel was deemed a crime by the Star Chamber because criticism of the government tended to undermine respect and confidence in governmental authority.

In a democratic society we have the following differences which should lead courts to reject the policy of establishing absolute judicial immunity, for any acts by a judge, no matter how wrong, done on the bench, for the ultimate goal of maintaining the established order and public respect to authority at all costs:

1. The sovereign in a democratic society and in the U.S. is not a monarch, and not a group of people, it is the ENTIRE PEOPLE of the country.  Of course, I was sanctioned by a federal court for quoting from New York statutory law and from the U.S. and the New York State Constitution that the sovereign in the United States are the People and not the government.  Apparently, federal judges do not and would not know this basic concept of the U.S. governance and democracy.

2. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly guarantees to people their right to criticize the government - which is actually a servant to the people, because people are the sovereign in the United States and in the sovereign states.   This concept still appears foreign to many, if not most judges, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials.

3. Moreover, misconduct of certain public officials which is documented must be disclosed to the public through different access to records statutes.  On the federal level it is the Freedom of Information Act.  On the level of New York State Law, it is Public Officers Law 87 (Freedom of Information Law) and Judiciary Law 255, for judicial records.

Thus, the public policy considerations preventing members of the public from getting access to and then criticizing, members of the government, are long obsolete and inapplicable in a democratic society governed by a Constitution.

Not to mention that, as I amply described in my previous two blog posts, the U.S. Supreme Court, a court of limited jurisdiction under the Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a court without power under the Constitution to create decisions that would be deemed to be Supreme Law of the land, conceded in a case Tower v Glover, 104 S. Ct. 2820, 2826 (1984)  that it has no authority to create immunities based on public policy considerations that would restrict civil rights litigation.

If that is true, the U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to create immunities based on common law out of an institution abolished in the 17th century for its lawlessness (The Star Chamber) which immunities were based on the Star Chamber policy considerations.

Yet, that is what the U.S. Supreme Court did, for judges, prosecutors, police officers and a zillion of other public officials and private parties appointed by public officials, making civil litigation a joke and, in many respects and in relation to many classes of public officials such as judges and prosecutors committing misconduct in office, a waste of time.

Courts do not have authority to give immunities to anyone - but for those belonging to their own class or being too close to that class for comfort?

In my previous blog post today I quoted the U.S. Supreme Court stating the following as to judicial doctrines of immunity to restrict civil rights litigation:

              "We do not have a license to establish immunities from
              Section 1983 actiona in the interests of what we judge to
              be sound public policy.   It is for Congress to determine
              whether Section 1983 litigation has become
              too burdensome to state or federal institutions and,
              if so, what remedial  action is appropriate",
              Tower v Glover, 104 S. Ct. 2820, 2826 (1984).

That bold pronouncement was made by the U.S. Supreme Court:

• 8 years after that same U.S. Supreme Court gave absolute immunity, even for malicious and corrupt acts, to prosecutors in Imbler v Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) based on concepts of public policy, sending the nation into a half-a-century so far of rampant prosecutorial misconduct and wrongful convictions; and

• 6 years after that same U.S. Supreme Court gave absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts to judges, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), once again, sending the nation into half-a-century of rampant and uncontrolled judicial misconduct, where state (and federal) officials turn a blind eye on judicial misconduct until it hits the fan with a vengeance, such as in cases where judges have sex with litigants in chambers, sell kids for cash into juvenile prisons or have penis pumps during criminal trials.

We have generations of judges and prosecutors that came to their offices in this country with knowledge and in reliance upon Imbler v Pachtman and Stump v Sparkman, and since the time when these cases were decided, federal courts have spawned cases that expanded prosecutorial immunity to civil proceedings and judicial immunity to non-judicial personnel.

Yet, Tower v Glover remains on the books of the U.S. Supreme Court, as the court's admission that the bacchanalia of judge-created immunities, deferences, abstentions, comities and other judge-created doctrines that currently blocks access of victims of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct from obtaining their legitimate remedies in civil rights litigation, is absolutely unlawful.

