In a legal brief filed Tuesday, 20 legal scholars and former judges argued that granting former Luzerne County judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. judicial immunity from civil suits in the kids-for-cash scandal would make a "mockery" of a legal doctrine designed to protect judicial independence and integrity.Ciavarella and Conahan, accused of accepting $2.8 million in kickbacks for sending juveniles to two for-profit detention centers, have claimed judicial immunity in civil-rights suits filed by hundreds of those juveniles in U.S. District Court.
The former judges claim they cannot be held liable because the legal doctrine of judicial immunity protects them from civil suits stemming from their official actions.
But in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Tuesday, 20 legal scholars and former judges argue judicial immunity was never intended to protect judges from claims stemming from allegedly criminal activity.
Friend of the Court Motion
Friend of the Court Brief
Conahan's Motion for Immunity
Ciavarella's Motion for Immunity
Full Aricle and Source:
Group of 20 Argues Against Immunity for Ciavarella, Conahan
See also:
Conahan Linked to 1990's Cocaine Probe
NASGA Member Attends Hearings
Judicial immunity is judge-made law - there's no immunity in the Constitution, which says judges shall remain in office during good behavior.
ReplyDeleteHooray for the good guys filing a brief against the bad ones!
Immunity is not absolute when there are constitutional violations.
Here's an interesting read:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj7n2/cj7n2-13.pdf
Boy, these rats know every trick in the book, don't they?
ReplyDeleteGood going, Group of 20!
Holding Conahan and Ciavarella accountable is the only way Luzerne County can return to an ounce of credibility.
ReplyDeleteImmunity?
ReplyDeleteWhy if that's granted, then judges have a license to do any criminal act they want, don't they?
I hope Conahan and Ciavarella are racking up huge legal fees for all this maneuvering and wrangling.
ReplyDeletejudicial immunity is like forgiving all judges for all the wrong they do BEFORE!!! they do it how nuts is this? oh, maybe figure who came up with this all encompassing absolution for all sins- lawyers? grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
ReplyDeleteThey can't get immunity. The cat's already out of the bag on them both. Too many people are watching for them to get by with this.
ReplyDeleteImmunity would start a tidal wave of complaints and publicity.
Immunity? What a joke!
ReplyDeleteThey make me sicker each time I read something new about them.
ReplyDeleteAnd I can imagine how much we don't know yet. I imagine there will be a lot more coming out about them before its over.
Such as: an investigation into adult guardianship cases.
Way to go, Group of 20!
ReplyDeleteWe're behind you!
"The former judges claim they cannot be held liable because the legal doctrine of judicial immunity protects them from civil suits stemming from their official actions."
ReplyDeleteWell, now, isn't this just a dandy attitude?
These judges need an attitude adjustment....volunteers?