Limits on 'Judicial Immunity', relevant 'fundamental principles' of 'Law'


FYI I was just looking over some articles on "Judicial Immunity" because I expect that to be an obstacle in these Civil suits I am working on, some against Judges, and I keep seeing Judges ruling in favor of more 'vague' interpretations of what that should include, acts of a "judicial nature" (decision making, deciding what the "Law of the Land" requires in a situation for example), unless there is a clear "lack of jurisdiction"...THANK GOD I have learned to apply these "fundamental principles" of "Law" to situations like this!  I'll elaborate more below...

https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/additional_files/Basics%20of%20judicial%20immunity.pdf

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2087&context=mulr

So...
#1) "We the People of the United States" "establish and ordain" "the supreme Law of the Land" "in order to... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" above all, and to "establish Justice" (US.Const) as a necessary subordinate "Purpose of government" (Az.Const.);

#2) That "supreme Law of the Land" requires that all public officers with any real authority over anyone in all three branches of government "shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support" that "supreme Law of the Land" "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (Quoting US.Const.Art.6, Army Enlistment Oath I swore in 2003, and ARS 38-231 for Az Public Servants is pretty much the same);

#3) The WHOLE POINT of "Law" and "Government" therefore is to protect equal individual Human Liberties to Pursue Happiness above all, and all public servants must be bound by oath or affirmation and contract to PREVENT "any Thing... to the Contrary" from being made or enforced, so they MUST be liable for "neglect to prevent" "any Thing" they "reasonably should know" is "to the Contrary" of "fundamental principles" of "the supreme Law of the Land" aka "the common law";

#4) Therefore to say Judges are "immune" from liability just because they are acting "in a judicial capacity" and/or because there was not a "clear lack of jurisdiction", is in reality, in actual effect, violating the MOST "fundamental principles" of "the supreme Law of the Land" and "the common law", the very "Purpose of government" (Quoting Az.Const there) to protect equal Human rights and "establish Justice" when there is "probable cause" to believe they have been violating by "intent or inexcusable neglect".

 THEREFORE, "We the People" can carry out actions like "Citizens Grand Juries" if our "Judges" refuse or fail to bring Criminal charges based upon evidence available to them, and WE can bring suits and criminal charges against the "Judges" who perpetuate these "deprivations of rights under color of law" such as ruling anyone acting "in a judicial capacity" has "absolute immunity" from liability for any harm caused by their action or inaction, even when they "reasonably should know" the act was "to the Contrary" of "fundamental principles" of "the common law" which are "the supreme Law of the Land" here in the USA!

  And we can use the "Administrative Remedies" process to put "Public Servants" on notice and give them a chance to settle without court, and if the court will not do its "Duty" due to some "Court Case Precedent" or "Doctrine" like these, then we can use processes like "Commercial Liens" upon their Personal Assets and/or the Public Bond held to insure public offices like Judges, and if you did the "Administrative Remedies" properly, when you get to the court finally it should be clear there is NO WAY to defeat you, when you comprehend these "fundamental principles" of "Law" and our "Constitutional" system of "Checks and Balances", in this "Constitutional Republic" comprised of "Democratically Elected" "Public Servants"!

So now I need to get back to producing instructions for everyone to put on my websites asap, and some lawsuits for some clients and myself and friends and family, and other court actions, like...

One client is dealing with a warrant in another State (Texas), and the court seems to be saying his only option is to go in person to settle a warrant for a court case where he has a right to trial (which I believe is what they are trying to make him go to of course), so I have been looking over the relevant laws to figure out how to respond, and this is what I have so far:

I plan to show how the Texas laws Do say that the court basically MUST provide a person with a second chance at paying bail unless there is "probable" evidence to show that will not assure their appearance (which is the only "Purpose of bail" in Az Criminal Procedure and I'm sure same in US and other States as these usually come from higher court "precedents")...and...to do anything other than negotiate a settlement with him or allow him to 'quash the warrant' by appearing at court and going to trial with a guarantee of not going to jail ahead of time, then THEY could be liable for acting "to the Contrary" of these "fundamental principles" of "Law"!

So now I have to put together a Motion for this court, which points out exactly what the laws require this court to do, and how exactly they can be held liable if they do anything different, without proving our legal arguments wrong on the public record.

Then this judge/court just wont have any choice, because I will basically do their job FOR them!  That is what I have learned to do these last 11 years, and so far it works so well, they THANK me and Congratulate me for this!

And look how I can summarize exactly how most of these 'Judges' arguments for "immunity" CANT POSSIBLY be "Constitutional" or therefore "Lawful", with just a handful of basic "fundamental principles" of "the common law" and "the supreme Law of the Land"!
_________________________________________________

FROM HERE: 
https://www.facebook.com/harleyborgais/posts/10216656459764034?comment_id=10216663061729079 

MORE ON THIS POINT:

"Qualified immunity
In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions", extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions. ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

"Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity. “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan ..."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity


SOME DEFINITIONS: 

"Capias
[Latin, That you take.] The name for several different kinds of writs, or court orders, all of which require an officer to take the defendant into custody. ..."
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Capias

"surety
n. a guarantor of payment or performance if another fails to pay or perform, such as a bonding company which posts a bond for a guardian, an administrator, or a building contractor. ..."
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/surety

"Mandamus
[Latin, We comand.] A writ or order that is issued from a court of superior jurisdiction that commands an inferior tribunal, corporation, Municipal Corporation, or individual to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act, the performance or omission of which is required by law as an obligation. ..."
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/writ+of+mandamus

"IS MY CASE MANDAMUSABLE?: A GUIDE TO
THE CURRENT STATE OF TEXAS
MANDAMUS LAW ..."
https://www.pozzaandwhyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Barnard_Step12.pdf