The following email got me thinking:
Dear Mr. Adask ……………..
I sent the letter to you below back on 22 December 2014 and have been following your emails since then and so far no mention of the issue I presented. Since then I have gone through the Federal District Court System and the Federal Circuit Court System and have identified eleven corrupt members of the judiciary. Now I am preparing a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on the issue of whether a judge who breaks the law is immune from damages liability if in breaking settled law he observes otherwise correct procedural guidelines. I believe the absurdity of that proposition to be absolutely dumbfounding!
So now we will see what the SCT has to say. I entertain no high expectation even though the SCT made it clear in Stump v. Sparkman that judges who perform non-judicial acts shed their immunity!
It’s serious stuff, Mr. Adask. I just hope the book I’m writing about this increasingly screwed up legal system of ours will effect some mid-course correction!
My Letter of 12-22-14 ………………….
We have the most innovative nation in the world! The fact of that matter is a direct function of our having the most effective legal system in the world, a common-law hybrid, if you will.
But that system has an inherent flaw that eventually will render the system we have effete unless addressed and corrected. Unless that happens, we will lose our innovative leadership and with it our economic dominance and this wonderful thing we have will go down the tubes!
The fatal flaw I address is the absolute immunity of the judiciary. I have no quarrel with absolute immunity, but there are exceptions as delineated in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Stump v. Sparkman decision, and those exceptions are not being enforced and we as a nation are losing the requisite freedom vital to our innovative leadership and good life!
I recently won a court case (2014.ME.53) the result of which was the forced resignation of the presiding judge who went beyond the pale. Had I been a lawyer, I never would have represented me because there is currently no money in judicial malpractice, and I would not go up against the Bench for the pittance of $150 an hour. I am attempting to change that by suing the judge on a 14th Amendment issue for enough money, that, if I prevail, will hopefully encourage lawyers to pick up the gauntlet on contingency. But the issue needs to be publicized by someone with clout: The public at large is unaware of this festering weakness and its inevitable consequences!
Sincerely …………………… Phil, Ellsworth, Maine.
Your current email is interesting, intriguing. But I have no recollection of receiving the previous letter that you sent last December. That’s not surprising since my memory isn’t as good as it used to be and I sometime receive up to 200 email a day (who can remember all of that?). But the subject of your first letter strikes me as so important, that I’m pretty sure I would remember it–if I’d received it.
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe I received your first letter.
However, I am intrigued by your comments in your most recent email that:
“Now I am preparing a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on the issue of whether a judge who breaks the law is immune from damages liability if in breaking settled law he observes otherwise correct procedural guidelines. I believe the absurdity of that proposition to be absolutely dumbfounding!
“So now we will see what the SCT has to say. I entertain no high expectation even though the SCT made it clear in Stump v. Sparkman that judges who perform non-judicial acts shed their immunity!”
I don’t recall reading Stump vs Sparkman, but based on your text, I have a theory as to why “judges who perform non-judicial acts shed their immunity” but judges who “break the law are immune from damages . . . so long as he observes procedural guidelines.”
I’ve written six previous articles on my blog on the subject of “Administrative Law”.
The cornerstone for those six articles is the “administrative law” article in American Jurisprudence 2nd (AmJur2nd) which tells us repeatedly that the fundamental feature of administrative law is this: Under administrative law, the three fundamental powers of government (legislative, executive and judicial) are all combined under a single authority. Thus, administrative law is contrary to the fundamental concept of “separation of powers”—that the three major powers of government be separated into three separate constitutional “branches”.
I’ve argued that:
1) I am one of the People of The State of Texas;
2) I’m therefore a beneficiary of the express, charitable trust called “The Constitution of The State of Texas”;
3) one of those “benefits” is “Division of Powers” as per Article 2 of the Texas Constitution;
4) administrative law violates the concept of separation of powers; and therefore,
5) I refuse to consent to being deprived of the loss of my right to a judicial trial and being instead subjected to administrative law or an administrative court; and
6) I will happily appear in any Article 5 (Texas Constitution) judicial court.
I’ve presented that argument in a previous court case and the government did stop prosecuting, although I thought that stop was based on other reasons.
Written by Alfred Adask
Read more at Adask’s Law
Please visit our Christian Patriots Facebook Page