PEOPLE THAT ARE DENIED IMMUNITY
Most independent contractors
Most factory workers
Most office workers
Most construction workers
Average citizens
Most taxpayers
Most voters
Most employees
Most citizens
Aliens
Most businesses
The poor
The elderly
Students
Drivers

PEOPLE THAT HAVE GRANTED THEMSELVES IMMUNITY
The Congress claims immunity
The Executive Branch claims immunity
The Judicial Branch claims immunity
Local officials claim immunity
Teachers claim immunity for the harm they do to children
Universities claim immunity
Some businesses claim immunity
Government employees claim immunity
Lawyers working for the government claim immunity
Professors claim immunity
Government contractors claim immunity
Boards and Commissions claim immunity
Mayors, City Officials, County Officials, and State Officials claim immunity

Who should be able to kill or rape you or a loved one, take your property, violate a contract with you or otherwise harm or offend you and be granted immunity for what they do to you? In the United States, there are hundreds of examples whereby people are harmed and those causing the harm are granted immunity.

What is "immunity"?

Definition: The claiming of "immunity" for one's unlawful actions is a method whereby a person that maintains a high level of political power uses that power to shift the financial responsibility for his unlawful actions from himself to the taxpayer or person of lower power. Usually this is accomplished by establishing a system whereby the person with high political power denies to the person of lower political power access to a court of law.


Our Goal:

No taxpayer should be forced to pay for the mistakes of a government official.

Example: A citizen is killed by a government official in an automobile accident. The government official claims "immunity" for the death he has caused.

In this example there are two identifiable groups of people. One group is composed of the citizen that was killed, along with his family and his fellow taxpayers. The other group is composed of a governmental official and others who wish to shift the financial burden, resulting from the killing of the citizen, from themselves to the taxpayer. The usual method used by these people is to claim "immunity" from responsibility for the death or damage they cause. The unlawful immunity that these people claim is usually supported by others who also claim immunity for themselves. For example, claims of immunity by lower level government agents is usually supported by judges, because the judges themselves unlawfully claim immunity.

The U.S. Constitution does not grant immunity to any government official, and it does not give to any official the power to make another person "immune" from the law.

Therefore, those with high political power must use deceit and trickery to successfully grant themselves immunity. The original deceitful method used by government officials was to claim that the power to be immune was based upon the power derived by a king based upon sovereign immunity. The claim was that kings were immune and therefore these government officials were also immune. However, this claim to sovereign immunity had a basic flaw, kings were not immune. It was common practice that kings were sued in their courts.

Once the claim to "sovereign immunity" was exposed, those with high political power attempted to use another type of trickery to fool a trusting society into supporting their claim to immunity. The second trick that was used was the claim that "a suit against a government official is a suit against the taxpayer". These people who wanted to be immune thought that they could convince the taxpayers that whenever a taxpayer sued a government official he was being unpatriotic and was actually suing his fellow taxpayers.

Of course the reason this claim failed is that there were only two possible parties to the suit for damages, one was the taxpayer who was harmed and the other was the government official that caused the damage. The government official simply stated that he was not going to pay for the damage he caused, and therefore the damage must be paid by the taxpayer. Of course the U.S. Constitution does not allow a government official the right to shift the financial responsibility for the damage he causes to the taxpayer. In effect the powerful official is attempting to make himself immune from the cost of the damage he causes by shifting the cost to the taxpayer. But the Constitution does not give any government official the power to shift his financial obligations from himself to the taxpayer.

Once these two pathways to immunity fell into disrepute, these powerful officials had to invent another basis for their claim to immunity. That leads us to the current basis for the claim to immunity. And this line of reasoning is even worse than the two previous methods attempted by those who wish to be immune. Currently these officials use the excuse " a person cannot sue the authority that makes the law". Of course, this is simply a phrase that was "made up" and is not based upon any power granted in the Constitution. The intent of the new phrase is to lay a out a sensible sounding catch phrase upon which the powerful can base their future claims of immunity.

Of course this new method of claiming immunity will also fail. Eventually the people will demand accountability from those who today claim immunity. Until that day, every possible method of avoiding responsibility will be tried.

justicelives.com

Home of "IMMUNITY WATCH" and source page for all information related to sovereign immunity and the hundreds of related types of immunity.