Moreover, a third case on immunities that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court before its interesting admission in Tower v Glover in 1984, the case named  Ferri v Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193, 2014, 100 S.Ct. 402, 409 (1979),  was in stark contrast with the other two cases on absolute immunities - Imbler v Pachtman and Stump v Sparkman, cases that gave absolute immunity, even for malicious and corrupt acts, respectively, to prosecutors and judges.

In Ferri v Ackerman, the U.S. Supreme Court actually denied immunity to public defenders and assigned counsel in criminal litigation - guided, or rather, misguided by logic that defied its own logic in Imbler and in Stump.

Ferri v Ackerman indicated that, even though justice is supposed to be blind, it matters for the U.S. Supreme Court to whom it does - or does not - dispense immunities (while acknowledging that dispensing immunities is unlawful and usurpation of Congressional power in the first place - see Tower v Glover).

According to the logic of the U.S. Supreme Court, an assigned counsel and public defenders are not entitled to immunity while their opponents, the prosecutors, and the presiding judges, are, because of the following reasoning:

        "The fear that an unsuccessful defense of a criminal charge
        will lead to a malpractice claim does not conflict
        with performance of that function [representation
        in an assigned case - T.N.].  If anything, it provides
        the same incentive for appointed and retained counsel
        to perform that function competently".

Now, a civil rights lawsuit against a judge and prosecutor, public officials, would prevent them, as a matter of public policy (that the U.S. Supreme Court has no right to spawn - see Tower v. Glover), from doing their duties fearlessly and independently (Imbler v Pachtman, Stump v Sparkman).

But, a civil rights lawsuit against a public defender, also a public official, hired by and paid by the taxpayers, or an assigned counsel standing in the shoes of a public defender and also paid by taxpayers, will actually provide an incentive for such public official to do his work competently (Ferri v Ackerman)?

That means that doing judge's and prosecutor's work fearlessly and independently excludes the requirement of doing it competently or honestly because, due to immunity, judges and prosecutors lack incentives plus character to do their jobs competently, but have a lot of protection to do it corruptly, but fearlessly and independently in that corruption.

And, the doctrine of judicial immunity was stretched by courts to protect non-judicial personnel who, by any plausible logic, cannot possibly be engaged in JUDICIAL ACTS - for the simply reason that they ARE NOT JUDGES.


The law review article by Professor Margaret Z. Johns, "A Black Robe Is Not a Big Tent: The Improper Expansion of Absolute Judicial Immunity to Non-Judges in Civil Rights Cases"  that I have interlinked above and that I quote below, features on its very first page the following examples of where absolute judicial immunity was granted for non-judicial acts of non-judicial workers:

1. to a "social worker who falsified the results of a plaintiff's evaluation and omitted positive information from the report", Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2001);
2. to a "court-appointed commissioner charged with selling property following a divorce ... for defectively advertising the sale, illegally participating in the sale, and lying to the court",  Ashbrook v. Hoffman, 617 F.2d 474 (7th Cir. 1980);
3. to a "court-appointed receiver who was investigating a judgment debtor's assets ... for breaking into the debtor's girlfriend's storage locker and removing an oil painting and family jewelry", Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 1995). Professor Johns cites numerous cases where judicial immunity is expanded to non-judicial personnel without logic or reason.

Yet, one case, cited by Professor Johns, stands out because of its reasoning.  In Schinner v Strathmann, 711 F.Supp 1143, 1143-44 (D.D.C. 1989) the court granted a court appointed psychiatrist judicial immunity because "defendant was acting in a judicial capacity when he interviewed the plaintiff to assist a judge in evaluating a plaintiff's competency".

So, whoever "assists a judge" in evaluating anything in litigation - is entitled to immunity following this reasoning.

But, a public defender is not entitled to immunity - because a public defender does not assist a judge? 

Because a judge does not see what public defender is doing as assisting the court in evaluating the evidence, but rather hindering the court in such evaluation? 

So, public defenders are being punished by lack of immunity for their role in providing a defense in criminal prosecutions while DA's offices (the usual breeding grounds of judges) are rewarded?  Isn't this a pre-judgment of all criminal cases?

Do you see any logic in any of this?

