Luzerne judges in cash-for-juveniles scandal granted immunity in civil suit…
Luzerne judges in cash-for-juveniles scandal granted immunity in civil suit…
|
Comment Commandments:
1) No Personal Attacks. (Debating is encouraged, but be respectful). 2) No Sexual Discussion (unless it specifically pertains to a cited story). 3) No Profanity (Let’s all behave like adults). |
GOLDEN RULE:
Be civil and statesmanlike. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Annoying trolls who break these rules will be blocked from commenting. ***Please don't disable anonymous commenting for everyone else*** |
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: CREATE AN INTENSE DEBATE ACCOUNT
|
-vote comments up or down
-email notifications when someone replies |
-pick a profile picture
-promote your website or blog |
***TOPIC FORUM: 50 STORIES LAST COMMENTED ON***
***LIST OF TOP 50 COMMENTERS***
***LIST OF 50 MOST COMMENTED ON STORIES***
***LIST OF 50 LAST COMMENTS***
.
6 Comments
Since when does the doctrine of judicial immunity insulate judges from civil liability for criminal activity? If I recall correctly, they are insulated only to the extent they are acting within the law. This is nonsense.
Additional information here:
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Case_law_cited_in...
FROM an amicus brief filed by a group of judges: http://ia341324.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscour...
"…Judicial immunity has deservedly broad scope to protect judges as they act in their judicial capacity, which is presumed to be always for the benefit of the public interest. However, the public policy underlying judicial immunity — the protection of judicial independence and integrity — would be severely undermined by bowing to defendants' assertions in this case. For Conahan and Ciavarella to argue that their admitted criminal conduct was in the public interest makes a mockery of the necessary doctrine of judicial immunity. It is hard to imagine conduct less deserving of immunity protection than the wholesale sale of children into detention. The judicial immunity doctrine should never extent to acts which judges have admitted are criminal. Because Conahan and Ciavarella have admitted to committing criminal acts knowingly under the guise of judicial acts and proper jurisdiction, they should be denied immunity by this court….Neither the cloak of the judicial robe nor the courtroom setting transforms the criminal acts into legitimate judicial conduct…. "
The brief is masterful and well worth reading in full.
Thanks Dolley – terrific information. Pepper Hamilton did work for me when I was in business. They are a first rate firm.
A votre service……….You are welcome.
Immunity from prosecution is only in effect when the parties involved do not commit a crime. A Civil RICO claim can be filed in either State or Federal courts.