Who is a Victim-of-Law?

[Guest guest]

WELCOME TO VICTIMS-OF-LAW

http://www.victimsoflaw.net/

Who is a Victim-of-Law?

Victims-of-Law are persons who have been subjected to tyrannical or

arbitrary rulings or edicts in violation of constitutional and civil

rights under the democratic maxim reminiscent of our Republic --

the " Rule of Law "

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

The victims of unethical and corrupt lawyers, judges and employees

of the state and federal judiciary demand accountability from those

who abuse the power of office while they remain absolutely immune.

The media as well as the legislative and executive branches of

government traditionally ignore these abuses. The judicial branch

itself hurls insults at the victim claiming they are nothing more

than a 'disgruntled litigant' while ignoring substantive

allegations.

It is essential to empower the victims of legal abuses. Our strength

is in our numbers thus the more people that demand their

constitutional and civil rights the quicker they will be attained.

What most people do not comprehend is that judges are immune from

civil lawsuits. If a judge unlawfully imprisoned someone or

maliciously denied due process in a case that cost a litigant

millions of dollars, it doesn't matter. There is no redress for the

aggrieved person.

The emotional and physical health problems inherent in these abuses

are now coming to light but the judicial branches throughout our

country continue to avoid or deliberately ignore what they have

helped to create.

This website hopes to publish documented proof of many of the

deliberate violations of the 'rule of law, the doctrine upon which

our Constitutional Republic is based.

This website hopes to publish documented proof of many of the

deliberate violations of the 'rule of law, the doctrine upon which

our Constitutional Republic is based.

What is the " Rule of Law " ?

Equality and the Law

The right to equality before the law, or equal protection of the law

as it is often phrased, is fundamental to any just and democratic

society. Whether rich or poor, ethnic majority or religious

minority, political ally of the state or opponent--all are entitled

to equal protection before the law.

The democratic state cannot guarantee that life will treat everyone

equally, and it has no responsibility to do so. However, writes

constitutional law expert P. , " Under no circumstances

should the state impose additional inequalities; it should be

required to deal evenly and equally with all of its people. "

No one is above the law, which is, after all, the creation of the

people, not something imposed upon them. The citizens of a democracy

submit to the law because they recognize that, however indirectly,

they are submitting to themselves as makers of the law. When laws

are established by the people who then have to obey them, both law

and democracy are served.

Reprinted from the National Constitution Center

The Supreme Court

The Framers considered the rule of law essential to the safekeeping

of social order and civil liberties. The rule of law holds that if

our relationships with each other and with the state are governed by

a set of rules, rather than by a group of individuals, we are less

likely to fall victim to authoritarian rule. The rule of law calls

for both individuals and the government to submit to the law's

supremacy. By precluding both the individual and the state from

transcending the supreme law of the land, the Framers constructed

another protective layer over individual rights and liberties. --

Reprinted from U.S. Dept. of State

Judicial Immunity is Absolute

In an unprecedented degree of 'abuse of power' judges decreed

themselves absolutely immune from civil suit when they are " acting

maliciously and corruptly. " In 1996 the 104th Congress passed the

Federal Courts Improvement Act amending the Civil Rights statute to

give further immunities to malicious and corrupt judges.

The Judicial Doctrine of Immunity

" Immunity applies even when the judge is accused of

acting maliciously and corruptly. " -- United States Supreme Court

See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-819 (1982) Pierson v.

Ray, 386 U.S., at 554, Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10, 112 S.Ct.

286, 287, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991).

Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996

Public Law 104-317, 104th Congress

Sec. 309. Prohibition against awards of costs, including attorney's

fees, and injunctive relief against a judicial officer.

(a) Nonliability <<NOTE: 28 USC 2412 note.>> for Costs.--

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no judicial officer

shall be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, in

any action brought against such officer for an act or omission

taken in such officer's judicial capacity, unless such action was

clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction.

( Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights.--Section 722(

of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988() is amended by inserting

before the period at the end thereof ``, except that in any action

brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in

such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held

liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, unless such action

was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction''.

© Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.--Section 1979 of the

Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended by inserting before the

period at the end of the first sentence: ``, except that in any

action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission

taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall

not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or

declaratory relief was unavailable''.

The U.S. Supreme Court in History & Today

By: Salvato

The million-dollar question is, if the legislative branch won't hold

judges accountable for inappropriate use of their power, who will?

Suggestions, anyone?