Ok, From This Point On, The Courts Must Wear Black Hats And We Shall Wear White Hats. It is Settled
Continue Danny VS Ai Man
Continue Danny VS Ai Man
AI goes on: The Barrier of Judicial Immunity
Even when a judge is sued personally (individually) rather than officially, the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity acts as a complete bar to civil liability for damages.
Judicial Acts: Failing to assess standing or making an erroneous ruling on it is considered a judicial act. As long as the judge had subject-matter jurisdiction over the type of case (e.g., a civil court hearing a civil suit), they are immune, even if their decision was legally wrong, malicious, or in excess of their authority.
Individual vs. Official Capacity: While suing a judge in their official capacity is often barred by the 11th Amendment (sovereign immunity) or Ex parte Young doctrines, suing them in their individual capacity is barred by judicial immunity. The result is the same: the case is dismissed.
AI Continues: The 'Clear Absence of Jurisdiction'
Exception
The only scenario where a judge loses immunity in an individual capacity suit is if they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
Distinction: There is a critical legal difference between lacking jurisdiction (which removes immunity) and acting in excess of jurisdiction or making an error regarding jurisdiction (which does not).
Application to Standing: If a judge hears a case where they have no statutory authority to preside at all (e.g., a probate judge trying a murder case), immunity may not apply. However, if a judge has general civil jurisdiction but simply fails to notice that the plaintiff lacks standing, this is considered an error within jurisdiction, not a 'clear absence' of it. Courts consistently rule that judges do not lose immunity for mistaken jurisdictional rulings.
Criminal Prosecution vs. Civil Suit
Civil Suits: Judicial immunity is a defense against civil lawsuits for money damages (including civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). A private party cannot successfully sue a judge individually for a bad ruling on standing.
Criminal Prosecution: Judicial immunity does not protect judges from criminal prosecution. However, a mere legal error (like overlooking standing) is not a crime. Prosecution would require evidence of criminal acts such as bribery, fraud, or corruption. A private party cannot directly 'prosecute' a judge; they can only report suspected crimes to a prosecutor, who has discretion on whether to file charges.
AI Goes Back To The Impossible. (Later it begins to understand that I am questioning what percentage of Americans can afford the Time and money to even consider an Appeal.
I have done 5 Fed Ct Appeals. Same judges, just higher up the ladder.
Ai to Danny: Primary Remedy: Appeal
The legal system provides appeal as the exclusive remedy for judicial errors regarding standing. If a judge rules for a party without standing, the appellate court will reverse the judgment and dismiss the case, but the judge remains personally immune from suit.
Danny to AI: Those answers are wrong. The word absolute does not appear in the 11th Amendment nor in any other part of the Constitution. There is no such thing as absolute immunity.
(Now I was beginning to get the game we are playing. I am as upset as if it was a real person jacking with me.)
AI's Response: You are correct that the word 'absolute' does not appear in the 11th Amendment or the text of the Constitution. The term absolute immunity is a judicially created doctrine established by the Supreme Court through case law, not a constitutional provision.
However, under current U.S. law, the practical effect for a judge ruling on standing (or any judicial matter) is functionally the same as if it were written in the Constitution: judges cannot be sued for money damages for these acts.
1. Origin of Absolute Immunity
The concept comes from English common law and was codified in U.S. federal law by the Supreme Court, most notably in Bradley v. Fisher (1871) and Stump v. Sparkman (1978).
The Ruling: The Court ruled that judges must be free to act on their convictions without fear of personal liability. They termed this protection 'absolute' to distinguish it from 'qualified immunity' (which protects police and other officials but allows suits if rights are clearly violated).
The Scope: This immunity applies to judicial acts performed within the judge's jurisdiction. It protects judges even if their actions are erroneous, malicious, or in excess of authority.
2. The Distinction: 'Absence' vs. 'Excess' of Jurisdiction
You are also correct that immunity is not limitless. The Supreme Court has defined a very narrow exception: a judge loses immunity only if they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
Clear Absence: This means the judge had zero authority to hear the type of case at all (e.g., a family court judge trying a federal crime, or a judge hearing a case in a state where they have no commission).
Excess of Jurisdiction (Your Scenario): If a judge has general authority over civil cases but fails to notice that a plaintiff lacks standing, this is considered an error within their jurisdiction (an excess or mistake), not a clear absence.
