Anonymous ID: 9e99ac April 18, 2020, 4:02 p.m. No.8843664   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Department of State

@StateDept

.@SecPompeo

: The Chinese Government needs to come clean. It needs to be accountable. It needs to explain what happened and why it is the case that that information wasn’t made more broadly available. #COVID19

9.5K views

0:51 / 9:58

Ambassador Birx Remarks at White House Coronavirus Task Force Meeting

6:00 PM · Apr 18, 2020·Twitter Media Studio

 

https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/1251646691431772161

Anonymous ID: 9e99ac April 18, 2020, 5:14 p.m. No.8844491   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4516

>>8844417

You can be both. Most cops are sovereign citizens. They get all the benefits of "the system" but have immunity from prosecution. So do judges, federal legislators, and many others with absolute judicial, prosecutorial or qualified immunity.

Anonymous ID: 9e99ac April 18, 2020, 5:17 p.m. No.8844541   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4552

>>8844516

In the United States, judicial immunity is among a handful of forms of absolute immunity, along with prosecutorial immunity, legislative immunity, and witness immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized judicial immunity as providing "the maximum ability [of judges] to deal fearlessly and impartially with the public".[8] The justification is as follows: because of the likelihood of innocent individuals being convicted in a court of law under false claims, the "burden" of being subjected to a court of law (a trial) would "dampen" the judges "enthusiasm" or "passion".[9] Opponents of judicial immunity argue that this doctrine is not adequately justified.[10] For example, judges could be shielded from any personal capacity liability, and still be subject to official capacity liability so that they may be held accountable for their injurious acts – thus "balancing" the "evil" to better protect the fundamental rights of victims.

 

Judicial immunity does not protect judges from suits stemming from administrative decisions made while off the bench, like hiring and firing decisions. But immunity generally does extend to all judicial decisions in which the judge has proper jurisdiction, even if a decision is made with "corrupt or malicious intent".[11] In 1997 West Virginia judge Troisi became so irritated with a rude defendant, he stepped down from the bench, took off his robe, and bit the defendant on the nose.[12] He pleaded no contest to state charges but was acquitted of federal charges of violating the defendant's civil rights.[13] He spent five days in jail and was put on probation.[14]

 

Because the immunity is attached to the judicial nature of the acts, not the official title of the officeholder, judicial immunity also applies to administrative hearings, although in some situations, only qualified immunity applies.[15] In determining whether absolute or qualified immunity should be provided, the U.S. Supreme Court has identified the following factors, according to the Shriver Center's Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys:[15]

 

(a) The need to assure that the individual can perform his functions without harassment or intimidation; (b) the presence of safeguards that reduce the need for private damages actions as a means of controlling unconstitutional conduct; (c) insulation from political influence; (d) the importance of precedent; (e) the adversary nature of the process; and (f) the correctability of error on appeal.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_immunity

 

Read a book