Sue the Judge.

[bandaid1]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/24/judge-nixes-new-york-city-gun-permit-for-firearms-dealer/

Sue the judge.

This is a question that I have always wondered why it has never been challenged. I assumed it was due to some type of official immunity. So regardless, my question is this; If a judge, lets say he's a Federal Judge verses a State Judge as in the story. He rules that an individual citizen without any felony convictions, no history of mental illness, or domestic violance, has no right to "keep and bear arms" that gives a realistic, rational reason, for doing so, based on:

“That claim is based upon pure speculation, which is unsupported by any evidence,” the judge said.

Well, since Police Officers carry firearms based on speculation as well. I don't see the judges point. Aside from that, as I see it, that JUDGE has just denied a citizen a constitutional right by using his official office. This is where my question lies. If a judge rules against a citizen in a 2nd A case, thereby denying the citizen his rights, and lets say that said ruling (years later as it goes through the legal system) is over-turned.

Why couldn't that judge be sued for dening a civil right under color of law while using his official office?

Is it because being a "judge" isn't a profession that requires a licence to practice? Thus much like a palm reader, their opinion holds no professional creed(Do no harm).

Or is it because there is a tool to resolve such a abridgement of civil rights (i.e. appeals)?

Hooyah

 

[kilimanjaro]

There are other avenues to deal with stupid judges. If you could sue them civily, the common criminal/shyster lawyer industrial complex would file a dozen suits a day and there would be no justice system at all.

Judges who lose decisions on appeal don't get assigned cases they can make lousy decisions on.

There is a federal review board to censure or impeach a sitting judge, and the Attorney General and Congress, that kind of thing.

No matter how, it's not a simple process. A judge could let Jeffery Dahmer work in a child-care facility and the odds are he won't get kicked out for it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Why couldn't that judge be sued for dening a civil right under color of law while using his official office?...

See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U. S. 9 (Supreme Court, 1991). As the Court notes (502 U. s. 9, at 9--10):

A long line of this Court's precedents acknowledges that, generally, a judge is immune from a suit for money damages. See, e.g., Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988); Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 106 S.Ct. 496, 88 L.Ed.2d 507 (1985); Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980); Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 100 S.Ct. 1967, 64 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980); Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967).1 Although unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion, "it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself." Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 347, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)....

See also Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court, 1871, at 347--348, footnotes omitted):

....The principle, therefore, which exempts judges of courts of superior or general authority from liability in a civil action for acts done by them in the exercise of their judicial functions, obtains in all countries where there is any well ordered system of jurisprudence. It has been the settled doctrine of the English courts for many centuries, and has never been denied, that we are aware of, in the courts of this country. It has, as Chancellor Kent observes, 'a deep root in the common law.'

Nor can this exemption of the judges from civil liability be affected by the motives with which their judicial acts are performed. The purity of their motives cannot in this way be the subject of judicial inquiry. This was adjudged in the case of Floyd and Barker, reported by Coke, in 1608, where it was laid down that the judges of the realm could not be drawn in question for any supposed corruption impeaching the verity of their records, except before the king himself, and it was observed that if they were required to answer otherwise, it would 'tend to the scandal and subversion of all justice, and those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual calumniations.' ....

...is it because there is a tool to resolve such a abridgement of civil rights (i.e. appeals)?

When a judge has ruled erroneously appeal is one's primary recourse. In certain cases a collateral attack on the actions of a court (e. g., an application for an extraordinary writ like a writ of habeas corpus or a writ of mandemus) might be the appropriate remedy.

 

[44 AMP]

Why couldn't that judge be sued for dening a civil right under color of law while using his official office?

Is it because being a "judge" isn't a profession that requires a licence to practice? Thus much like a palm reader, their opinion holds no professional creed(Do no harm).

In general, you cannot sue individuals for things they do acting in a public capacity. Cops, Judges, Congressmen, etc. The base principle is that it (what they do) is not a personal matter. YOU may consider it a personal matter, because it involves you, but a judge does not.

If you have evidence that a judge is ruling because of his personal interest in a case, THAT becomes an ethics question, and there are rules about that.

I do not know that there is a "license" to be a judge, but there are qualifications that have to be met, and other courts and review panels to act as checks and balances.

