30 November 2016

KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Judge Stan Rumbaugh Caught on Video: Sued for Throwing Reporter out of Foreclosure Case.


Plaintiffs' Draft Rule 59 Motion on the Merits (The Remand argument is coming later). From today's email to the dirty lying attorneys at the County Prosecutor's Office, who knew full well they have a friend in Judge Martinez:

And by the way, everyone knows that Judicial Immunity, to the extent it exists, only applies to Judicial Acts and not Administrative Acts. 

Clearing a reporter to run video doesn't have jack shit to do with Judicial Acts folks.  See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988)

"When applied to the paradigmatic judicial acts involved in resolving disputes between parties who have invoked the jurisdiction of a court, the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity has not been particularly controversial. Difficulties have arisen primarily in attempting to draw the line between truly judicial acts, for which immunity is appropriate, and acts that simply happen to have been done by judges. Here, as in other contexts, immunity is justified and defined by the functions it protects and serves, not by the person to whom it attaches."

As such, Defendant Rumbaugh enjoys only qualified immunity and is subject to Injunctive or Prospective Relief, which is PRECISELY what Plaintiffs argued at (docket No. ______ pp ______).

"Administrative decisions, even though they may be essential to the very functioning of the courts, have not similarly been regarded as judicial acts. In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339 (1880), for example, this Court declined to extend immunity to a county judge who had been charged in a criminal indictment with discriminating on the basis of race in selecting trial jurors for the county's courts. The Court reasoned:
"Whether the act done by him was judicial or not is to be determined by its character, and not by the character of the agent. Whether he was a county judge or not is of no importance. The duty of selecting jurors might as well have been committed to a private person as to one holding the office of a judge. . . . That the jurors are selected for a court makes no difference. So are court-criers, tipstaves, sheriffs, &c. Is their election or their appointment a judicial act?" Id., at 348.
Although this case involved a criminal charge against a judge, the reach of the Court's analysis was not in any obvious way confined by that circumstance.
Likewise, judicial immunity has not been extended to judges acting to promulgate a code of conduct for attorneys. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U. S. 719 (1980). In explaining why legislative, rather than judicial, immunity furnished the appropriate standard, we said: "Although it is clear that under Virginia law the issuance of the Bar Code was a proper function of the Virginia Court, propounding the Code was not an act of adjudication but one of rulemaking." Id., at 731. Similarly, in the same case, we held that judges acting to enforce the Bar Code would be treated like prosecutors, and thus would 229*229 be amenable to suit for injunctive and declaratory relief. Id., at 734-737. Cf. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U. S. 522 (1984). Once again, it was the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it, that informed our immunity analysis."

IV

In the case before us, we think it clear that Judge White was acting in an administrative capacity when he demoted and discharged Forrester. Those acts — like many others involved in supervising court employees and overseeing the efficient operation of a court — may have been quite important in providing the necessary conditions of a sound adjudicative system. The decisions at issue, however, were not themselves judicial or adjudicative.

In short, it is the same way in the case at bar:  Defendant Rumbaugh was not adjudicating a goddamn thing. He was simply applying his own bias in an arbitrary and capricious manner to deny what is clearly a Constitutional Right, which brings Plaintiff to his next point:

The fact that Counsel for Judge Rumbaugh lied and fabricated a tale in which Plaintiff Brown had not notified the Court properly and in which Plaintiff King had not placed the Court on Actual Notice of his pending arrival as a First Amendment journalist, or that he had not put the Court on Actual Notice of his ongoing Notice of Media Coverage, when in point of fact he had done so. See Plaintiffs' Notice of Fraud Upon the Court and Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions, Docket Nos. (___ and ____).

Also as far as lying prosecutors go -- and that exactly what this office contains -- you only have qualified immunity, rather than absolute immunity, for fabricating and lying about evidence. See generally Buckley v. Fitzsimmons 509 U.S. 259 (1993).

You want a battle, you've got one coming to you. 

The iguanas I'm seeing on my vacation have got nothing on the snakes in the grass who report to work every day at 955 Tacoma Avenue South.

Ciao.




Mark Lindquist - Ethics
Stephen D. Trinnen and Daniel R. Hamilton are two of the lawyers in Prosecutor Mark Lindquist's ethically-challenged office who perpetuate the problem. They are defending Judge Stanley Rumbaugh for refusing to allow camera access in his courtroom in direct and blatant contravention of Washington GR 16, and they are lying their butts off to do so. We are simply not going to tolerate it, and complaints are being lodged with the State Bar, The Judicial Overseers and in Federal Court for Fraud upon the Court. Take a look.
 4 January 2016 Update -- Daniel Hamilton, Esq. and Stephen Trinen, Esq. 955 Tacoma Avenue South have submitted a Notice of Appearance. I need to check on hizzoner's timeline to reply as often government folk get a longer period of time, even though they are allegedly held to a higher standard. Oh the fun things I've learned in the 23 years since I graduated from law school!

 
Oh is that how it is your honor? I don't think so. We started this lawsuit several months ago and I am now filing it Friday. 


Anyway you get to tell us the way it is, but in America we also get to tell YOU the way it is, in an arguably impartial courtroom setting. You were obviously not impartial with respect to my brother Wally Brown or to me and that is why I'll make sure everything about this lawsuit is set to YouTube and I don't care if I have to get a decree from God. Not even Donald Trump would agree with this sort of Civil Rights violation and you should be ashamed at your misconduct. 


I've been running courtroom video since 1996 so I'm not about tolerate this sort of abuse, not from you and not from anybody. See you in Court, with cameras Your Honor.


The first journal entry from 8 August, 2016. I see the State is busy watching. I am filing today.

No comments: