Specifically,
All remaining allegations contained in the plaintiff’s complaint directed at Judge Hamm concern her [ex parte] review of the court file, the manner in which she conducted the hearing [suspending the Rules of Evidence and Rules of Procedure] in connection with the injunction against harassment, the evidence she considered at the hearing [which was never entered into evidence], her [biased] demeanor, and her [therefore untenable] rulings that were adverse to the plaintiff.
All of those allegations are clearly within Judge Hamm’s judicial immunity. See J.R. v. Washington County,127 F.3d 919, 925 (10th Cir. 1997) and Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357-64 (1978) (holding that a judge who engages in ex parte communications in connection with a pending matter does not overcome a judge’s entitlement to judicial immunity); John v. Barron, 897 F.2d 1387, 1393 (7th Cir. 1990), Church of Scientology Int’l v. Kolts, 846 F. Supp. 873, 886-87 (C.D. Cal. 1994), and Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that allegations of a judge’s CONSPIRACY TO ALTER THE OUTCOME OF A PROCEEDING to alter the outcome of a proceeding do not overcome a judge’s entitlement to judicial immunity); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)(holding that allegations of errors committed by a judge does not overcome a judge’s entitlement to judicial immunity); Church of Scientology Int’l v. Kolts, 846 F. Supp. 873, 881-82 (C.D. Cal. 1994) (holding that a Code of Judicial Conduct violation does not create a private cause of action and, therefore, any alleged violation of the Code [which is law] could not provide a basis for a plaintiff’s alleged claims against a judge).
Amazing. Is this really "Honorable?"
The courts say it is.
I say, "Let a jury decide."
What you say? And what if it happened to you? There's nothing to stop it. You could be next.
No comments:
Post a Comment