Breaking| Ninth Circuit Suggests Perjury Charges For Lying Prosecutors | Observer

SAN FRANCISCO - SEPTEMBER 22: Judge Alex Kozinski (L), of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, gestures during oral arguments September 22, 2003 in San Francisco, California. Eleven of the judges from the appeals court convened to hear arguments on whether the vote should take place on October 7 as scheduled or postponed. (Photo by Paul Sakuma-Pool/Getty Images)

At long last, judges seem willing to hold prosecutors accountable for lying and so-called ‘cooperation’ deals

Source: Breaking: Ninth Circuit Suggests Perjury Charges For Lying Prosecutors | Observer

The Court is considering “Perjury charges for lying prosecutors” ????? Com’mon, why in the United States of America has this question become a debate? If there is no more evidence that our judicial system has been commandeered by lawyers, it is in lawyers deciding if lawyers should or shouldn’t be allowed to use “perjured” testimony in the conviction of a person for a crime.

At least the Ninth Circuit is breaking with their colleagues and thinking about changing their prior stance with respect to prosecutors — which they previously AND publicly stated in Ashelman v Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986)

We therefore hold that a conspiracy between judge and prosecutor to predetermine the outcome of a judicial proceeding, while clearly improper, nevertheless does not pierce the immunity extended to judges and prosecutors.

Is there anything more evident that our ‘judicial system’ is completely OUT OF TOUCH with the IDEALS of our founding principles?

Surely it must be public pressure that is the medicine treating the insanity afflicting judges and lawyers. The public must continue to put pressure on these judges to bring back the rule-of-law because the Bar Associations are ‘against’ holding lawyers to the law; also clearly stated by the 9th. Id., Ashelman v Pope

In Dykes, the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a judge who conspires to deny a party federal constitutional rights is immune from a damage action under section 1983. Dykes, 776 F.2d at 946.

1 Comment

  1. YES they should be held accountable! We the people put them in office to uphold our laws! Not abuse laws on our fine! They have the power to make recommendations both good and bad to help or hurt! Often times they are know to use this power to hit and take luves! Destroying compl the generations and seperating families!! Hold them accountable for lying under oath and abusing the public trust! My friends John still incarcerated 26 years an innocent man! The victim of judicial abuse and falsehoods to get a conviction for power! To do it to others!
    Please sign petition at

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.