Riparian Attorneys Expose Michigan Judges to Civil Rights Claims
Judges are protected by absolute immunity when they act in a judicial capacity for nearly every decision they are called upon to make. For absolute judicial immunity to apply, however, a judge must not have acted in the complete absence of all subject matter jurisdiction. Michigan courts regularly have been and are exposed to civil rights claims as a result of litigation regarding whether a body of water is riparian or not as these types of issues were resolved nearly two centuries ago when created by a political department of the federal government pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. They are forever unchangeable.
Thus, it is not within the jurisdiction of any court, state or federal, to consider and/or determine whether the boundaries of federal surveys established by the federal government are in error. That is exactly what happens when there is judicial reliance on state statutes or state administrative or common law instead of the U.S. Constitution, the federal law and the actions of the Government Land Office nearly two centuries ago. Instead of simply referring to what was accomplished by the federal government, attorneys frame issues in accord with Michigan definitions and rulings which lead the courts into areas where they are federally prohibited. This not only puts state judges in danger of civil rights suits in accord with 42 U.S.C. 1983, but is a complete waste of judicial time and resources. Additionally, such decisions appear to have corrupted federal land surveys and related titles in Michigan to the point of no return. This is so, despite the fact that such decisions are void in accord with the U.S. Constitution.