PRESS RELEASE “ACTING” SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HAS “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY” WHEN VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contact {Insert contact name} June 12, 2013 {Insert telephone number and e-mail address} CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL RESOURCES asks: Does “absolute immunity” for judges create a class of “privileged” individuals that are not bound by the Constitution of the United States and their oaths of office? -- Brooklyn, New York -- A Brooklyn Father filed a 1983 suit against “Acting” Supreme Court Justice Patricia E. Henry (Mandela E. v. Patricia E. Henry, et. al) alleging that Justice Henry had violated and conspired to violate his Constitutional and Human Rights. Among the allegations were that: Justice Henry had “suspended” the Writ of Habeas Corpus; had refused to give full and “meaningful” hearings; was subjecting him to unequal treatment under the law; was violating U.S. Supreme Court decisions; was not affording him due process under the law; and that Justice Henry had violated her oath of office by violating the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York. After six (6) weeks Justice Brian Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of the New York dismissed the complaint, in its entirety, without even investigating the merits of the allegations, without giving the Plaintiff “Legal Redress” of any kind. His reasoning was that “judges had absolute immunity when following the procedures of the law.” In deciding that Justice Henry had “absolute immunity” when “following procedure” it can be inferred that Justice Cogan was saying that when a State Justice “suspends” the Writ of Habeas Corpus, an act that can only be done by Congress, then she was just following “procedure and not violating the Constitution. When Justice Henry refused and / or failed to give a full and “meaningful” hearing, which the Supreme Court of the United States has decided was a violation of “due process” she was not violating the Constitution she was only following “procedure.” When Justice Henry did not afford Plaintiff equal treatment under the law she was not violating the Constitution she was only following “procedure.” When Justice Henry disavowed U.S. Supreme Court decisions establishing constitutional guarantees she was not violating the Constitution she was only following “procedure. When Justice Henry did not afford Plaintiff due process she was not violating the Constitution she was only following “procedure.” If a Judge can willfully and intentionally violate Constitutional guarantees without regard for the rights of those who come before them, then does this not create a “special and privileged” class of individuals that are above the “Supreme Law of the Land?” If a Judge can swear to uphold the Constitution and then violate it at will, where is the justice? If an individual cannot get “Legal Redress” against “Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress”, then how are they supposed to get “Legal Redress?” • • • • • Speak out against judicial “absolute immunity.” CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL RESOURCES, visit the Web site at {Insert Web address}. • ### PROTECTING YOUR RIGHTS!
Posted on: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:32:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015