# Appendix — Krajicek v. Justin

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_0185%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1999
- **Citation:** 528 U.S. 1046

## Text

Suproms Court, 0.8.
FILEDN

99 610 jy 29 199

OFFICE OF
No. OF THE CLERK

Supreme Court of the Anited States

October Term, 1998

CONSTANCE KRAJICEK,

Petitioner
"se

K. M. JUSTIN, JAMES SHEEHY,
DAVID BRECK, ROBERT TEMPLIN

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari
To the United States Court of Appeals
For the Sixth Circuit

APPENDIX

Constance Krajicek
In Pro Se

P.O.Box 506

Lake Orion, MI 48362
1-810-319-6767

No. 98-1249

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

CONSTANCE E. KRAJICEK ) FILED
Plaintiff-Appellant ) MAR 23, 1999
LEONARD GREEN,
V. ) Clerk

)
K. M. JUSTIN, JAMES P. SHEEHY, )ORDER
ROBERT TEMPLIN, DAVID BRECK, )
Defendant-Appellees

Before BOGGS, CLAY AND GODBOLD,* Circuit
Judges
Constance E. Krajicek, appeals pro se from a

district court judgment that dismissed her civil rights ac-
tion under 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1985(3), as well as U.S.
C. §§ 241-242. Her appeal has been referred to a panel of
this court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth
Circuit. Upon examination, the panel unanimously agrees
that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R App.P. 34(a).
Krajicek alleged that a state magistrate and three
State court judges had conspired to violate her
constitutional rights during various judicial proceedings.
On February 4, 1998, the district court granted the
defendants’ motion and dismissed Krajicek’s case under

*The Honorable John C. Godbold, United States Circuit
Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation
Appendix - A - 1

No. 98-1249

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In so ruling, the court held that
each of the defendants was protected by absolute judicial
immunity. It is from this judgment that Krajicek now
appeals, moving for costs against the appellees.

We review the dismissal of Krajicek’s case de novo.
See Mann v. Conlin,22 ¥3d 100, 103 (6" Cir.), cert
denied, 513 U.S. 870 (1994)

| J judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations

of bad faith or malice... Rather, our cases make
clear that the immunity is overcome in only two
sets of circumstances. First, a judge is not immune
from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions
not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity. Second,
a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial
in nature, taken in the complete absence of all

jurisdiction.Mireles v Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12

(1991) (per curiam) (citations omitted).

Krajicek now argues that juducial immunity does
not apply and that the defendants were liable for damages
under § 1983 because their actions were unconstitutional.
This argument lacks merit because judicial immunity
applies even when a judge acts erroneously, maliciously,
or in excess of his authority. See id.at 12-13; Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-357 (1978).

Krajicek also argues that the defendants’ failure to
deny all of the allegations in her complaint shows that
they acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction. This

Appendix - A - 2 -

No. 98-1249

argument is unavailing because the defendants filed a mo-
tion to dismiss in lieu of an answer to the complaint.See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4). Thus, we will not construe their
failure -3-

to deny all the allegations in the complaint as an admission
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). Moreover, the district court
properly determined that all of the defendants had acted
within their jurisdiction under Michigan state law.
Consequently, Krajicek’s claims were properly dismissed
on the basis of judicial immunity. See Jreland v Tunis, 113
F 3d, 1435, 1440-43 (6" Cir.) Cert. Denied, 118 S. Ct.
560 (1997), Mann, 22 F3d at 104-05.

The dismissal of Krajicek’s claim under § 1985(3)
was also proper because she did not show that the
defendants were motivate by gender bias or some other
class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus. See Maki
v Laakko, 88 F3d 361, 367 (6" Cir. 1996) cert. denied
519 U.S. 1114 (1997). Moreover, the district court
properly dismissed the criminal conspiracy claims that
Krajicek raised underl8 U.S.C. §§ 241-242, as these
statutes do not provide a basis for civil liability See Cok
v. Consentino,876 F 2d 1, 2, (1* Cir. 1989)(per curiam).

Finally, we note that Krajicek has moved for costs
against the appellees that would reimburse her for

including certain documents in the joint appendix. This
Appendix - A - 3 -

Pe ee

No. 98-1249
motion fails because inclusion of the disputed documents
was required under our local rules.

Accordingly, all pending motions are denied and the
district court’s judgment is affirmed Rule 34 (j) (2) (C),
Rules of the Sixth Circuit

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
/S/ Leonard Green
Clerk

Appendix - A - 4 -

No. 98-1249
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

CONSTANCE E. KRAJICEK,) FILED
Plaintiff-Appellant ) APR 30, 1999
V. )LEONARD GREEN,
K.M.JUSTIN, JAMES P. SHEE- ) CLERK
HY, ROBERT TEMPLIN, DAVID)
BRECK, ) ORDER
Defendant-Appellees _)

Before BOGGS, CLAY, and GODBOLD*,
Circuit Judges

Constance E. Krajicek moves this court to re-
consider its order affirming a district court judgment
that had dismissed her civil rights case, filed under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 (3), as well as U.S.C. §§
241-242.

Upon review, we conclude that Krajicek has not
cited any misapprehension of law or fact that would
alter this court's prior decision. See Fed. R. App. P.
40(a).

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is
denied. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

/s/ Leonard Green,
Clerk

“The Honorable John C. Godbold, United States Cir-
cuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by
designation. Appendix - B - 1 -

(Rule 14, 1.(A(v),(vi)
CITED AUTHORITIES:

United States Constitution. Article II1, Section 1:
“... The judges, both of the supreme and inferior
Courts shall hold their offices during good
behaviour ... “

United States Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2:
“The Constitution and the Laws of the United
States...which shall be made, under the Authority

of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the

Land, and the judges in every State shall be bound

thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any

State to the Contrary ... “

United States Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 3
“... and the Members of the several State
Legislatures and all executives and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the
several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation to support the Constitution.”

United States Constitution, First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an estab-
lishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exer-
cise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a re-
dress of grievances.

Appendix C-1

United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their per-
sons, homes, papers, and effects, against unrea-
sonable searches and seizures, shall not be vio-
lated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon prob-
able cause supported by Oath or Affirmation and
particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.

United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment:
... nor shall any person be subject for the same of-
fense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.,....
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, with-
out due process of law; ...

United States Constitution, Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right... to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation to be confronted with wit-
nesses against him, ... and to have the Assitance
of Counsel for his defence.

United States Constitution, Seventh Amendment:
... where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be
preserved, ...

Appendix C-2

United States Constitution, Eighth Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment
inflicted.

United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment:
... No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citi-
zens of the United States, nor shall any State de-
prive any person of life, liberty, or property with-
out due process of law, or deny to any person

within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws

28 USC 144, MCR 2.003, Michigan Court Rules:
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district
court makes and files a timely and sufficient affi-
davit that the judge befoe whom the matter is pen-
ding has a personal bias or prejudice either against
him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge
shall proceed no further therein, but another judge
shall be assigned to hear such proceeding, which
purports to be the basis of Michigan Court Rules,
MCR 2.003: (B) A judge is disqualified when the

judge cannot impartially hear a case, including
but not limited to instances in which (1) The
judge is personally biased or prejudiced for or
against a party or attorney:

Appendix C-3

42 USC § 1983:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordi-
nance, 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 there-
of to the deprivation of an rights, privileges, or im-
munities 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. For the purposes of this section, any Act
of Congress applicable exclusively to the District
of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of
the District of Columbia.

42 USC § 1985(2):

If two or more persons in any State or Territory

conspire to deter, by force, intimidation or threat;

any party or witness in any court of the United

States from attending such court or from testifying

from any matter therein, freely, fully, and truthfully

... or if (Wo Or more persons conspire for the pur-

pose of impeding, hindering, obstructing or defea-
ling, in any manner, the due course of justice in any

State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen

the equal protection of the laws;

Appendix C-4

42 USC § 1985 (3):
If two or more persons in any State or Territory
conspire ... for the purpose of depriving either di-
rectly or indirectly, any person or class of persons
of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal pri-
vileges and immunities under the laws; ... in any
case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or
more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be
done, any act in furtherance of the object of such
conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his per-
son or property, or deprived of having and exerci-
sing any right or privilege of a citizen of the United
States, the party so injured or deprived may have an
action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by
such injury or deprivation, against any one or more
of the conspirators.

42 USC § 1986:
Every person who, having knowledge that any of
the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in
section 1985 of this title, are about to be commit-
ted, and having power to prevent or aid in preven-
ting the commission of the same, neglects or refu-
ses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed
shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal rep-
resentatives, for all damages caused by such
wrongful act, which such person by reasonable di-
ligence could have prevented; and such damages
may be recovered in an action on the case; and any

Appendix C-5

number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect
or refusal may be joined as defendants in the
action

42 USC § 2000aa-6(c)

The United States, a State, or any other govern-
mental unit liable for violations of this chapter
under subsections (a)(1) of this section, may not
assert as a defense to a claim arising under this
chapter the immunity of the officer, ,,, except that
such a defense may be asserted if the violation
complained of is that of a judicial officer.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES:
JURISDICTION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Rule 10 (a):

a United States court of appeals has entered a de-
cision in conflict with the decision of another
United States court of appeals on the same im-
portant matter;... has so departed from the accep-
ted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or
sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as
to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory
power;

Michigan Constitution, Article I § 2
No person shall be denied the equal protection of
the law ...

Michigan Constitution, Article I § 5:
Appendix C-6

Livery person may freely speak, write, express and
publish his views on all subjects, being responsible
for the abuse of such right ...

Michigan Constitution, Article 1 § 11:
The persons, houses, papers and possessions of
every person shall be secure from unreasonable
searches and seizures. No warrant to search any
any place or seize any person or things shall issue
without describing them, nor without probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation. ...

Michigan Constitution, Article 1 § 14:
The right to trial by jury shall remain but shall be
waived in all civil cases unless demanded by one
of the parties, in the manner prescribed by law

Michigan Constitution, Article I § 16:
Excessive bail shall not be required, ... cruel or un-
usual punishment shall not be inflicted; nor shall
witnesses be unreasonably detained.

Michigan Constitution, Article 1 § 17:
No person shall be compelled in any criminal case
to witness against himself, nor be deprived of life
liberty or property, without due process of law..

Michigan Constitution, Article 1, § 20:
In every criminal prosecution, the accused shall

Appendix C-7

have the right to ... be informed of the nature of
the accusation; ... to have the assistance of counsel

Michigan Constitution, Article VI, § 1:
The judicial power of the state is vested exclusively
in one court of justice, which shall be divided into
one supreme court, one court of appeals, one trial
court of general jurisdiction known as the circuit
court, one probate court, and courts of limited juris-
diction that the legislature may establish ....

Michigan Constitution, Article VI § 18:
+. In any county where an additional salary is
granted, it shall be paid at the same rate to all cir-
cuit judges regularly holding court therein...

Michigan Constitution, Article VI § 19 (3):
No person shall be elected or appointed to a judici-
al office after reaching the age of 70 years.

Michigan Constitution, Article VII § 6:

... The county shall never be responsible for his
acts, except that the board of supervisors may pro-
tect him against claims by prisoners for uninten-
tional injuries received while in his custody

Michigan Constitution Article X1, § I:
All officers, legislative, executive and judicial,

before entering upon the duties of their respec-

Appendix C-8

tive offices, shall take and subscribe the follo-
wing oath or affirmation: | do solemnly swear
(or affirm) that I will support the Constitution
of the United States and the constitution of this
state, and that | will faithfully discharge the du-
ties of the office of ..... according to the best of
my ability. No other oath, affirmation, or any
religious test shall be required as a qualification
for any office or public post.

MCL 600.151 Same as Article VI § 1 MI Constitution

MCL 600.1821 (4):
All parties, attorneys and subpoenaed witnesses are
exempt from arrest while going to, attending and
returning from the places they are required to
attend.

MCL 600.3101
The CIRCUIT court has jurisdiction to foreclose
mortgages of real estate and land contracts.

MCL 600.6501
The provisions of this chapter apply to the district
court, to municipal courts and to the common pleas
court of Detroit, except as otherwise provided in
statutes..

MCL 600.6521:

Appendix C-9

xcept as otherwise provided or limited in statutes
specifically applicable to courts of limited jurisdic-
tion, ... the courts have jurisdiction over actions at
law, ... where the amounts claimed in the matter
does not exceed jurisdictional limits applicable to
the courts.

MCL 691.1407 - Governmental Immunity from Tort

Liability:-
(2) Except as provided in this section and without
regard to the discretionary or ministerial nature of
the conduct in question, each officer and/or
employee of a governmental agency or its agents
shall be immune from tort liabilities for injuries to
persons or damages to property, while acting on
behalf of a governmental agency, if all of the
following are met:
(5) Judges and their staffs are immune from tort
liability for injuries to persons or damage to pro-
perty, whenever they are acting within the scope
of their judicial and/or constitutional authority.”

MCL 762.7
Each court of record having jurisdiction of criminal
cases, upon good cause shown by either party, may
change the venue in any cause pending therein

MCL 764.9d (2):
If a complaint is not sufficient on its face, (showing

Appendix C-10

only the law under which a defendant is charged)
and if the court is satisfied that a complaint suffici-
ent on its face cannot be drawn and filed on the ba-
sis of the available facts, or evidence, it shall dis-
miss the complaint.

Opinion of the Attorney General for Michigan:

OAG 86 of April 5, 1977, Constitution of 1963,
Article 6, Section 19 which prohiblts the election
Or appointment to a judicial office after reaching
age of 70, does not violate the equal protection
clause of the United States Constitution, and is,
therefore, valid and is in accord with the deci-
sion in Rubino v Ghezzi, 512 F2d 431 (1975)

Opinion of the Attorney General for Michigan:
OAG 5226 of September 15, 1977: As Michigan
Statutes setting forth bonding requirements for
county oficials refer to individual bonds which
‘each’ officer must obtain and places the duty upon
the officer to secure his or her own bond a single
surety bond provided by the county covering seve-
ral or all county officers and employees may not be
used in lieu of the various statutory requirements
imposed upon county officers that a surety cove-
ring faithful performance be furnished.

Appendix C-11

Letter showing that K.M.Justin is acting illegally as a
magistrate in stead of Robert Justin, a magistrate:

State of Michigan District Court - 52™ Judicial District
(Seal of 3" Division - 135 Barclay Circle
Michigan) Rochester Hills, MI 48307-5800
Honorable James P. Sheehy
Honorable Ralph Nelson
Honorable Julie A. Nicholson
District Judges December 8, 1997

Mr. Gerald Poisson
Oakland County Corporation Counsel
1200 N. Telegraph Road
Pontiac, Michigan 48341
Dear Mr. Poisson:
Please find enclosed two Summons and Complaints
regarding the case of Constance Krajicek vs. K.M.Justin
and James P. Sheehy. The complaints were served at this
Court on Friday, December 5, 1997. Please note that “K
M.Justin” is Robert Justin, a Magistrate in this division.
Please notify me as soon as counsel is appointed.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Sincerely,
/s/ Lynda A. Hammerstein
Lynda A. Hammerstein
Court Administrator

[lah

Appendix C-12

The Federal Courts and the Federal System, 336 2 ed
1973 (by P. Bator, P. Mishkin, D. Shapiro and H.
Weschler) by Hart and Weschler:
“Where constitutional rights are at stake, the
courts are properly astute in construing statutes,
to avoid the conclusion that Congress intended to
use the privilege of immunity to defeat them.

Adamski v Cole 494 NW 2d 794, 197 Mich App 124
(1992)

Plaintiff filed complaint for land contract forfeiture
in district court. Defendant had the case transfer-
red to Circuit Court on the basis that land contract
forfeiture was in excess of jurisdictional limits of
district court (other claims involved in appeal to
Michigan Court of Appeals)

Hackett v Kress, 133 NW 2d 221, i Mich App 6 (1965)
Ball vy Thomas, 133 NW 2d 218, 1 Mich App 1 (1965)
Under constitutional provisions that judges of
courts of record shall not be elected or appointed to
judicial office after reaching age of 70 years, age
limitation applies to all judicial positions, even
though they are not in court of record.

Stump v Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)
In determining whether an action is “judicial”
we consider the nature of the act, and whether it
is a function normally performed by a judge.

Appendix C-13

- (tats cli asp. a

Mann v Conlin, 22 F3d 100 (1994), n6 and n9:
Judge is liable for money damages where judge acts
in nonjudicial capacity or in complete absence of
all jurisdiction (n6) Judge acts in clear absence of
all jurisdiction and liable for money damages, when
court of limited jurisdiction attempts to adjudicate

case outside its jurisdiction. (n9)

Detroit Branch, NAACP v City of Dearborn, 434 NW
2d 444, 173 Mich App 602 (1988)
All seizures of persons, including those involving
only brief detention, fall within protections affor-
ded by this section and Fourth Amendment.

People v Heffron, 19 NW 170, 53 Mich 529
The complaint was made by a person with no per-
sonal knowledge of the case other than hearsay of
unsworn witnesses whose reliability had not been
proven, therefore the complaint was invalid.

People v Quinn, 356 NW 2d 10, 136 Mich App 145
Trial court has no authority to convict a defendant
of an offense not-specifically charged. Defendant
may not be charged on basis of law alone; he must
be informed of what he is supposed to have done.

Young v Duckworth, 733 F2d 482 (7" Circ. 1984)
Assistance of counsel, to be fully effective, must
be continuous from time when prosecution began.

Appendix C-14

Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L Ed2d 215, 83 S Ct
1194 (1963)
Suppression of evidence favorable to the defendant
violates the due process rights (Granddaddy case of
“Brady decisions’’)

Edmond v Collins, 8 F3d 290 (5" Cir 1993) and
U. S. v Brumel Alvarez, 976 F2d 1235 (9" Cir 1992)
and all other “Brady” case law
The Brady doctrine requires the prosecution to
produce exculpatory evidence and evidence useful
for impeachment when requested to do so by
defendant.

U. S. v Olin Corp., D.C.N.Y. 465 F Supp 1120 (1979)
In order to support a claim of discriminatory pro-
secution by defendants, Plaintiff must present facts
tending to establish that it was the result of inten-
tional and purposeful discrimination.

In re Attorney General, 341 NW 2d 253, 129 Mich App

128 (1983)
(2) Under statute allowing venue to be changed by
a circuit court for “good cause shown” by either
party, “good cause” concerns ability to obtain fair
trial in county where action is brought, and con-
venience to parties and witnesses is not within
meaning of the statute.

Appendix C-15

_ ee
hh Se a at

People v Plyler, 272 NW 2d 623 86 Mich App 272 ;and
“Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine seeks to dis-
courage unlawful police practices by depriving the
people of the advantage flowing from the “primary
illegality” of police activity.

People v Tucker, 172 NW 2d 712, 19 Mich App 320
(1969)
The use of evidence proceeding from an illegal sei-
zure are the fruits of the unlawful conduct, com-
monly known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree”
and are totally inadmissible.

Maki v Laakko, 88 F3d 361 (6" Circ 1996) n7.5(1)
Plaintiff must show conspiracy between at least
two persons, that object of conspiracy is to deprive
plaintiff of equal protection of the law or of privi-
leges and immunities under the law and injury to
plaintiff as result of conspiracy.