I don't.  But I do see self-serving minds at work.  Judges would not allow their own personnel or friends they appoint to serve as "court appointed evaluators", to be sued - so they create for their own an umbrella of protection.

Judges do care about prosecutors - where judges most likely place their children for ascension to their children's own judicial careers - so they give immunities to prosecutors.

Judges do not usually place their children in public defender's offices, such offices are not considered good stepping stones for judicial careers - so public defenders are deemed expendable and immunities are not dispensed to them.

Yet, whether the U.S. Supreme Court reasoning in cases on immunities does or does not have logic is irrelevant because the U.S. Supreme Court admitted in Tower v. Glover in 1984 that it does not have authority to make public policy judgments and to restrict civil rights litigation allowed by Congress.

Not to mention that, according to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court do not have the status of the Supreme law of the land.

So why do federal courts treat them as if they are the Supreme law of the land, and why admittedly unlawfully created immunities - and deferences - and abstentions - and a zillion of other unlawful judge-created doctrines blocking civil rights litigation - continue to restrict access of civil rights litigants to court, prevent them from obtaining their legitimate remedies and be used as grounds for sanctions and attorney fees against victims of governmental misconduct in favor of perpetrators of such misconduct?

Because justice in this country is definitely not blind?

Because judges, in their overwhelming majority, are not spawned out of the public defender's office, but rather out of the prosecutor's office?

Because judges come to the bench not to do their jobs fairly, not to apply existing laws predictably and impartially, but to be in a position of power to make money and let their family and friends make money, to make law favoring themselves, their relatives, their friends, their employees, contributors to their election campaigns, contributors to their "educational" trips to resort locations, contributors to receptions with alcohol and gifts where they are invited - and wield power in favor of their own, leaving everybody else wondering where did the rule of law go?

   

 

 

 

 

 

  

Absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts, public policy decisions, Star Chamber and authority of federal courts

The judge-created doctrine of absolute judicial immunity FOR MALICIOUS AND CORRUPT ACTS on the bench is relatively new, dating back only to 1978, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).

Yet, the concept of judicial immunity that the U.S. Supreme Court judges so readily crafted to prevent liability of their brethren under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, was created not in a democracy, but in a monarchy, and not in a regular court, but in a Star Chamber.

In the case Floyd and Barker, 77 Eng. Rep. 1305 (Star Chamber 1607), Sir Edward Coke unilaterally established a standard of judicial immunity of a judge "for anything done by him as a judge".

The Barker case was a suit by one named Floyd after a person named William Price was executed on a sentence of death from Judge Barker.  Floyd was suing Judge Barker on a conspiracy theory.

Sir Edward Coke then instantly created a doctrine of immunity from liability for a judge based on the following principles:

1. finality of judgments - well, there can be nothing more final than an execution of a condemned prisoner, but we know how many people on death row now turn up innocent, and that is with DNA evidence.  There was no DNA evidence in the 17th century England.  Moreover, the triumph of finality over fairness is definitely not and cannot be in compliance with the constitutional concept of due process of law which American courts and especially federal courts dealing with constitutional lawsuits, must deal with and abide by.
2. immunity is necessary to maintain judicial independence - so, it is necessary to allow judges to do a sloppy job and even to engage in conspiracies to sell their performance - in order for that performance to be independent.  This principle is, once again, worthy of the Star Chamber where it was born, but definitely not of a court in a constitutional democracy.
3. immunity provides independence of thought and freedom from manipulation - see above, it the same problems flaw this "principle".  Sloppy work and corruption is allowed to slip away in order to allow the judge to maintain "independence of thought" to engage in that same sloppy work and corruption.  Not a concept that belongs in a constitutional democracy.
4. the necessity "to engender respect and confidence in the judiciary and the government".  That one is really worthy of the Star Chamber and truly does not comport in any way shape or form with a constitutional democracy.  It makes no sense whatsoever to allow a negligent or corrupt judge to escape liability in order to maintain amongst people respect and confidence in the government, because immunity breeds the very opposite of respect and confidence in the government in general and in the integrity of the judiciary specifically.

The Star Chamber was dissembled in England around 1641 as a lawless institution used as a tool of political oppression and has become a symbol of abuse of power.

That the highest court in a nation that emerged by breaking away from that same England because of the king's arbitrary power that the Americans DID NOT WANT TO RESPECT OR HONOR, long after the Star Chamber was dissembled, adopted the principles that came out of a Star Chamber case to restrict rights of litigants established by the U.S. Constitution and by the U.S. Congress by enacting a statute to enforce the U.S. Constitution, is a symbol of abuse of power in the modern times.

Moreover, the four aforementioned principles were created by Sir Edward Coke as a matter of public policy.
 
You know what the U.S. Supreme Court said about restricting civil rights litigation based on concepts of public policy?

              "We do not have a license to establish immunities from
              Section 1983 actiona in the interests of what we judge to
              be sound public policy.   It is for Congress to determine
              whether Section 1983 litigation has become
              too burdensome to state or federal institutions and,
              if so, what remedial  action is appropriate",
              Tower v Glover, 104 S. Ct. 2820, 2826 (1984).

This statement in Tower v. Glover was made by the U.S. Supreme Court 6 years after Stump v. Sparkman that is considered the starting point of the judge-created doctrine of the absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts in the American jurisprudence.  Truly, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yet, federal courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court itself, do not seem to notice what they stated in Tower v Glover and continue to create and apply immunities to Section 1983, in obvious full knowledge that their actions are unlawful and that they are unlawfully usurping Congressional power and depriving victims of governmental misconduct of their legitimate remedy - based on federal judges' personal judgments that civil rights litigation became much too burdensome for federal and state institutions.

So, litigants and attorneys whose countless cases were rejected on the principles of judicial, quasi-judicial, prosecutorial absolute immunity, and qualified immunity for police and social workers - all of those lawsuits were rejected, as the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges, unlawfully.

And all the sanctions that were imposed, and fees that were ordered to be paid by victims of official misconducts to the perpetrators of such misconducts because perpetrators were allegedly protected by immunities - are admittedly unlawful, and sanctioning civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys is an ever growing trend in  the U.S. federal courts.

And - the above statement in Tower v. Glover can finally serve as a revelation of the reasons why doctrines of immunities, as well as other "public policy doctrines" such as Rooker-Feldman, comity, federalism, deferences, and a wide range of abstentions, exist - because federal courts unilaterally decide that civil rights litigation is much too burdensome to state and federal institutions and use judge-created barriers to reduce their own caseloads, which is NOT a lawful ground to refuse a remedy to victims of governmental misconduct lawfully exercising their private right of action to sue governmental officials for constitutional violations, a right created by Congressional enactment and that DOES NOT have exceptions for judges, prosecutors and police officers.

Moreover, in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), a textbook case on constitutional law taught in law schools as the origin of the U.S. Supreme Court's authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution (something that is not found in that same U.S. Constitution), the U.S. Supreme Court has stated the following:
 
"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right
of every individual to claim the protection of the laws
when he receives an injury", 1 Cranch 137 at 163 (1803).
This is how the U.S. Supreme Court explained the purpose of the Civil Rights Act in the same year when U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts for a judge who screwed up royally and issued an ex parte order of secret sterilization of a 15-year old girl on request of her mother because she was allegedly mentally ill and "promiscuous" in Stump v Sparkman:

       "The purpose of the statute was to deter public officials
       from using the badge of their authority to violate persons'
       constitutional rights and to provide compensation and other
       relief to victims of constitutional deprivations when that
       deterrence failed", Carey v Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 253 (1978).

Yet, what rules in federal courts nowadays is not the U.S. Constitution, not the Civil Rights Act enacted by Congress, but the concept born out of the darkness of the 17th-century Star Chamber ditched by the English in that same 17th Century for unlawfulness.

Long live the rule of law.

Posted important information for parents charged with child neglect/abuse in my blog dedicated to child protective services

The link is here.

The blog post is about a procedural (unlawful)  trick social services use to coerce parents to talk to social services in child neglect proceedings outside of formal discovery, that allows social services to forgo proper investigation, pleading and discovery and assure their victory in such proceedings.