I. LAW OF THE CASE

The law of the case is decreed as follows:

It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business....The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.  [California Government Code, Section 11120.]

In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business....The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. [California Government Code Section 54950.]

Laws, whether organic or ordinary, are either written or unwritten. [California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1895.]

A written law is that which is promulgated in writing, and of which a record is in existence. [California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1896]

The organic law is the Constitution of Government, and is altogether written. Other written laws are denominated statutes. The written law of this State is therefore contained in its Constitution and statutes, and in the Constitution and statutes of the United States. [California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1897]

Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the Court or judicial officer, of collusion between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. [California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1916]

...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves..... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.]

The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.]

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]

A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the eye of the law is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice. (Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.186) His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is reflected. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379.

....This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people." [California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration Of Rights Sec. 24.]

The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516.]

The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice. [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights. [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.]

Whereas, the people of California have presented a constitution....and which, on due examination, is found to be republican in its form of government.... [Act [of Congress] for the Admission of California Into the Union, Volume 9, Statutes at Large, Page 452.]

Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.]

The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. [California Constitution, Article 3, Sec. 1.]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.]

Conspiracy against rights:  If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.  [18, USC 241]

Deprivation of rights under color of law:  Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.  [18, USC 242]

Property rights of citizens:  All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.  [42 USC 1982]

Civil action for deprivation of rights:  Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.  For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. [42 USC 1983]

Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights:  Depriving persons of rights or privileges:  If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.  [42 USC 1985(3)]
 
Action for neglect to prevent:  Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased.  But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.  [42 USC 1986]

COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]

COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are:
A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]

D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
The following persons are magistrates: ...The judges of the superior courts.... [California Penal Code, Sec. 808.]

...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law.... [Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5, 1297, Sources of Our Liberties Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar Foundation]

Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court.  [Magna Carta, Article 34].

”An instrument is deemed in law filed at the time it is delivered to the clerk, regardless of whether the instrument is filemarked.”  [Biffle v. Morton Rubber Indus., Inc., 785 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tex.1990)]

The courts are not bound by an officer’s interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act.  [Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417]

Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process.  [Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694]

There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign.  [Cooper v. O’Conner, 99 F.2d 133]

Definition of Due Process of Law
"The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to defend in an orderly proceeding." Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2, 7 (Fla. 1929).
"To dispense with notice before taking property is likened to obtaining judgement without the defendant having ever been summoned." Mayor of Baltimore vs. Scharf, 54 Md. 499, 519 (1880).
"An orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear and determine the case. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill.2d 405, 259, N.E.2d 282, 290." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
"Due Process of law implies and comprehends the administration of laws equally applicable to all under established rules which do not violate fundamental principles of private rights, and in a competent tribunal possessing jurisdiction of the cause and proceeding upon justice. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgement is rendered." State v. Green, 232 S.W.2d 897, 903 (Mo. 1950).
"Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing, Pettit v. Penn., La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
"Due Process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500. 
"Aside from all else, ‘due process’ means fundamental fairness and substantial justice. Vaughn v. State, 3 Tenn.Crim.App. 54, 456 S.W.2d 879, 883." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
Due Process Can Not Be Legislated
"[T]he meaning [due process] does not change with the ebb and flow of economic events." - Justice Sutherland, in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 402 (1936).
"It is manifest it was not left to the legislative power to exact any process which might be devised. The [due process] article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of government, and cannot be so construed as to leave congress free to make any process ‘due process of law,’ by its mere will." Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Imp. Co., 18 How. (59 U.S.) 272, 276 (1855); French v. Barber Asphalt, 181 U.S. 324, 330 (1900).
"An act of the legislature is not necessarily the ‘law of the land.’ A state cannot make anything ‘due process of law’ which, by its own legislation, it declares to be such." Burdick v. People, 36 N.E. 948, 949, 149 Ill. 600 (1894).
"Due process of law does not mean merely according to the will of the Legislature, or the will of some judicial or quasi-judicial body upon whom it may confer authority. It means according to the law of the land, including the Constitution with its guaranties and the legislative enactments and rules duly made by its authority, so far as they are consistent with constitutional limitations." Ekern v. McGovern, 154 Wis. 157, 142 N.W. 595, 620 (1913), cases cited.
"’The law of the land,’ as used in the constitution, has long had an interpretation, which is well understood and practically adhered to. It does not mean an Act of the Legislature; if such was the true interpretation, this branch of the government could at any time take away life, liberty, property and privilege, without a trial by jury." Saco v. Wentworth, 37 Maine 165, 171 (1852).
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen." "His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1905).
"[T]he provision [due process clause] is designed to exclude oppression and arbitrary power from every branch of government." Dupuy v. Tedora, 15 So.2d 886, 890, 204 La. 560 (1943).
"The Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people. The Legislative cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees…" Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (1772).
"Daniel Webster, in the Dartmouth College Case, stated: ‘By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgement only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not therefore to be considered the law of the land.’ - It is thus entirely correct in assuming that a legislative enactment is not necessarily the law of the land." - Judge Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations, 5th Ed. Little, Brown & Co.: Boston, 1883, Sec.353-54, p.432.

