Amendment of section 1983 is void ab initio

Commentary: Is the amendment of section 1983 void ab initio?

6143

this page is www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/pulliam2.html

Pulliam case: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/Pulliam.html

Bivens case: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bivens.html

General navigational links:

Lawyerdude’s most important page. His top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html

Back to www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com

Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 652 0334

Back to Lawyerdude's discussion group: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude

Email lawyerdude: dlawyerdude@hotmail.com

Back to lawyerdude's briefs: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com

Back to Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues:

http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html

The Steve 762 program to fight traffic tickets: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html

List of all pages uploaded by Lawyerdude in the past few months updated 27 June 03: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html

Lawyerdude's links page: www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html

http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/Pulliam.html

The above link is to the case that triggered Congress to amend section 1983 as quoted below.

In passing the aforementioned amendment Congress purported to dimishe our constitutional right to petition by amending 42 USC 1983 to specifically prohibit injuncitive relief against judges. Such an act is void ab initio. Congress may designate the jurisdiction of the court - but not in such a way as to diminish equal protection under the law. Marbury v Madison.

Here is the new verbiage:

" 42 §1983: . . . 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."

This act of Congress is unconstitutional! See Bevins. Even without authorization of Congress the constitution is self enacting. Judicial immunity is a denial of due process and is judge made law from an era and a country - England - which is not very keen on freedom. Remember, that is why our ancestors departed England!

--- In lawyerdude@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Quackenbush" <dquack@t...> wrote:

> Yeah, something to do with needing a declaratory judgment first. Reading the statute alone doesn't make much sense to me, and I haven't had time to check out the annotations to the U.S.C. lately to see if there is anything there on the new changes. There is still injunctive relief against entities and individual officers (except judges).

> 42 §1983:

> 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.

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Attorney Douglas Palaschak

> Section 1983 was amended recently to overturn the solid case law for

> injunctive relief. I am not pumping gloom. I am merely giving you a

> heads up.