I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding of the reasoning.

And, more directly to your point with the linked article,
NO, you cannot sue the Judge, NY is a not a "shall issue" state, and NYC is likewise. They are entirely within the law to issue only at their discretion.

“That claim is based upon pure speculation, which is unsupported by any evidence,” the judge said.

Totally out of context statement, and misapplied in your post.

Per the linked article that quote from the judge applies to the claim that the denied party is at risk of being robbed. NOT about the right to keep and bear arms.

either you actually didn't get this, or you are being deliberately trollish.

which is it?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It requires a serious abuse of authority rather than perhaps a poor decision to get a judge impeached or convicted. There was a case a few years ago in which two Pennsylvania juvenile court justices sent large numbers of youths who hadn't done anything particularly serious or egregious for long terms at some rehab facilities. I don't remember the specifics, but it finally came out that the judges either owned interests in the rehab facilities or were getting kickbacks from them. Both judges were immediately removed from the bench, and both were eventually convicted and sentenced to prison.

IIRC, it also resulted in a boatload of juvenile convictions being expunged.

It can happen, but not just because a couple of people don't agree with a decision.

Here's one of the reports. It was dubbed the "kids for cash" scheme.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/23/pennsylvania.corrupt.judges/

 

[bandaid1]

I never said I did.

If a police officer/police department can be sued for depriving civil rights, why not judges? I understand that a Barber requires more training to cut hair than a Cop is required to have to be a police office. So it seems that that may be a reason. In medicine, if a Doctor prescribes the wrong drug that causes harm to his patient, he can be sued, loose his licence, go to jail, or all the above depending on the situation.

Federal Judges are lifetime appointments, yet I have never herd of any education requirement, continuing education requirement, or certification needed to be one. The only requirement I know of is to be appointed by consent of Senate. Seems like a low professional standard to me.

 

[Frank Ettin]

bandaid1, you have been commenting on legal issues, in this and other threads. And in general your comments have been inapposit because you don't understand the law.

Indeed, most people really don't understand the law because they have not studied it. And to understand the law, one needs to actually study it. Much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge. You can't expect to be able to figure out what the law is or how it works just trying to "noodle it out."

Part of the difficulty reading laws and court opinions comes from a need to be familiar with the context -- where "law" comes from, what it is and how the process works. It might help to think of "law", i. e., statutes enacted by legislative bodies, constitutions and charters adopted by political entities to govern the operations of those entities, and past judicial opinions, as a tool used to decide the outcome of a dispute or disagreement. So when a court writes an opinion deciding a matter in contention, it is explaining how it applied the law to the facts and circumstances in order to decide the outcome.

Another part of the difficulty is a matter of volume and practice. In law school we read a lot of cases and talk about them a lot, all under the guidance of our teachers. Dealing with the subject matter regularly and in a disciplined, rigorous way is a big help.

Some on-line sources that might help --

• scotusblog: This is a blog by lawyers and law students focusing on Supreme Court activity. In addition to following cased, one can often find articles discussion Supreme Court actions and decision. This might offer some insight in how lawyers look at these things.
  
  
• The Legal Information Institute: This is a publication of the Cornell Law School. Among other things the site includes links to other resources and a legal encyclopedia.
  
  
• Oyex: This is a publication of the Chicago-Kent College of Law. It tracks Supreme Court cases and publishes articles.
  
  
• Often if you Google a case name you will find articles by lawyers discussing the case. Sometimes reading the articles in combination with the case opinion will help clarify the decision.

Also, have a look at this short thread: Reading and (trying to) UNDERSTAND SCOTUS decisions.

...If a police officer/police department can be sued for depriving civil rights, why not judges? I understand that a Barber requires more training to cut hair than a Cop is required to have to be a police office. So it seems that that may be a reason. In medicine, if a Doctor prescribes the wrong drug that causes harm to his patient, he can be sued, loose his licence, go to jail, or all the above depending on the situation....

And this comment helps illustrate why one really needs a sufficient knowledge base to make sense of things. There is "law" on all these issues, and each is treated differently for a variety of reasons.

Oh, and I think if you really look into it, a barber today is not required to have more training than a police officer meeting POST standards.

...Federal Judges are lifetime appointments, yet I have never herd of any education requirement, continuing education requirement, or certification needed to be one. The only requirement I know of is to be appointed by consent of Senate. Seems like a low professional standard to me.

You haven't heard of such requirements because you haven't really looked into the details of the elaborate process by which federal judges are appointed and their appointments are confirmed.

I think it's important for anyone in this modern world to have a basic understanding of law. I think it's especially important for all of us here because we have an interest in guns, shooting, and self defense -- all matters heavily regulated.

If you want to start learning about these matters, you should have a look at the sites I linked to above. You might also look at Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer on this site.

 

[bandaid1]

Frank Ettin- Thank you for the reply. The section you quoted as "it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself."

Sorry for asking so many questions, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it could be read to mean that; judges would like it if no one questioned their motives or held them accountable for their own personal convictions. While I get why they would say such a thing, the same arguement goes for a person desiring to go armed for self defense. Why is it ok to question the gun owners convictions in the face of his personal consequences to himself but not a judges. Does the judge loose more? If a gun owner is not allowed to carry and is killed or robbed due to being unarmed by the courts, is the court liable? No. Why not? I think the robbed/dead gun owner has lost more. It just seems to me that the "general principal" is flawed because it's more subjective than objective in its rational to conclude its findings.

In your more recent comment, it answered the vast majority of my questions and yes I have read SPRAT MCGEE (which is fantastic). SCOTUSblog (its ok), but I haven't read the others yet. So thank you for those.

I think you are correct that in order to understand "law" it must, now-a-days, be studied. I don't necessary agree that it should be that way, since everyone is expected to know what the law is so they don't violate it and can assist in their own defence should they be charged with a crime. As I am finding out, it is probably best done in a formal setting. I just think that a ruling that is based on speculation by the judge, stating that the plantiffs reason for wanting to exercise a right is based on speculation is alittle bit of the pot and kettle thing. That aside, I do thank you for your explanations.

Aguila Blanca- Thanks for that info. It gives me pause to hear that there is some semblance of punishment for the abuse of power in the judicial field, that is, when it's caught. I also read about some 43 judges getting in trouble in California as well as 35 Judges in Michigan not to long ago.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Sorry for asking so many questions, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it could be read to mean that; judges would like it if no one questioned their motives or held them accountable for their own personal convictions. While I get why they would say such a thing, the same arguement goes for a person desiring to go armed for self defense. Why is it ok to question the gun owners convictions in the face of his personal consequences to himself but not a judges.....

First, with regard to judicial immunity, you're talking about a principle which has been accepted for hundreds of years and in, at least, the majority, if not all, Western judicial systems. Note, for example, that Floyd and Barker, cited in Bradley, dates from 1608.

Second, judicial immunity grows out of the special roles that judges and the courts serve in society. How well could we expect the judicial system to function if a judge were subject to a civil suit for damages by every disappointed litigant adversely affected by a ruling? What would be the result of judges having an incentive to make their decisions colored by a desire to avoid being sued?

Third, judicial immunity is a well established reality and is unlikely to be changed any time soon.

...I think you are correct that in order to understand "law" it must, now-a-days, be studied. I don't necessary agree that it should be that way, since everyone is expected to know what the law is so they don't violate it and can assist in their own defence should they be charged with a crime....

On the other hand, it is a broad topic. The legal system uses law to decide disputes. Those disputes can range from a question of whether someone committed a crime and goes to jail to whether someone failed to perform a contract and owes money damages to whether someone negligently drove his car causing an injury for which he must compensate someone to which relative gets deceased uncle Joe's house, etc. And that's just the type of the iceberg.

But part of the problem is that many people get there ideas about what the law is from sound bytes and casual statements, often these days on the Internet. Many of those ideas involves half-truths. So people people latch on to catchphrases, like "searches require consent or a warrant" or "you have a right to remain silent" or "it's only hearsay" without understanding what they actually mean and that they reflect only part of the story.

So often searches do require a warrant, there are various exceptions. And while you can't be forced to say anything, sometimes a refusal to speak can have adverse consequences. And hearsay has a technical meaning; and while often it can't be admitted into evidence at trial, there are many exceptions and it can have other uses as part of an investigation.

It would really help if people would get into the habit of not making assumptions and doing some research.