When Lord Coke Wanted a Judge Punished…

In my last article entitled, Why the Supreme Court Gave Judges Absolute Judicial Immunity at the Expense of Our “Guaranteed” 14th Amendment Rights in the Constitution one of the reasons the Supreme Court gave judges absolute judicial immunity was the following: Lord Coke held in Floyd and Barker that a judge handling a murder trial could not be prosecuted in another court for criminal conspiracy. This had the effect of “establish[ing] the immunity of judges of courts of record. In this article entitled, “When Lord Coke Wanted a Judge Punished” things get really interesting… If the last post didn’t nail the coffin in the head of where Lord Coke stood on judicial immunity, this certainly will…

This is about Lord Coke and Francis Bacon. Both had achieved high judicial offices, and both were at odds with each other for years… They couldn’t stand each other…

Things culminated in 1621 when the House of Commons sent accusations of judicial corruption and malfeasance of Francis Bacon to the Lords, which was the upper house of British Parliament composed of lords.²¹ Francis Bacon, was Lord Chancellor, the head of the judicial administration, of England. It was chaired by 2 people: the Earl of Suffolk and the Earl of Southampton.

What did Lord Coke do??? He reminded the two Earls that in an earlier era three judges had been hanged for taking bribes.²²

YES, YOU READ THAT CORRECTLY!

Lord Coke was pushing for Francis Bacon, who held one of the highest judicial offices in the land TO BE HANGED!!! That was his position when he wanted a judge punished….

How did Lord Coke help deal with corrupt judges and what did he have to say about them???

In 1621 the Commons turned its attention to Judge Sir John Bennet*, who stood accused of bribery. Coke declared that corrupt judges were ‘the greatest grievance’, and over the course of the next few days he encouraged his colleagues to pursue Bennet, whom he disavowed. On 23 Apr. he was instructed to help draft the warrant ordering Bennet to be placed under house arrest, and the next day, at the suggestion of Sir Edward Sackville, he presented at a joint conference with the Lords various precedents that he had unearthed which showed that the Commons had traditionally punished corrupt judges.²³

Lord Coke stated, “When grievances be, the parliament is to redress grievances and mischiefs that happen. Imprisonments are our grievances, billeting of soldiers, unnecessary loans, etc.”²⁴

Accountability of English Judges. In Floyd v Barker Lord Coke wrote that no judge appointed by the crown was answerable before another judge for his judicial conduct. The forum for investigation of judges was through the High Court of parliament.²⁵

This would be like legislators dealing with corrupt judges instead of judges judging other judges- which Lord Coke was clearly against…

It wasn’t that they didn’t have judicial immunity…

They simply had a different process for dealing with corrupt judges. This process actually makes a lot more sense to me since judges judging each other has resulted in them giving each other absolute judicial immunity which just so happens to be pretty convenient for them…

At any rate, this appears very strongly that what Lord Coke said was entirely manipulated to the outcome the justices wanted decades ago. In the same breath that justices quoted Lord Coke from hundreds of years ago, they missed ALL OF THIS??? I find that very unlikely, especially when reading Lord Cokes writings as he addressed corrupt judges on multiple occasions. Also, they missed the whole Coke and Bacon story where he pushed to hang a judge??? I doubt it… Seems hardly likely that they’d know about 1 thing Lord Coke said but missed everything else including the surrounding text where he addresses judges not being tried by other judges…

Seems much more likely that instead of doing their job, which is interpreting constitutional law, they decided to legislate from the bench and bastardize the separation of powers…

Who knows, maybe I’m wrong… Maybe they did remember one line Lord Coke said and not anything else… Either way, Lord Coke’s position on judicial immunity would never have allowed judges to break the law and legislate from the bench as we are seeing today. There were consequences to their corrupt actions which encourages trust in the judicial system. When judges can do almost whatever they want, it promotes distrust in the judicial system. There should be no wonder at least half of the country believes there is a two-tiered system of justice. People no longer trust that system.

Today’s Justice System

I never thought I would see the day that a judge can take children away from a mother simply because the mother is a mom. What is worse, is this illegal behavior has now become legalized through the First Circuit Court – case number 23-1655.

Not only can a judge kidnap your children, but they are also protected under the 11th Amendment immunities. This is at the cost of our 14th Amendment guaranteed rights of due process and equal protection under the law. The 14th Amendment guarantees abrogated the 11th Amendment immunities as proven in this blog.

This illegal practice has, in my case, led to two children being kidnapped from me. All the while Federal Judges aid and abet these crimes with the protection of immunity. This is just one example of why so many people believe there is a two-tiered system of justice. Even worse, judges continue this behavior and promote even further distrust in the judicial system.

It is my belief that judges are an extreme danger to us as citizens.

This case will be going to the Supreme Court. I pray that they will adhere to the constitution and justice will be restored. Every American deserves the right to trust our judges. Sadly, that is not the case now. I hope that the integrity of our justice system can be restored.

In the next article we will discuss The History of Judicial Immunity in the US.

Footnotes: