This is a case that set the precedent for judicial immunity. In this case, Joseph H. Bradley was a lawyer who sued George P. Fisher, a judge.
Fisher had disbarred him not only from his court, but from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Bradley argued that Fisher had no right to disbar him from another court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bradley and dismissed the disbarment order.
Bradley then sued the judge for civil liability. The Supreme Court ruled that since Fisher didn’t have the power to disbar him to begin with, Bradley couldn’t say that Fisher actually did disbar him. Therefore he couldn’t get damages on that basis.
Floyd v Barker
The Supreme Court cited Floyd v Barker. This is a case that dates back to 1607 in which Lord Coke ruled on this case. When the Supreme Court cited the case, they said that judicial immunity has been the settled doctrine of the English courts for many centuries. However, that is completely wrong on 2 counts.
First, Lord Coke stated in that case that judges should not be heard before other judges. That is because he believed cases involved with judges should be heard before Parliament. That would be like US judges being heard before legislators rather than judges who interpret the law.
Coke cited Mirror of Justices, a book that dates back to the 1200s. It said Parliament would travel to hear issues such as judicial grievances and cited Empson who dispensed with penal laws. You can read more about in Volume III of the Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke.
That actually makes complete sense as it would keep the separation of powers separate. Also, there would be no conflict of interest. You can read more about what Lord Coke said here.
Francis Bacon
What is interesting is what Lord Coke said when he pushed for consequences of Francis Bacon, who held one of the highest judicial offices. He actually pushed for the judges to be hanged stating that in an earlier era 3 judges had been hanged for taking bribes. You can read all about this here.
Corrupt judges had both criminal and civil consequences for centuries dating back to the 1200s. The book, Mirror of Justices dated back in the 1200s speaks some of those criminal and civil consequences on pages 169-171.
Judicial Immunity was not even established in the US court. Before the court made this decision in Bradley v Fisher, 6 states had opened the door to being able to sue judges and 9 states had not definitively ruled on it as spoken about here.
Judges legally have civil liability even though that law is not being honored. Here is the evidence of that.
The Supreme Court ruled that judges do have criminal liability, even though family court judges have been kidnapping children from parents for decades. In the First Circuit court, case #23-1655 they officially legalized child kidnapping through the court system.
Reform
Since every aspect of their ruling on judicial immunity is completely incorrect, why are they still honoring it? By honoring judicial immunity, the federal judges are committing a crime. The argument of not knowing it was a crime does not legally exempt anyone from its consequences.
As a result, I am looking for the impeachment of all federal judges who have ruled in favor of immunity at the expense of our 14th amendment rights. I am also looking for them to be replaced with persons who specialize in constitutional law with historians who specialize in the constitution to support them.
I am looking for lawmakers to hear cases involving judges depriving Americans of their 14th Amendment rights and a Civil Rights Bureau of Investigation and Education to oversee this and ensure Americans guaranteed constitutional rights are guaranteed.
We need a total reform of our justice system. This one is broken, and it is destroying the lives of countless people.
On my page, “Ending Legalized Child Kidnapping” it speaks of the reform I believe should take place. What are your thoughts?