http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=5&page=137

Unlawful to force any employee to enter into any agreement as a condition of employment.

cited also in Smith v.
Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."

"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".

"No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.  All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it."

106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882)

(1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694

(1973) 10 Cal.3d 270, 286

Owen v. City of Independence

Before sending a person to jail for contempt or imposing a fine, judges are required to provide due process of law, including strict adherence to the procedural requirements contained in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating but an aggravating factor.

"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.  No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity.  All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it."

"It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives."

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW

Nowhere was the judiciary given immunity, particularly nowhere in Article III; under our Constitution, if judges were to have immunity, it could only possibly be granted by amendment (and even less possibly by legislative act), as Art. I, Sections 9 & 10, respectively, in fact expressly prohibit such, stating, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and "No state shall... grant any Title of Nobility."  Most of us are certain that Congress itself doesn't understand the inherent lack of immunity for judges.

"The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior."

"Federal tort law:  judges cannot invoke judicial immunity for acts that violate litigants' civil rights." - Robert Craig Waters.

Justice Douglas, in his dissenting opinion at page 140 said, "If (federal judges) break the law, they can be prosecuted."  Justice Black, in his dissenting opinion at page 141) said, "Judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted and punished for crimes... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution".

Note:  Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land.  The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it".

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it".

124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980);

Constitutionally and in fact of law and judicial rulings, state-federal "magistrates-judges" or any government actors, state or federal, may now be held liable, if they violate any Citizen's Constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities, or guarantees; including statutory civil rights.

A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity.

Constitutionally and in fact of law and judicial rulings, state-federal "magistrates-judges" or any government actors, state or federal, may now be held liable, if they violate any Citizen's Constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities, or guarantees; including statutory civil rights.

A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity.

108 S. Ct. 580 (1987); United States v. Lanier (March 1997)

"Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction."

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984); 104 S. Ct. 1781, 1980, 1981, and 1985

In 1996, Congress passed a law to overcome this ruling which stated that judicial immunity doesn't exist; citizens can sue judges for prospective injunctive relief.

"Our own experience is fully consistent with the common law's rejection of a rule of judicial immunity.  We never have had a rule of absolute judicial immunity.  At least seven circuits have indicated affirmatively that there is no immunity... to prevent irreparable injury to a citizen's constitutional rights..."

"Subsequent interpretations of the Civil Rights Act by this Court acknowledge Congress' intent to reach unconstitutional actions by all state and federal actors, including judges... The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state [federal] from denying any person [citizen] within its jurisdiction the equal protection under the laws.  Since a State [or federal] acts only by its legislative, executive or judicial authorities, the constitutional provisions must be addressed to those authorities, including state and federal judges..."

"We conclude that judicial immunity is not a bar to relief against a judicial officer acting in her [his] judicial capacity."

Note:  By law, a judge is a state officer.  The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).  When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.

The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."

Some Defendants urge that any act "of a judicial nature" entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity.  But in a jurisdictional vacuum (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing.

A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Arizona District Court dismissal based upon absolute judicial immunity, finding that both necessary immunity prongs were absent; later, in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (1986), the Ninth Circuit, en banc, criticized the "judicial nature" analysis it had published in Rankin as unnecessarily restrictive.

 But Rankin's ultimate result was not changed, because Judge Howard had been independently divested of absolute judicial immunity by his complete lack of jurisdiction.

"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.  No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.  All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it."

"It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives."

NOTE:  It is a fact of law that the person asserting jurisdiction must, when challenged, prove that jurisdiction exists; mere good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished.

Brook v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633

Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases.

"The term 'District Courts of the United States' as used in the rules without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance.  It describes the constitutional courts created under Article 3 of the Constitution.  Courts of the Territories are Legislative Courts, properly speaking, and are not district courts of the United States.  We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the district courts of the United States (98 U.S. 145) does not make it a 'District Court of the United States'.

"Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules the territorial court and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended."

Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938)

McNutt v. General Motors, 298 U.S. 178

"It is deeply distressing that the Department of Justice, whose mission is to protect the constitutional liberties of the people of the United States, should even appear to be seeking to subvert them by extreme and dubious legal argument."

"It is deeply distressing that the Department of Justice, whose mission is to protect the constitutional liberties of the people of the United States, should even appear to be seeking to subvert them by extreme and dubious legal argument."

"No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore."

United States Constitution, First Amendment Right to Petition; Freedom of Association.

PROBABLE CAUSE

Probable Cause to Arrest - Provides details on how to determine if a crime has been or is being committed.

Draper v. U.S. (1959)

PRO SE RIGHTS

Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.

377 U.S.1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425

PRO SE RIGHTS

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."

"... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."

"Next Friend" A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.

"Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."

Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,

"Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants.  They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end.  Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."

Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."

Third Circuit Court of Appeals The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept".  Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."

) It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).

"Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."

"The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."