1. Judges Are Not Immune When Acting Outside Their Authority
Judicial immunity is often misunderstood. It protects judges only when they act within their lawful jurisdiction and in their judicial capacity. When judges act outside these boundaries, their immunity no longer applies.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983: This federal statute provides a remedy for individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated by someone acting under color of law. Judges are not exempt when their actions exceed their authority.
- Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 662: Judges do not act judicially when enforcing mere statutes and, thus, lose their claim to immunity.
- Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583: Judges acting in a ministerial or administrative capacity are liable for damages.
- AFL-CIO v. Woodward, 406 F.2d 137: “Public officials are not immune from suit when they transcend their lawful authority by invading constitutional rights.”
- Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829: Judges can be sued for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees when they act beyond their authority.
2. Statutes That Hold Judges Accountable
Several federal statutes clearly outline the conditions under which judges can be held liable:
- 18 U.S.C. § 1001: Judges are subject to criminal penalties for knowingly making false statements, falsifying documents, or concealing material facts in the course of their duties.
- 28 U.S.C. § 455: Judges must recuse themselves from cases where their impartiality may reasonably be questioned or when they have a personal or financial interest.
- 28 U.S.C. § 607: This statute addresses judicial misconduct and provides measures to discipline judges who fail to fulfill their duties lawfully.
3. Clearfield Doctrine: Judges as Private Entities
The Clearfield Doctrine establishes that when government officials, including judges, operate outside their constitutional authority or engage in private, commercial activities, they lose sovereign immunity and become liable as private individuals.
- Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943): “When a government entity becomes involved in commercial transactions, it descends to the level of a mere private corporation.”
- Judges enforcing statutes or operating in a commercial capacity lose their judicial immunity and can be held personally accountable.
4. The Power of Unrebutted Affidavits
An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce and serves as a powerful tool to hold judges accountable.
- “Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit”: Judges are bound to respond to affidavits. Failing to rebut an affidavit constitutes agreement by default.
- “An unrebutted affidavit becomes judgment in commerce”: Judges cannot lawfully ignore uncontested affidavits or act contrary to their truth.
This legal principle reinforces the accountability of judges to uphold the facts presented in lawful affidavits.
5. Equality and Liability Under the Law
No one, including judges, is above the law. Judicial misconduct undermines the public’s trust and violates the fundamental principle of accountability.
- Rabon v. Rowen Memorial Hospital, Inc., 269 N.S. 1: “Immunity fosters neglect and breeds irresponsibility, while liability promotes care and caution.”
- Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419: Sovereignty rests with the people, and all officials, including judges, are subject to the law.
Judges must act with care and diligence, as their liability is crucial to maintaining fairness and justice within the system.
6. Legal Maxims Supporting Accountability
The following principles reinforce the legal and moral responsibility of judges:
- “Ignorance of the law excuses no one”: Judges cannot plead ignorance as a defense for misconduct. – In re McCowan, 177 C. 93
- “All are presumed to know the law”: Judges are held to the highest standard of legal knowledge and behavior.
- “No one is bound to perform an impossible act”: Judges cannot lawfully compel individuals to perform actions outside their legal obligations.
Conclusion
Judges, as public officials, are bound by the Constitution, federal statutes, and principles of fairness. 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Clearfield Doctrine, and related laws demonstrate that when judges act outside their lawful authority or engage in private activities, they expose themselves to personal liability.
Accountability ensures the integrity of the judicial system and reaffirms the principle that no one is above the law. Through truth in commerce, the power of affidavits, and established legal principles, individuals have the tools to hold judges responsible for their actions.
📚28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
📚28 U.S. Code § 607 – Practice of law prohibited
📚18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally#florida #law #commonlaw #riversidecounty #miamidadecounty #roykaltman #28usc455 #28usc607… pic.twitter.com/B4DMZICczu— ™KEVIN L. WALKER© ESTATE (@KEVINOMICS_) January 26, 2025