Strength v Hubert, 854 F2d 241 (11" Cire 1988)
Freedom from malicious prosecution is a federal
right protected by § 1983.

U.S. v Sneed, 34 F3d 1570 (10" Cire 1994)
Excessive government involvement occurs when
governmental agency engineers and directs crimi-
nal enterprise from start to finish and defendant
contributes nothing more than his presence and
objections thereto.
Appendix C-16

Magna Carta of 1216:
King John: “We will make no men justices or she-
riffs unless they are such that know the law of the
realm, and are minded to observe it rightly.”

Floyd and Barker, 77 Eng Rep (1305 Star Chamber,
1607):
Judicial immunity shall be absolute when the order
of the justice is within his jurisdiction to perform.

English Declaration of Rights of 1689:
Whereas this Parliament deplores the illegality of
the directed and arbitrary use of the sentencing po-
wer by the king’s bench, we do hereby declare that
judicial immunity shall not be absolute and then be
effective only within the scope of jurisdiction.

Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) (Cranch) Chief
Justice Marshall
“* .. a legislative act contrary to the constitution is
not law ... then, the courts are to regard the cons-
titution as superior to any ordinary act of the le-
gislature; the constitution not such ordinary act
must govern the case to which they both apply. It
is apparent that the framers of the constitution
contemplated that instrument to be a rule for the
government of courts as well as the legislature...
a law repugnant to the constitution is void and
that courts as well as other departments are
bound by that instrument.
Appendix C-17

Mc Culloch v State, 17 US 316 (1819), Chief Justice

Marshall:
“The States have no power, by taxation or other-
wise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner
control the operations of the constitutional laws
enacted by Congress ... The nullity of an act in-
consistent with the Constitution, is produced by
the declaration that THE CONSTITUTION IS
THE SUPREME LAW.”

Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of City of
New York v George Miln, 36 US 102 (1837), Justice
Barbour.
“That a State has the same undeniable and unli-
mited jurisdiction over all persons and things,
within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation,
where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or re-
strained by the Constitution of the United States.”

Congress Globe, 39" Congress, First Session, the first
Civil Rights Act passed Aprol 9, 1866 over veto by
President Andrew Johnson’s objection, who said:
“The bill invades the judicial power of the States
... and judges of the State Courts and marshals
and sheriffs, sanctioned by State laws and issued
by state judges ... could be brought before other
tribunals and there, subjected to fine and
imprisonment for performance of their duties ...”
Representative Lawrence response:

Appendix C-18

“! answer, it is better to invade the judicial power
of the State than permit it to invade, strike down
and destroy the civil rights of citizens. A judicial
power perverted to such uses should be speedily
invaded. The grievance would be insignificant.”

Senator Trumbull:

“The notion of immunity for such judicial
Officials is thoroughly discredited. The idea
of judicial immunity is akin to the maxim of the
English law that ‘the King can do no wrong’ It
places judicial officials above the law. It is the
very doctrine out of which the rebellion (the
Civil War) was hatched.”

Congressional Globe, 42 Congress , First
Session (1871),
Representative Arthur:

“But if the Legislature enact a law, if the Gover-
nor enforces it, if the judge upon the bench ren-
ders a judgment, if the sheriff levy an execution,
execute a writ, serve a summons, or make an ar-
rest, all acting under a solemn official oath,
though as pure in duty as a saint, and as immacu-
late as a seraph, for a mere error in judgment,
they are liable.”

Senator Shellabarger,Senate Judiciary Committee

“Section | of the 1871 Act provides a civil reme-
dy in identically the same case or on the same
state of facts as the 1866 Act and obviously over-

Appendix C-19

rides whatever immunity may have existed at

common law for the participants in the judicial
process, in 1871. The basic words of “Every
Person and all Persons” are used to intentionally
include any judge that knowingly and willfully
deprives any person of his Constitutional Rights
under color of law ....”

Pierson v Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967),

Where a judge acts intentionally and knowing-
ly, to deprive a person of his constitutional
rights, he exercises no discretion or individu-
al judgment, he acts no longer as a judge, but
as a ‘minister’ of his own prejudices.”

Maki v East Tawas, 188 NW 2d 593, 365 Mich 151
(1971)

“Provision of MCL 691.1407 making all govern-
mental agencies, (Including judges) immune cre-
ates immunity for a much broader area.than was
intended, creating immunity for acts of negli-
gence and as such, is unconstitutional and
invalid.”

Jackson v City of Detroit, 192 NW 658, 35 Mich App 591
(1971)

“Provision of MCL 691.1407 purporting to make
governmental agencies “immune from tort liability”
is unconstitutional.”

Appendix C-20

Hampton v Chicago, 484 K2d 602, 607 (CA7 1973) (J

Stevens)
“Conduct by persons acting under color of stgte law
which is wrongful under 42 USC 1983 or 1985
cannot be immunized by state law. A construction
of the federal statute which permitted a state
immunity defense to have controlling effect would
transmute a basic guarantee into an illusory promise
and the supremacy clause of the Constitution
insures that the proper construction must be
enforced.

Pittman v City of Taylor, 247 NW 2d 512, 398 Mich 41
(1976):
“Governmental immunity from tort liability was
judicially created and may be judicially abrogated.
Courts are required to give effect to immunity
unless statute, policy or activity violates the
Constitution.”

George D Owen v City of Independence, Missouri, et al,

485 U.S.622, 63 L Ed 2d 673, 100 S Ct. 1398 (1980):
“A good faith defense recognized under 1983
authorizes liability only when officials acted with
malicious intent or where they knew or should have
known that their conduct violated the constitutional

bbl

norm.

Anderson v Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987):
“... the contours of the right must be sufficiently
Appendix C-21

clear that a reasonable official would understand
that what he is doing violates that right ... it is to
say that in the light of pre-existing law, the
unlawfulness must be apparent.” (at 640)

Harlow v Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.80u (1982):
“Action for damages may offer the only realistic
avenue for vindication of constitutional guarantees.

Malley v Briggs, 475 U.S.335 (1986):
“As a matter of public policy, qualified immunity
provides ample protection to all but ... those who
knowingly violate the law ...Given malice and the
lack of probable cause, magistrate enjoyed no
immunity. Common law thus affords no support “

Forrester v White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988):
“A State court judge does not have absolute
immunity from a damage suit under 1983 for his
decisions ... “

Mireles v Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991):
‘A judge is not immune for actions, though judicial
in nature, taken in the complete absence of
jurisdiction.”.

Hafer v Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991):
“Through 1983, Congress sought “to give a remedy
to parties deprived of constitutional rights, privile-
ges and immunities by an official’s abuse of his
Appendix C-22

position” ... officials seeking absolute immunity
must show that such immunity is justified by the
governmental function at issue ... damage awards
against individual defendants in federal courts are
a permissible remedy in some circumstances. ...

Townsend v Hazdroth, 875 F Supp 1293 (E.D.Mich 1995)
(Judge Gadola)

“Governmental immunity, under Michigan law, is
an affirmative defense that defendants must prove.”

Blanche Road Corp. v Bensalem Twp., 57 F3d, 253 (3
Cir 1995)

“Government officials performing discretionary
functions, generally are shielded from liability for
civil damages insofar as their conduct does not
violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known.”

Ireland v Tunis,\13 F.3d 1435 @ 1440 (6" Cir. 1997)

First, a judge is not immune from liability for non-
judicial acts, i.e. actions not taken in the judge’s
judicial capacity. Second a judge is not immune for
actions, taken in the complete absence of all
jurisdiction.”.

OAKLAND COUNTY JUDGES:

“I can do anything I choose to you and you can’t
touch me. I’m immune from claims.”

Appendix C-23 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_0185%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.