Qualified Immunity
Exploits original law maker's intent and taxpayers rights
everyday
Embedded Files
Trust our American process! Nothing corrupt can last forever.
This assault on the people, through the suppression of our free press and erosion of judicial credibility, is a grave threat surpassing even the devastation of Pearl Harbor. It strikes at the very heart of our democratic principles and undermines the fundamental rights of every citizen.
Our once cherished free national press faces severe threats and suppression through constitutionally questionable tactics, undermining the people's ability to seek relief from government intimidation and oppression.
Additionally, our judiciary is experiencing its lowest credibility in history, as it vigorously shields total lack of accountability under the guise of blanket immunity. These circumstances gravely endanger the foundation of democracy and must be addressed with urgency and resolve.
April 11, 2024 the hearing
Could there be a "silent Epidemic" of District Attorney abuses statewide in California?
April 11th, 2024
Over the years, qualified immunity, initially intended to protect "honest" government officials from frivolous lawsuits while still upholding individual rights, has morphed into a shield that often protects even the most egregious,overt, malicious and retaliatory actions of public officials against the general public. This blanket immunity has left individuals, including judges, mayors, police officers, and other public officials, largely immune from accountability for their actions, even when those actions clearly violate the constitutional rights of citizens.
Numerous respected organizations have voiced these very concerns about the detrimental effects of qualified immunity on the constitutional rights of average Americans. These organizations have highlighted the need for modification and reform to ensure that government officials are held accountable for their actions and that individuals' rights are protected. Some of the most prominent organizations that have spoken out against the perils of qualified immunity include:
These organizations have contributed to the ongoing dialogue surrounding qualified immunity, advocating for reforms that promote accountability, transparency, and the protection of individual rights.
-Over the years, qualified immunity, initially intended to protect government officials from "frivolous "lawsuits while still upholding individual rights, has morphed into a shield that completely protects even the most egregious and some criminal actions of public officials against citizens.-
"This effectively short circuits system of Justice and it's checks and balances, as well as the binding rule of law!
This blanket immunity has left individuals, including judges, mayors, police officers, district attorneys and other public officials, largely immune from accountability for their actions, even when those INTENTIONAL AND RETALITORY actions violate the constitutional rights of citizens and cause immense intentional severe harm.
Numerous respected organizations have voiced concerns about the detrimental effects of qualified immunity on the constitutional rights of average Americans. These organizations have highlighted the need for modification and reform to ensure that government officials are held accountable for their actions and that individuals' rights are protected." - Boomer A. Chesman
Colorado is leading the nation. Qualified Immunity is just not needed, never was well thought out and never passed in legislative muster.
Clark Neily: Neily is a senior vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute and a prominent critic of qualified immunity. He has written extensively on the topic and advocates for its reform.
Jay Schweikert: Schweikert, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, focuses on constitutional law, the Supreme Court, and civil liberties. He has written and spoken extensively about the problems with qualified immunity.
Institute for Justice: This libertarian public interest law firm has been actively involved in litigation challenging the application of qualified immunity and advocating for its reform. They provide resources, research, and legal assistance in cases related to civil liberties and government accountability.
Harvard Law Review: The Harvard Law Review has published articles and commentary critiquing qualified immunity and exploring potential reforms. Legal scholars often contribute to this discourse through their research and analysis.
The Cato Institute: In addition to individuals like Neily and Schweikert, the Cato Institute as a whole has been a vocal critic of qualified immunity. They publish reports, articles, and host events discussing the doctrine's implications for civil rights and the rule of law.
The Federalist Society: While not uniformly critical of qualified immunity, the Federalist Society has hosted debates and discussions on the topic, providing a platform for different perspectives to be heard.
Various law professors and legal scholars: There are numerous legal scholars across various academic institutions who have written articles, papers, and books critiquing qualified immunity and proposing reforms. These include but are not limited to professors at Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, and University of Chicago Law School.
These individuals and organizations often propose reforms to qualified immunity, ranging from its complete abolition to various modifications aimed at ensuring government officials are held accountable for constitutional violations while still providing them with appropriate protections.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse