(Back to Confronting)


The Club now comes up with the following theory:

The Cascading Lawsuit Effect

By stripping judicial immunity, any official a complainant encounters throughout the normal judicial remedies is fair game. This is the beginning of what experts have termed the "Cascading Lawsuit" effect - a never-ending cycle of lawsuits unhappy litigants could trigger. Here's how:

If all judicial remedies are "exhausted," but the litigant isn't satisfied, he or she would have the power to call out each and every judge or official involved in that unsuccessful chain of judicial remedies - and haul each and every one of them in front of the grand jury in order to sue them personally. Should they get permission to sue any or all of those officials - but fail to win - they could haul every official involved in their suit against the first round of officials before the Special Grand Jury. And on, and on, and on.

Our current system works - it's clear and efficient. A complaint can go before a citizen board, a circuit court or be appealed to the State Supreme Court, and then it's done. ....

Our response:

Here, the Club has a complete misunderstanding of the J.A.I.L. process. They are suggesting that the Special Grand Jury may find "Judge A" culpable, in which a subsequent lawsuit may be brought against said "Judge A" in front of "Judge B." And should "Judge A" win in the trial before "Judge B," the losing plaintiff may "haul" "Judge A" and "Judge B" before the SGJ, and prepare the way for a subsequent trial of "Judges A and B" before "Judge C," and so on and so forth with "Judges D, E, and F."

What's wrong with this picture?? First of all, the issue in front of "Judge B" is not whether the plaintiff wins or loses, but rather whether "Judge B" allegedly willfully committed any of the specified violations in paragraph 2 of Amendment E. A judge before whom a losing plaintiff appeared is not, ipso facto [by the fact itself], liable for an investigation by the SGJ. A plaintiff can lose honestly, according to law. In such a case, J.A.I.L. would not apply to the judge ("Judge B") conducting that trial, since he did not willfully violate any of the procedural laws specified in the Amendment.

On the other hand, if "Judge B" is alleged to have willfully violated procedural law(s), and the losing plaintiff exhausted all appeals, then only "Judge B" would be subject to a complaint to the SGJ. "Judge A" would not be involved in this "round" involving "Judge B" as is suggested above by the Club.

Matters brought before the SGJ do not depend on whether a litigant is "satisfied" or "dissatisfied" with the results of his case. The only issue is whether the judge  (1) violated the law, and (2) knew he was violating the law.



(Back to Confronting)