Clearfield Doctrine

It is well settled that an officer must be either elected, appointed or commissioned.  Employees cannot be made officers “by virtue of their employment.”  Even if they could, I.C. 59-703 (9) states, 

“"Public office" means any position in which the normal and usual duties are conducted on behalf of a governmental entity.” 

The Clearfield Doctrine is explicit.  The corporation registered and known as THE CITY OF BOISE CITY is listed as a ”CORPORATION” in the IDAHO SECRETARY OF STATE’S BUSINESS ENTITY database and is, therefore, “an entity entirely separate from government.”  Notwithstanding any other Idaho Code section that is also superseded by Federal law, the alleged officers are NOT even employees of a “governmental entity.”

“ . . . the government descended to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen . . . For the purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government.”  Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheat. 22 U.S. 904, U.S. v. Erie Ry Co., 106 U.S. 327; Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. 318 U.S. 363 (1943).

“When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation.”  U.S. v. Burr. 309 U.S. 22; See 22 U.S.C.A. 286e. Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank of Georgia. 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et. Seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103.

An officer is defined as

“a person appointed or elected to a position of responsibility or authority in government or a private organization.”  Random House Webster’s Dictionary of the Law, p. 307.

CORPORATE DESCENSION OF GOVERNMENT

“ . . . the government descended to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen . . . For the purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government.”  Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheat. 22 U.S. 904, U.S. v. Erie Ry Co., 106 U.S. 327; Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. 318 U.S. 363 (1943). 
 
“When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation.”  U.S. v. Burr. 309 U.S. 22; See 22 U.S.C.A. 286e. Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank of Georgia. 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et. Seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103.

Other cases re: corporate descension:

Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904; 6 L. Ed. 24, (1824), the Court stated, in part: 

“The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty… exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter.”

"Governments lose their immunity and descend to level of private corporations when involved in commercial activity enforcing negotiable instruments, as in fines, penalties, assessments, bails, taxes, the remedy lies in the hand of the state and its municipalities seeking remedy."  --Rio Grande v. Darke, 167 P. 241.

"The rule of governmental immunity as to all political subdivisions of government is hereby abrogated as it has heretofore been abrogated as to municipal corporations, i.e., cities. No longer is the defense of governmental immunity for tort liability available, irrespective of whether the involved political subdivision is functioning 'governmentally' or 'proprietarily'." --Myers v. Genessee County , 375 Mich 1, 1965.

Full FSIA cite is

28 USC §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602-1611

Section 28 USC 1391 of the FSIA only includes subsection (f) which deals only with "venue in general."

Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904; 6 L. Ed. 24, (1824), the Court stated, in part: “The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty… exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter.”

"Governments lose their immunity and descend to level of private corporations when involved in commercial activity enforcing negotiable instruments, as in fines, penalties, assessments, bails, taxes, the remedy lies in the hand of the state and its municipalities seeking remedy." Rio Grande v. Darke, 167 P. 241.

other cases:
LOST GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY

"The rule of governmental immunity as to all political subdivisions of government is hereby abrogated as it has heretofore been abrogated as to municipal corporations, i.e., cities. No longer is the defense of governmental immunity for tort liability available, irrespective of whether the involved political subdivision is functioning 'governmentally' or 'proprietarily'." Myers v. Genessee County , 375 Mich 1, 1965.
  
"The principal of sovereign immunity is not one which allows the sovereign to continue to inflict injury....  [sovereign immunity] does not give the sovereign the right to totally disregard the effect of it’s actions upon the public." Shaw v. Salt Lake County , 224 P2d 1037.  
 
"Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker or jurisdiction is the issue." Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622 (1960).
 
"The general rule is that a qualified immunity defense fails once a plaintiff has alleged that defendants have violated the plaintiff's clearly established rights. Occasionally, however, objectively "extraordinary circumstances" are present which combine to justify a grant of immunity nonetheless." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982).
  
*On Our Adversarial System; Mack vs. City of Detroit, Chief Justice Cavanagh, No. 118468, 2002. 
"The adversarial system ensures the best presentation of arguments and theories because each party is motivated to succeed. Moreover, the adversarial system attempts to ensure that an active judge refrain from allowing a preliminary understanding of the issues to improperly influence the final decision. This allows the judiciary to keep an open mind until the proofs and arguments have been adequately submitted. In spite of these underlying concerns, the majority today claims that the benefits of full briefing are simply a formality that can be discarded without care. The majority fails to comprehend how the skilled advocates in this case could have added anything insightful in the debate over the proper interpretation of a century's worth of precedent. Whatever its motivation, the majority undermines the foundations of our adversarial system." 

When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326. 

In Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Arizona District Court dismissal based upon absolute judicial immunity, finding that both necessary immunity prongs were absent; later, in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (1986), the Ninth Circuit, en banc, criticized the "judicial nature" analysis it had published in Rankin as unnecessarily restrictive. But Rankin's ultimate result was not changed, because Judge Howard had been independently divested of absolute judicial immunity by his complete lack of jurisdiction. 

Some Defendants urge that any act "of a judicial nature" entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum, (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349. 

"Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction." Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872) 

A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction, as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938) 

Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F2d 59 (C.A.Ariz. 1974) 

There is a general rule that a ministerial officer, who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign. Cooper v. O'Conner,99 F.2d 133 

When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. State use of Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697. 

"... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803). 

"No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence." Ableman v. Booth, 21Howard 506 (1859). 

"The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act." Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227F 417. 

‘The constitution of the Union constitutes a contract with the members and is the measure of the authority conferred upon the organization to expel or otherwise discipline them. [Citing cases]; Accord: Leo v. Local Union No. 612 of International Union of Operating Engineers, 26 Wn.2d 498, 174 P.2d 523 (1946).

"IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO DECLARE THE MEANING OF WHAT IS WRITTEN, AND NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE WRITTEN. J.W. Seavey Hop Corp. v. Pollock, 20 Wn.2d 337, 348-49, 147 P.2d 310 (1944), cited with approval in Berg v. Hudesman, 115 Wn.2d at 669.

"It being impossible to obtain the remedy sought, the state and their agencies/municipalities being impotent to enforce their judgments/decrees and thus should not even exercise their otherwise ‘general’ jurisdictions." Louisiana v. NAL, 106 La. 621. And;

"Mere equity is impotent to correct the defect." McGraw v. Gortner, 96 Md 489.;

"A law which restricts their power to render and enforce a judgment is therefore a limitation upon the exercise of jurisdiction; and a law which destroys or impairs the effect which their judgments without such law would have, is equally so." Fordyce v. Beecher, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 29, 31.

TREZEVANT CASE DAMAGE AWARD STANDARD

"Evidence that motorist cited for traffic violation was incarcerated for 23 minutes during booking process, even though he had never been arrested and at all times had sufficient cash on hand to post bond pending court disposition of citation, was sufficient to support finding that municipality employing officer who cited motorist and county board of criminal justice, which operated facility in which motorist was incarcerated, had unconstitutionally deprived motorist of his right to liberty. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983." Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 1

"Jury verdict of $25,000 in favor of motorist who was unconstitutionally deprived of his liberty when incarcerated during booking process following citation for traffic violation was not excessive in view of evidence of motorist's back pain during period of incarceration and jailor's refusal to provide medical treatment, as well as fact that motorist was clearly entitled to compensation for incarceration itself and for mental anguish that he had suffered from entire episode. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983." Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 5

“All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only!”  [Rodrigues vs. Ray Donovan 769 F2d 1344, 1348 (1985)]

If any claim, statement, fact, or portion in this action is held inapplicable or not valid, such decision does not affect the validity of any other portion of this action. 

The singular includes the plural and the plural the singular. 

The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future the present, and the past the present. 

The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter.