On Feb 16, 2017, at 8:10 PM,Indian Country is defined in Title 15.
The key case for Absolute Judicial Immunity is Spark v Stumpman. But both Spark and Stumpman were Native Americans living on the reservation. The Court Stumpman was a judge for was a tribal court, not an Indiana state court. Most lawyers don’t have a clue that the nations have their own civil and criminal laws. There is some state and federal overlap in the area of criminal law. Those are the major crimes act, the minor crimes act, the assimilative crimes act and Public Law 280. There is no state or federal overlap in tribal civil law jurisdiction. Under 1 Stat 20 section 34 the federal courts are required to use the law of the state for all state law claims. The federal court in Indiana had to use Native American civil law in resolving that case,– not Indiana state law. Native Americans are Article IV subjects and that case has no business being used as authority in Article III jurisprudence.
That would be like using a civil rights case out of China as Article III authority.
As it has been stated on this blog before, judges do NOT have absolute judicial immunity. They have limited immunity for making decisions when briefs and motions are properly put before them. A judge must make certain that all defendants have been served by the sheriff or a licensed process server or in accordance with law before taking any courtroom action. Judges are responsible for basic due process: Notice, Properly filed Motion or Complaint, Discovery, a Jury Trial where permissible and properly requested by a litigant and a fair hearing.
The Ciavarella Case: ciavarella case
Reblogged this on Justice for Everyone Blog.