NC - the murder of Iryna Zarutska

[Occam's Banana]

This is a question that should be made viral:

It's worse than that.

Judges don't have "qualified immunity".

They have "judicial immunity" - which is a subset of "absolute" (rather than "qualified") immunity.

(Legislators and prosecutors also enjoy such "absolute immunity".)

The powers of impeachment and veto ought to be much more widely vested (and widely used) than they are.

In fact, we should revive the Roman Repbulic's office of "tribune", the primary duty of which is to exercise veto powers. The tribune's job was not to "do something!!" - it was to prevent others from "do[ing] something!!". Then we should supplement that with a new office, the primary duty of which is to exercise impeachment powers. And just to keep things Latin-y, we can call this office "accusator". Politicians and bureaucrats should live in perpetual frustration with tribunes, and in perpetual fear of accusators.

Other offices (not just those of "tribune" and "accusator") should be endowed with veto or impeachment authorities, as well. For just one example, jurors should be formally and explicitly permitted to exercise the veto power of "jury nullification" - a practice which ought to be nourished and promoted, not inhibited or denied.

 

[acptulsa]

 

[ClaytonB]

It's worse than that.

Judges don't have "qualified immunity".

They have "judicial immunity" - which is a subset of "absolute" (rather than "qualified") immunity.

(Legislators and prosecutors also enjoy such "absolute immunity".)

Even worse than that. US judges have actually ABSOLUTE immunity in the performance of their judicial duties. That's how you get stories like this. While he got punished for the "disgrace to the judiciary", he still cannot be sued for his actions by the actual victims (the people whose cases he presided over while receiving judiciary suction).

 

[Occam's Banana]

Even worse than that. US judges have actually ABSOLUTE immunity in the performance of their judicial duties.

Yes. That's what I said:

[Judges] have "judicial immunity" - which is a subset of "absolute" (rather than "qualified") immunity.

That's how you get stories like this. While he got punished for the "disgrace to the judiciary", he still cannot be sued for his actions by the actual victims (the people whose cases he presided over while receiving judiciary suction).

I'd say using a penis pump on the bench while hearing cases is not within the purview of judicial authority - but maybe that's just me.

Here's a case where a judge did lose immunity (by personally participating in & directing a search, rather than just authorizing one):

Rogue Judge Leads Warrantless Search Party Through Man's Home
​

 

[ClaytonB]

Yes. That's what I said:

I was confused by the word "subset" -- it's not a proper subset, it's a subset that includes the whole set of absolute immunity. Short of pulling out a gun and shooting the defendant from the bench, the judge cannot be held liable in any fashion for his or her conduct as a judge. That is basically because the court and the judge are legally separate entities and it is not the judge who is hearing your case, it is the court. The court is an office, the judge is the person filling that office. As long as the judge is performing the duties of the court, he or she is absolutely immune. They are un-sue-able and practically immune to any criminal charge.

I'd say using a penis pump on the bench while hearing cases is not within the purview of judicial authority - but maybe that's just me.

Well yeah, obviously. My point is that he felt emboldened to act that way because the immunity went to his head. He is not immune from being disbarred and charged with disgracing the judiciary (the court itself) which is what they slapped him on the wrist with, but my point is that even though this was a procedural miscarriage of justice-in-itself (for the people whose cases he presided over), he still cannot be held liable by his victims (the people whose cases he presided over) since they cannot sue him for his misconduct. The judiciary is an absolute legal shield in that respect.

 

[acptulsa]

I was confused by the word "subset" -- it's not a proper subset, it's a subset that includes the whole set of absolute immunity.

I'm lost. If I read this one way I say, well, cops' immunity is pretty absolute, and that's a different subset. If I read it the other way...

Definition of SUBSET

a set each of whose elements is an element of an inclusive set; division, portion… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[ClaytonB]

I'm lost. If I read this one way I say, well, cops' immunity is pretty absolute, and that's a different subset. If I read it the other way...

Definition of SUBSET

a set each of whose elements is an element of an inclusive set; division, portion… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Translation: Good luck ever trying to sue a judge for anything, no matter what. The lawsuit will not even get filed, it will be rejected by the clerk because the judge has absolute immunity. No lawyer will submit the paperwork for you (because they could get disbarred for even trying) you'd have to do it yourself. And the clerk will reject it then and there. There is no process to sue a judge in respect to their judicial duties, because they're absolutely immune.

 

[ClaytonB]

Translation: Good luck ever trying to sue a judge for anything, no matter what. The lawsuit will not even get filed, it will be rejected by the clerk because the judge has absolute immunity. No lawyer will submit the paperwork for you (because they could get disbarred for even trying) you'd have to do it yourself. And the clerk will reject it then and there. There is no process to sue a judge in respect to their judicial duties, because they're absolutely immune.

