Rule by Case Precedence

September 25, 2006

By Taffy Rice (View author info)
Copyright Taffy Rice

As a victim of legal and judicial fraud, I have laid witness to an enormous flurry of crimes against GA Citizens, who all too frequently have nightmares to share. But few penned efforts have struck me more profoundly, than a recent ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court, which as case precedence, will now be used against every citizen, the same as the falsified and fraudulent case precedence perpetrated against my family, our neighbors, and fellow Georgians, by powerfully connected lawyers and elected officials.

But when you read the text of a recent decision issued in August, you will literally be shocked and horrified at the CASE PRECEDENCE, that allows government officials to literally break the law against you, in order to provide the appearance of government. As Cobb County Georgia and former police officers for same can attest to, FRAUD is the number one disease in America today, and the main reason every nation in the world views our culture with disdain.

As more homeowners are introduced to the legal realm, as their rights, property, and lives are stripped by criminal behavior, people will increasing learn, this IS a problem that affects US ALL! Welcome to the return of the British or control by the servants of the BAR!

The attached US Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit filed August 7th, 2006, ruling (No. 06-10879 Non-Argument Calendar D. C. Docket No. 04-03636-CV-JEC-1) Tajuddiin Jarallah v. Matthew O. Simmons. gives NEW meaning to TYRANNICAL RULE BY CASE PRECEDENCE.

[Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges]

Tajuddin Jarallah appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint based upon judicial immunity and prosecutorial immunity, and for failure to state a claim under § 1983. We affirm the district court. The issue involved Clayton County DA Robert Keller, Asst DA Perry Fletcher, Clayton Superior Court Judge Matthew Simmons.

The judicial immunity doctrine bars Judge Simmons' liability for damages. First, Judge Simmons dealt with Jarallah in his judicial capacity, and second Judge Simmons did not act in the clear absence of all discretion. See Simmons, 86 F.3d at 1084-85. Jarallah's claim that Judge Simmons was acting outside his judicial capacity by failing to rule on certain motions fails because, as noted above, Georgia law provides that ruling on a motion is a judicial act, and a judge's failure to do so may only result in impeachment or a writ of mandamus, neither of which Jarallah requested. See O.C.G.A. § 15-6-21; Brooks, 458 S.E.2d at 352. Moreover, we affirm the district court's conclusion that Jarallah failed to state a claim of a constitutional violation under § 1983. Jarallah's complaint 2 Jarallah concedes Staff Attorney Baker's liability was tied to Judge Simmons' with regard to judicial immunity, and independent review shows Jarallah never alleged Baker acted outside her relationship with Judge Simmons. Thus, Baker is also entitled to judicial immunity. See Roland, 19 F.3d at 555.

B. Claims against Prosecutors
Prosecutors acting within the scope of their prosecutorial duties enjoy an absolute immunity from suit under §1983. Imbler v. Pachtman, 96 S. Ct. 984, 993 (1976). Specifically, the functions of initiating a prosecution and presenting the state's case are within the scope of prosecutorial immunity from a civil suit for damages under § 1983. Id. at 995. A prosecutor may also be immune from liability for acts done in preparation of initiating a criminal prosecution. Id. at 995 n.33.
7
In Rowe v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 279 F.3d 1271, 1274 (11th Cir. 2002), the plaintiff alleged his ex-wife, the prosecutor, and other state defendants were involved in a conspiracy to wrongfully prosecute and convict him of sexually abusing his daughter. We held even if the plaintiff's allegations were true, the prosecutor was entitled to immunity for all actions he took while performing his function as an advocate for the government. Id at 1279-80. In outlining the limits of this immunity, we stated: "The prosecutorial function includes the initiation and pursuit of criminal prosecution and all appearances before the court. . . . Under these principles, it is clear that, even if [the prosecutor] knowingly proffered perjured testimony and fabricated exhibits at trial, he is entitled to absolute immunity for doing so." Id.

Jarallah's complaint alleged defendants initiated baseless charges against him; however, initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution falls within a prosecutor's duties and such functions are absolutely protected by prosecutorial immunity. See Imbler, 96 S. Ct. at 995. Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing Jarallah's claims against Fletcher, Keller, and Doe.

AFFIRMED.


Is there any wonder our courts are lacking in any semblance of justice? Where does the 'rule of law' begin, and immunity end? Rest assured not with the actions of our "legal" system. As long as the Supreme Court can exceed and expound beyond the limits of statutory and constitutional law, we live by case precedence, even when inaccurately created, written, or reported. Where is our government and who does it serve?