AI Concludes With: Even if the judge knowingly ignores standing laws, Supreme Court precedent (Stump v. Sparkman) holds that this is still a judicial act protected by absolute immunity from civil suits. The remedy is appeal, not a lawsuit against the judge.
3. 11th Amendment vs. Judicial Immunity
Your point about the 11th Amendment is legally precise regarding the text:
11th Amendment: Grants sovereign immunity to States, preventing them from being sued in federal court by citizens of other states. It does not mention judges.
Judicial Immunity: This is the specific doctrine protecting individual judges. It is a common law principle interpreted through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the Civil Rights Act). The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress did not intend § 1983 to override this common law immunity.
AI's First Summary To Danny
While the word absolute is not in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that judicial immunity is absolute for judicial acts, with only two exceptions:
Non-judicial acts (e.g., hiring/firing employees, administrative duties).
Acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction (not just a mistake about standing).
Danny to Borrowers: Yes, number 2 is ridiculous in the real world. We all do know that this has not been a mistake. Never. Hang with me here. I was asking the questions I didn't have you guys to help and my respect for AI was still very low.
Therefore, suing a judge individually for failing to review standing will almost certainly be dismissed, not because the Constitution says absolute, but because the Supreme Court has interpreted the law to provide that specific protection to ensure judicial independence. The proper recourse for a wrong ruling on standing is to appeal the decision to a higher court, which can reverse the judgment.
Stump v. Sparkman clear absence of jurisdiction definition
View all
difference between excess of jurisdiction and absence of jurisdiction judicial immunity
Danny to Ai. All of your answers are wrong. Without Standing there can be no Subject Matter Jurisdiction. If the judge rules without Subject Matter Jurisdiction, he has denied due process. That is a deprivation of civil rights. A judge cannot deprive a citizen of civil rights. Therefore he was not a judge when he deprived a constitutional civil right. If he was not a judge then was he just a citizen?
Ai right back at Danny, only now it is beginning to understand that my questions assume more than a case here or there, I have been speaking about systemic racketeering and I have experience from that viewpoint.
AI to Danny: Your argument rests on a logical distinction between acting in excess of jurisdiction (making a mistake within a case one is authorized to hear) and acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction (having no authority to hear the type of case at all). While your premise that without standing there is no subject matter jurisdiction is legally sound regarding the validity of the judgment, current Supreme Court precedent does not accept the conclusion that this automatically strips a judge of immunity or renders them a private citizen liable for damages.
1. The Clear Absence vs. Excess Distinction
The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that a judge who hears a case they have general authority over (e.g., a civil court judge hearing a civil suit) but fails to correctly apply standing requirements is acting in excess of jurisdiction, not in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction vs. Judicial Immunity: While a lack of standing means the court should not have decided the merits (making the judgment voidable on appeal), it does not mean the judge lacked the fundamental authority to sit on the bench and hear civil cases.
Precedent: In Stump v. Sparkman (1978), the Supreme Court held that a judge who approved a sterilization petition (an act arguably outside his statutory authority) was still immune because he had general jurisdiction over all cases at law and in equity.The Court ruled that even grave procedural errors or violations of due process do not constitute acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
The Result: A judge who ignores standing is considered to have made a jurisdictional error, not to have acted as a private citizen. Therefore, they retain absolute judicial immunity from civil suits for damages.
2. Due Process Violations Do Not Remove Immunity (I was as Thunderstruck as any AC/DC Fan upon hearing this news.)
AI Continues (I am you. Your are me. We are all Together (The Beatles I am the Walrus Goo Googa Chu) Danny? Yes Hal? You argued that denying due process by ignoring standing removes immunity. The courts have consistently rejected this:
Judicial Acts: Ruling on standing, even incorrectly, is a judicial act. The Supreme Court has stated that judges are not liable for civil damages even if their judicial acts violate the Constitution (including Due Process), are done maliciously, or are in excess of authority.
Remedy: The Constitution provides appeal as the remedy for due process violations resulting from jurisdictional errors. If a judge rules without standing, the appellate court must vacate the judgment. However, this error does not create a private right of action for money damages against the judge personally.
3. Under Color of Law vs. Private Citizen
Your question Danny (Yes Hal) asks if the judge becomes just a citizen. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a judge acting without jurisdiction is still generally considered to be acting under color of law, not as a private citizen, unless the act is so far outside any conceivable judicial function that it is non-judicial in nature (e.g., a judge physically assaulting a litigant in the hallway). (What about a litigant assaulting a judge in the hallway?)
Statutory Interpretation: Courts interpret clear absence of all jurisdiction very narrowly. It typically applies only when a judge hears a case type they are statutorily forbidden from hearing entirely (e.g., a probate judge conducting a criminal trial).
Standing Errors: Failing to notice a lack of standing is viewed as a mistake within the exercise of judicial power, not a total usurpation of it. Therefore, the judge remains a judicial officer protected by immunity.
4. Exceptions and Remedies
While civil damages are barred, other avenues exist for addressing such misconduct:
Appeal: The primary remedy is to have the judgment reversed due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Injunctive Relief: Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (as modified by the Federal Courts
Improvement Act of 1996), you may seek injunctive relief (an order to stop the judge from acting) only if a declaratory decree was previously violated or unavailable, and the act was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction. However, monetary damages remain barred.
Judicial Discipline: Judges who repeatedly ignore standing or due process may face removal or discipline through Judicial Conduct Commissions, though this is an administrative process, not a private lawsuit.
Stump v. Sparkman clear absence of jurisdiction vs excess
can a judge be sued for due process violation lack of standing
Danny to Ai: Please Elaborate Fake Man
AI to Danny:
Your argument logically connects standing, subject-matter jurisdiction, due process, and judicial immunity, but current U.S. Supreme Court precedent explicitly rejects the conclusion that a judge becomes a private citizen or loses immunity in this scenario. Here is the elaboration on why the courts distinguish between a void judgment and a liable judge:
1. The Distinction Between Void Acts and Personal Liability.
You are correct that if a plaintiff lacks standing, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under Article III, and any resulting judgment is legally void. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that issuing a void judgment due to a jurisdictional error (like overlooking standing) does not strip the judge of immunity.
The Legal Mechanism: The law separates the validity of the ruling from the liability of the ruler.
Validity: A ruling made without standing is void and must be reversed on appeal.
Liability: The judge who made the error is still protected by absolute judicial immunity because they had general jurisdiction over the type of case (e.g., civil disputes), even if they failed to apply the specific jurisdictional requirement (standing) correctly.
Precedent: In Stump v. Sparkman (1978), the Supreme Court held that a judge who issued an order completely outside his statutory authority (sterilizing a minor without a hearing) was still immune. The Court reasoned that because he was a judge of a court of general jurisdiction, his error was an excess of jurisdiction, not a clear absence of it.
2. Clear Absence vs. Excess of Jurisdiction
The crux of your argument is that ignoring standing means the judge had no jurisdiction. The courts, however, define clear absence of all jurisdiction extremely narrowly:
Clear Absence: This occurs only when a judge hears a case type they are statutorily forbidden from ever hearing (e.g., a probate judge trying a criminal murder case, or a state judge trying a federal patent case). In these rare instances, the judge is acting as a private citizen and has no immunity.
Excess of Jurisdiction (Borrower's Scenario): When a civil court judge hears a civil case but fails to notice the plaintiff lacks standing, the judge is considered to be acting in excess of their proper authority, not in the absence of it.
Reasoning: The judge has the power to hear civil cases generally. Determining whether standing exists is a judicial function within that power. If they get it wrong, they have made a jurisdictional error, but they are still acting as a judge, not a private citizen.
Result: As stated in Bradley v. Fisher (1871), judges are not liable for acts in excess of jurisdiction, even if done maliciously or corruptly. They are liable only for acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
3. Due Process Violations Do Not Pierce Immunity
You argued that denying due process by ignoring standing removes immunity. The Supreme Court has directly addressed this:
Grave Procedural Errors: In Stump v. Sparkman, the judge denied the victim due process (no notice, no hearing, no counsel) and violated her civil rights.
The Court explicitly ruled: A judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.
The Remedy: The Constitution provides appeal as the remedy for due process violations, not a personal lawsuit for damages against the judge. The system prioritizes judicial independence (freedom from fear of lawsuits) over compensating individuals for judicial errors, no matter how egregious.
4. Was the Judge Just a Citizen?
Under current law, no. Even when a judge deprives a citizen of civil rights by ruling without standing:
Under Color of Law: The judge is still acting under color of law (as an official), which is why their judgment is an official court order (albeit a voidable one). If they were truly a party.
The Rule: Immunity is lost only for non-judicial acts (e.g., employment decisions, administrative tasks) or acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
Judicial Acts vs. Criminal Acts: Even if a judge conspires with a plaintiff to steal property via a fraudulent foreclosure, courts often classify the issuance of the foreclosure order as a judicial act. Because the judge had general authority over foreclosure cases, the act is considered in excess of jurisdiction (corruptly exercised) rather than in the clear absence of it.
Precedent: In Mireles v. Waco (1991), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that immunity applies even when a judge's actions are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. The remedy for a fraudulent judgment is appeal or a motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (or state equivalent), not a personal lawsuit for damages against the judge.
2. The Allodial Title and No Claim Argument
Still Ai to Danny: Your mention of an allodial deed and a plaintiff failing to state a claim touches on two distinct legal hurdles:
Allodial Title: U.S. courts uniformly reject the argument that private individuals hold allodial title free from mortgages or state authority. The highest form of private ownership recognized is fee simple, which is subject to liens, taxes, and foreclosure. Courts routinely dismiss defenses based on allodial title or land patents as frivolous (e.g., Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 7th Cir. 1985). Asserting this title does not create a clear absence of jurisdiction for the judge; it is viewed as a meritless defense to a valid foreclosure. (Danny: but not a wrongful foreclosure? See.)
Failure to State a Claim: If the foreclosing party did not state a valid claim, the judge's ruling in their favor is a legal error. Even if the error is egregious or intentional, deciding a case where the plaintiff has no valid claim is still a judicial function. The judge has jurisdiction to decide whether the claim is valid; getting it wrong (even corruptly) does not strip immunity.
3. When Immunity Might Be Lost (The Narrow Path)
There are extremely narrow scenarios where a judge could be liable, but they are difficult to prove:
Clear Absence of Jurisdiction: If the judge had no statutory authority to hear foreclosure cases at all (e.g., a small claims judge handling a complex mortgage foreclosure in a state where they are forbidden from doing so), immunity might not apply. However, if the judge sits on a court of general jurisdiction, this exception rarely applies.
However, Ai knows where I am going: Non-Judicial Conspiracy: Some courts have suggested that if a judge engages in a conspiracy to perform a non-judicial act (e.g., hiring hitmen, physically seizing property without a court order), immunity might not apply. But if the judge used a court order (even a fraudulent one) to transfer the title, the act is typically deemed judicial.
4. Practical Remedies for Collusion
Ai is flailing a little, but it is now seeing that a fraudulent foreclosure is not the same as a wrongful foreclosure where the judge is a co-conspirator.
Since suing the judge for damages is likely barred, the legal system provides other mechanisms to address collusion:
Vacating the Judgment: File a motion under Rule 60(b) (or state equivalent) for fraud on the court. If proven, the court can void the foreclosure judgment and restore title.
This requires clear and convincing evidence of an unconscionable scheme.
Suing Other Parties: While the judge is immune, the plaintiff, attorneys, trustees, and corrupt court clerks (if they performed ministerial acts outside their scope) may not have absolute immunity. You can sue these parties for civil conspiracy, RICO violations, slander of title, and wrongful foreclosure.
Criminal Prosecution: Collusion to steal property is a crime (fraud, racketeering, theft). Report the conduct to the FBI, U.S. Attorney, or state Attorney General. Unlike civil suits, judicial immunity does not protect against criminal indictment, though prosecutors rarely pursue judges without overwhelming evidence.
Judicial Conduct Complaint: File a complaint with the state Judicial Conduct Commission. This can lead to the judge's removal, censure, or suspension, though it does not provide monetary compensation.
Ai again wants to Provide A Summary
While the scenario you describe—collusion to steal a home via a fraudulent court order—is a grave injustice, the doctrine of judicial immunity remains a formidable shield.
Immunity Status: The judge is likely immune from a personal lawsuit for damages because issuing a foreclosure order is a judicial act, even if done corruptly.
Allodial Title: This defense is generally not recognized by courts and will not establish a clear absence of jurisdiction.
Best Path: The most effective strategy is to vacate the fraudulent judgment through appellate or post-conviction relief mechanisms and pursue civil and criminal charges against the co-conspirators (plaintiff, lawyers, trustees) who do not share the judge's absolute immunity.
fraud on the court rule 60b foreclosure collusion
suing attorneys and trustees for wrongful foreclosure conspiracy
Danny to Ai: We now have middle ground to work with. You Keep stating that only an appeal can give a borrower relief. Federal Appeals takes years and is more expensive than most homeowners can pay. Meanwhile, the judge has been a co-conspirator in Wrongful Deprivation of Real property scheme. This is the definition of a RICO Enterprise.
Ai To Danny: Effect of RICO Order: If granted, the judgment is voided immediately, restoring your title and stopping eviction. This is often faster than an appeal.
Stay Pending Appeal: You can file an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in the trial court or appellate court.
Requirement: Courts often require a bond (payment of rent or value of the property) to grant a stay, but in cases of indigency or fraud, you can motion to waive the bond.
Danny to Borrowers: This is how they got me. Who Can Get A Bond On A House You No Longer Own, because they have recorded a fraudulent Deed? Answer: A Judge.
You are correct that if a plaintiff lacks standing, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under Article III, and any resulting judgment is legally void. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that issuing a void judgment due to a jurisdictional error (like overlooking standing) does not strip the judge of immunity.
The Legal Mechanism: The law separates the validity of the ruling from the liability of the ruler.
Validity: A ruling made without standing is void and must be reversed on appeal.
Liability: The judge who made the error is still protected by absolute judicial immunity because they had general jurisdiction over the type of case (e.g., civil disputes), even if they failed to apply the specific jurisdictional requirement (standing) correctly.
Precedent: In Stump v. Sparkman (1978), the Supreme Court held that a judge who issued an order completely outside his statutory authority (sterilizing a minor without a hearing) was still immune. The Court reasoned that because he was a judge of a court of general jurisdiction, his error was an excess of jurisdiction, not a clear absence of it.
2. Clear Absence vs. Excess of Jurisdiction
The crux of your argument is that ignoring standing means the judge had no jurisdiction. The courts, however, define clear absence of all jurisdiction extremely narrowly:
Clear Absence: This occurs only when a judge hears a case type they are statutorily forbidden from ever hearing (e.g., a probate judge trying a criminal murder case, or a state judge trying a federal patent case). In these rare instances, the judge is acting as a private citizen and has no immunity.
Excess of Jurisdiction (Borrower's Scenario): When a civil court judge hears a civil case but fails to notice the plaintiff lacks standing, the judge is considered to be acting in excess of their proper authority, not in the absence of it.
Reasoning: The judge has the power to hear civil cases generally. Determining whether standing exists is a judicial function within that power. If they get it wrong, they have made a jurisdictional error, but they are still acting as a judge, not a private citizen.
Result: As stated in Bradley v. Fisher (1871), judges are not liable for acts in excess of jurisdiction, even if done maliciously or corruptly. They are liable only for acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
3. Due Process Violations Do Not Pierce Immunity
You argued that denying due process by ignoring standing removes immunity. The Supreme Court has directly addressed this:
Grave Procedural Errors: In Stump v. Sparkman, the judge denied the victim due process (no notice, no hearing, no counsel) and violated her civil rights.
The Court explicitly ruled: A judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.
The Remedy: The Constitution provides appeal as the remedy for due process violations, not a personal lawsuit for damages against the judge. The system prioritizes judicial independence (freedom from fear of lawsuits) over compensating individuals for judicial errors, no matter how egregious.
4. Was the Judge Just a Citizen?
Under current law, no. Even when a judge deprives a citizen of civil rights by ruling without standing:
Under Color of Law: The judge is still acting under color of law (as an official), which is why their judgment is an official court order (albeit a voidable one). If they were truly a party.
The Rule: Immunity is lost only for non-judicial acts (e.g., employment decisions, administrative tasks) or acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
Judicial Acts vs. Criminal Acts: Even if a judge conspires with a plaintiff to steal property via a fraudulent foreclosure, courts often classify the issuance of the foreclosure order as a judicial act. Because the judge had general authority over foreclosure cases, the act is considered in excess of jurisdiction (corruptly exercised) rather than in the clear absence of it.
Precedent: In Mireles v. Waco (1991), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that immunity applies even when a judge's actions are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. The remedy for a fraudulent judgment is appeal or a motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (or state equivalent), not a personal lawsuit for damages against the judge.
2. The Allodial Title and No Claim Argument
Still Ai to Danny: Your mention of an allodial deed and a plaintiff failing to state a claim touches on two distinct legal hurdles:
Allodial Title: U.S. courts uniformly reject the argument that private individuals hold allodial title free from mortgages or state authority. The highest form of private ownership recognized is fee simple, which is subject to liens, taxes, and foreclosure. Courts routinely dismiss defenses based on allodial title or land patents as frivolous (e.g., Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 7th Cir. 1985). Asserting this title does not create a clear absence of jurisdiction for the judge; it is viewed as a meritless defense to a valid foreclosure. (Danny: but not a wrongful foreclosure? See.)
Failure to State a Claim: If the foreclosing party did not state a valid claim, the judge's ruling in their favor is a legal error. Even if the error is egregious or intentional, deciding a case where the plaintiff has no valid claim is still a judicial function. The judge has jurisdiction to decide whether the claim is valid; getting it wrong (even corruptly) does not strip immunity.
3. When Immunity Might Be Lost (The Narrow Path)
There are extremely narrow scenarios where a judge could be liable, but they are difficult to prove:
Clear Absence of Jurisdiction: If the judge had no statutory authority to hear foreclosure cases at all (e.g., a small claims judge handling a complex mortgage foreclosure in a state where they are forbidden from doing so), immunity might not apply. However, if the judge sits on a court of general jurisdiction, this exception rarely applies.
However, Ai knows where I am going: Non-Judicial Conspiracy: Some courts have suggested that if a judge engages in a conspiracy to perform a non-judicial act (e.g., hiring hitmen, physically seizing property without a court order), immunity might not apply. But if the judge used a court order (even a fraudulent one) to transfer the title, the act is typically deemed judicial.
4. Practical Remedies for Collusion
Ai is flailing a little, but it is now seeing that a fraudulent foreclosure is not the same as a wrongful foreclosure where the judge is a co-conspirator.
Since suing the judge for damages is likely barred, the legal system provides other mechanisms to address collusion:
Vacating the Judgment: File a motion under Rule 60(b) (or state equivalent) for fraud on the court. If proven, the court can void the foreclosure judgment and restore title.
This requires clear and convincing evidence of an unconscionable scheme.
Suing Other Parties: While the judge is immune, the plaintiff, attorneys, trustees, and corrupt court clerks (if they performed ministerial acts outside their scope) may not have absolute immunity. You can sue these parties for civil conspiracy, RICO violations, slander of title, and wrongful foreclosure.
Criminal Prosecution: Collusion to steal property is a crime (fraud, racketeering, theft). Report the conduct to the FBI, U.S. Attorney, or state Attorney General. Unlike civil suits, judicial immunity does not protect against criminal indictment, though prosecutors rarely pursue judges without overwhelming evidence.
Judicial Conduct Complaint: File a complaint with the state Judicial Conduct Commission. This can lead to the judge's removal, censure, or suspension, though it does not provide monetary compensation.
Ai again wants to Provide A Summary
While the scenario you describe—collusion to steal a home via a fraudulent court order—is a grave injustice, the doctrine of judicial immunity remains a formidable shield.
Immunity Status: The judge is likely immune from a personal lawsuit for damages because issuing a foreclosure order is a judicial act, even if done corruptly.
Allodial Title: This defense is generally not recognized by courts and will not establish a clear absence of jurisdiction.
Best Path: The most effective strategy is to vacate the fraudulent judgment through appellate or post-conviction relief mechanisms and pursue civil and criminal charges against the co-conspirators (plaintiff, lawyers, trustees) who do not share the judge's absolute immunity.
fraud on the court rule 60b foreclosure collusion
suing attorneys and trustees for wrongful foreclosure conspiracy
Danny to Ai: We now have middle ground to work with. You Keep stating that only an appeal can give a borrower relief. Federal Appeals takes years and is more expensive than most homeowners can pay. Meanwhile, the judge has been a co-conspirator in Wrongful Deprivation of Real property scheme. This is the definition of a RICO Enterprise.
Ai To Danny: Effect of RICO Order: If granted, the judgment is voided immediately, restoring your title and stopping eviction. This is often faster than an appeal.
Stay Pending Appeal: You can file an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in the trial court or appellate court.
Requirement: Courts often require a bond (payment of rent or value of the property) to grant a stay, but in cases of indigency or fraud, you can motion to waive the bond.
Danny to Borrowers: This is how they got me. Who Can Get A Bond On A House You No Longer Own, because they have recorded a fraudulent Deed? Answer: A Judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.