PS: This is connected to why these people have no legal remedy for what was done to them. Sealing a warrant makes the warrant itself a matter of judicial prerogative, meaning, it is an action of the court itself, which is literally un-sue-able. So, if SWAT trashes your house on a sealed warrant, you are literally up shit-creek. Ultimately because of this immunity bullshit. It's the innermost kernel of the two-tiered legal system we have allowed to invade our country.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm lost. If I read this one way I say, well, cops' immunity is pretty absolute, and that's a different subset. If I read it the other way...

Definition of SUBSET

a set each of whose elements is an element of an inclusive set; division, portion… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The "immunity" of cops is not "absolute". If it can be shown that there is "clearly established" case that has been around long enough and that sufficiently matches the fact pattern under consideration, then they can be held liable for their on-the-job infelicities. Thus, their "immunity" is "qualified" as just described.

But the on-the-job infelicities of judges and prosecutors are not so "qualified" - they get an "absolute" pass, instead (per this post).

IOW: The upper tier of our two-tier system has ... well, two tiers ... (with the grunts at the bottom, as per usual)

 

[Anti Federalist]

But the on-the-job infelicities of judges and prosecutors are not so "qualified" - they get an "absolute" pass, instead (per this post).

In a high trust, high IQ, homogenous society, I can see where this would be a positive thing: it would keep judges from being subjected to the whims of political pressures, revenge attacks, bribes and other corruption.

But we no longer have such a society.

So judges now use their immunity to enable political pressure, in many cases to drive the agenda of queer race communism along with bribery, nest feathering and assorted run of the mill corruptions.

Or all of the above.

 

[ClaytonB]

@acptulsa

I drew the difference between absolute immunity and qualified immunity for you as a Venn diagram:

 

[acptulsa]

judges and prosecutors

And clerks, and bailiffs, and some more I'm not thinking of.

I drew the difference between absolute immunity and qualified immunity for you as a Venn diagram:

Yeah, that's pretty much how I envisioned...

pretty absolute

... when I typed it.

 

[Okie RP fan]

All hail St George Floyd!
He was the perfect man!

 

[ClaytonB]

In a high trust, high IQ, homogenous society, I can see where this would be a positive thing: it would keep judges from being subjected to the whims of political pressures, revenge attacks, bribes and other corruption.

But we no longer have such a society.

So judges now use their immunity to enable political pressure, in many cases to drive the agenda of queer race communism along with bribery, nest feathering and assorted run of the mill corruptions.

Or all of the above.

It was a poison pill from the very beginning.

In traditional law systems, anyone could be sued or charged by anyone with standing, for any conduct they were responsible for. It was "the king's courts" (and church courts) where this idea of "immunity" came in. In the legal context, "sovereignty" is just another way to spell "immunity", so a lot of the "sovereign citizen" movement is misguided because they don't even understand the words they're using. The only just law is unitary law. Every compromise of unitary law, however slight, is an attack on justice itself. If there is not one law for everyone -- in the true sense, not in the political talking-point sense -- then there truly is no justice. One law for everyone is strictly incompatible with the idea of statist goons riding around cracking people over the skull for smarting off or using cuffed humans in your custody as your own personal wrestling-takedown dummies because, why not, you can't get sued. And if you can't have gendarmes, secret police, secret FISA courts, and on and on, you can't keep the MIC house-of-cards standing. It would all collapse with the slightest breeze of actual justice, and they know it. So, the entire architecture is really built around layers and layers of protection against legal liability for the crimes they are committing. Ultimately, that's what all the nonstop Clown World propaganda and PSYOPs are all about, because the final layer of protection is deception (camouflage). People can't hold to account what they literally cannot see. So the MIC system of unlimited legal immunity has to wrap itself in a hurricane of deception to ensure that no ordinary citizen's gaze ever pierces through to the underlying reality. To see the dragon is to uncreate it. Hence, assassination of a completely peaceful political commentator like Charlie Kirk, etc.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

Bet you never heard of Colden Kimber.

Colden Kimber, a 28-year-old cyclist, athlete, and student at San Francisco State University studying kinesiology, was fatally stabbed on July 26, 2025, at a Muni light rail stop in San Francisco's Ingleside neighborhood. He was killed while attempting to protect a group of women and children from a man who was verbally harassing them on the platform. Witnesses reported that the suspect, Sean Collins, 29, allegedly yelled phrases like "Oh, you think you are better than me?" and "You are scared of me?" before attacking Kimber. Kimber, who was 6 feet 4 inches tall and a former hockey goalie, stepped between the suspect and the victims, and was stabbed in the neck with a 6-inch knife. He died from his injuries at San Francisco General Hospital despite medical efforts.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Firestorm officially 100% contained...

 

[acptulsa]