THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ADOPTEE CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES, Open adoption records, original birth certificates, CONSTITUTIONALITY SESSSION

Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

The power of the state to regulate biological family relationships is limited.

Topic: Supreme Court Leans? (1 of 1), Conf: Purely American 2/29/00 From: G. William Troxler (president@capitol-college.edu) Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 06:21 PM

In late February the Supreme Court ruled that bias based upon ancestry is illegal. The opinion, written by Mr. Justice Kennedy, observed: 1. Ancestry can be used a proxy for race. 2. Bias based upon a person's ancestry is illegal under the 15th amendment of the constitution 3. The U.S. Constitution is the heritage of all the people of the United States and government may not choose to whom selected rights may or may not apply. What about adults who were adopted as children? They are forbidden to receive a copy of their original birth certificate solely because of their ancestry. Is the adoption system acting outside the U.S. Constitution?

Inaccuracies, revisions, and additions should be e-mailed to: JeepDrivingGenius@email.msn.com your ideas, opinion, or additions are much needed. This is an open site.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making legislation which would abrogate them."

"An unconstitutional act is not law...it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

A child is a person, and not a subperson over whom the parent has an absolute possessory interest. The term "child" does not necessarily mean minor, but can include adult children, and even adult nondependent children. Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the constitution. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children -- born within a marriage or not, but excluding children not yet born. There are both state and federal sources of child-rights law

"A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right secured by the Federal Constitution."; Murdock v. Penns. 319 U.S. 105.

Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

While it may sometimes seem like they don't enjoy the same level of protection as adults, legal scholars argue that the broad civil rights granted under the Fourteenth Amendment do, in fact, apply to all children, beginning at birth. This page from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University provides a nice set of links to information ranging from federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions touching on children's rights to the text of the 1989 international Convention on the Rights of the Child and outside links to prominent organizations dedicated to the protection of our smallest citizens. Heather Peake,

BILL OF ATTAINDER, legislation, punishment. An act of the legislature by which one or more persons are declared to be attainted, and their property confiscated. 2. The Constitution of the United States declares that no state shall pass any bill of attainder. 3. During the revolutionary war, bills of attainder, and ex post facto acts of confiscation, were passed to a wide extent. The evils resulting from them, in times of more cool reflection, were discovered to have far outweighed any imagined good. Story on Const. 1367. Vide Attainder; Bill of Pains and Penalties.

Aborn has brought up a bill of attainder question which would include the intentions of the Article 1, and Article 3, bill of attainder mandates. The argument that impounded birth records are a violation of the Article 3 mandate against any law that would deny inheritance

19) Reputation concerning personal or family history. Reputation among members of a person's family by blood, adoption, or marriage, or among a person's associates, or in the community, concerning a person's birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, death, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history

Found this under the federal rules of evidence......under Rule 803 Heresay Exceptions Availability of Declarant Immaterial.....

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdictions thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is an obvious fundamental right to personal information without which exploitation is imminent. Our very lives emanate as information, images sounds words actions and personal facts. To abridge the right to these is unconscionable. Personal information is selectively denied adoptees by the states in hiding personal birth records and relevant court proceedings. Adoptees are singled out for unequal treatment in the seizure and availability of their personal records and nonstandard administration of changes to their identity.

Regarding First Amendment Claims for adoptees, see: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1680 (1965) (First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech includes the right to receive information). See also, Catherine J. Ross, An Emerging Right for Mature Minors to Receive Information, 2 U. Pa. J. Con. L. 223, 227 (1999) (citing Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 1247 (1969) (Constitution protects right to receive information), Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 44, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 2625 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting) (right to know is corollary to right to speak). In Re Syracuse Peace Council, 2 F.C.C.R. 5043, 5057 (1987) (First Amendment gives people the right to receive ideas “unfettered by government intereference”).

It is increasingly obvious that closed records violate an adoptees right to "petition the government for redress of grievances" . By holding personal facts "secret" the state may restrain any possible attempts to petition arising from grievances. Hence the state has an Obligation to make personal information in general available and known to the adopted individual because by not doing so the states are in violation of the adopted individuals first amendment rights. Closed records therefore compromise or violate the first amendment right to petition.

Free speech protects both the speaker and the listener. We are rewarded by the right to know what others have to say. That is the foundation of free democracy. Yet, this principle is rarely considered concerning the adopted individuals inherent "right to know" evidenced in the freedom of the press. It is arguable that the "freedom of information" is as much a " right to know" as it is a "right to speak". The freedom of the press is intended to protect both the speaker and listener. Yet 200 years ago suppressed documents were not as great a problem as today. With personal information the "right to speak" is no different than the "right to know" because to contemplate is to speak of it within ones own being. This fundamental freedom is without question basic to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

The state's imposition of Sealed Records creates a separate class for adoptees. This class (adopted), like race or gender, is entirely imposed upon the individual (adoptee) and therefore violates equal protection by ignoring the rights established for all non adoptees and their families regarding access to personal records. The "interests" of privacy are specially weighted against adoptees as a basis for such actions creating 'separate and unequal' non-adoptee birth record, access laws. Is there any other such classification imposed on entirely innocent individuals?

The government can classify citizens any way it wants unless it involves a suspect class. Suspect classes are considered generally to be race and national origin see: (Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267, 274 (1986)). If the classification is of a suspect class, the court will apply strict scrutiny; this means that to be upheld the law must be the least burdensome (discriminatory) way of achieving a compelling government interest. There are several classifications that fall into a lesser category of protection: these are known as quasi-suspect classifications. Quasi suspect classes include gender see: (Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976)), and most importantly for adoption rights purposes: illegitimacy see:(Clark v. Jeter486 U.S. 456 (1988)). The level of scrutiny for quasi-suspect classifications is intermermediate scrutiny. For a law to be upheld under intermediate scrutiny, it must be substantially related to an important government interest. Classifications that do not fall into either suspect or quasi-suspect classes are subject to rational basis. This means that if the Court can find any rational basis at all for the law, it will be upheld. So far, all Constitutional challenges to sealed records have been upheld under a rational basis test. (See Mills v. Atlantic City Dept. of Vital Statistics, 148 N.J. Super. 302, 372 A.2d 645 (1977), ALMA Soc. v. Mellon, 601 F.2d 1225 (2nd Cir. 1979), Matter of Roger B., 86 Ill. App.3d 1064, 407 N.E.2d 884 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980), affd., 84 Ill.2d 323, 418 N.E.2d 751 (Ill.), appeal dismissed by 454 U.S. 806 (1981)).

Note that none of these cases were decided after Clark v. Jeter and used the wrong test.

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment demands more than this. Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in [455 U.S. 748] their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence."

Shouldn't an adoptee be allowed to view the court files which severed their rights to their original parentage?

How else does an adoptee know if their "Due Process rights" have been violated?

We cannot grant everyone but illegitimately born individuals or adoptees access to their information any more than we can say that everyone may vote but women.. or that everyone can assemble except "skinheads". Such choices are not always obvious but they are the necessary costs of freedom and equality. Violation of these principles in Closed Adoptions has caused virtually all the problems in adoption today. Beyond the boundless loss for millions living under family apartheid, the innate shadiness of such transactions creates a climate for fraud and abuse. It is a necessary fact that these contribute to greater injustices for more people just as abolishing equal protection always does.

The interest, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, is in avoiding unjustified discrimination against children born out of wedlock"

MILLS v. HABLUETZEL, 456 U.S. 91 (1982) Equal protection for "illegitimates". "Held: The one-year period for establishing paternity denies illegitimate children in Texas the equal protection of law".

State sponsored secrecy of personal information also violates the separation of powers by allowing the executive branch of state government to suppress issues or fact which might be subject to federal court review. (i.e. cases of: unlawful adoption, kidnapping, etc.)

Does the American Family Unit have the right to assembly? How is an adoptee to exercise their right to freely assemble with their "God Given" family? Impeding such freedoms also suggests "prior restraint" (see below)

It is common in -even a secular "religion" - to hold values such as paternity and maternity and respecting relatedness. In addition, "History" and "Truth" are considered important religious values that are a core belief in every religion known to man. What could be more "sacred" to the individual than one's freedom to know family and family religious history? These rights are being violated by sealed birth records hidden to erase a person's most basic human connections? Censorship of a personal record is direct violation of these principles.

It is suggested that "privacy" is not a right. It is a state of "ownership". Personal information contained in birth records are not "privately owned by any one person"--they are "personal" to multiple individuals. It is a violation of "privacy" to allow individuals access to OTHERS "personal information" But not a violation of "privacy" to allow people access to there OWN personal information. The extreme case of granting one party the right to keep another person's personal information secret is a violation of the limited privacy interests of joint personal information. Privacy is also not granted to parents of non-adopted people. Personal information is only suppressed for the adoptees benefit to negate the stigma of " illegitimacy". That fact demonstrates the adoptee's "right" supersedes any other "interest" in privacy or suppression. The states do not show any compelling reason for selective oppression of adoptees. Closed record laws grant "special rights" to suppression interests and denies legal rights to access. No rights would be specially compromised by elimination of such policy. This is discussed in equal protection

Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving the existence of which rests upon the government

If conditioning the retention of public employment on the employee's support of the in-party is to survive constitutional challenge, it must further some vital government end by a means that is least restrictive of freedom of belief and association in achieving that end, and the benefit gained must outweigh the loss of the constitutionally protected rights. Pp.360-363.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Did you receive a "Warrant" before your Original Birth Certificate was empounded by the State Government?

Your original birth certificate is an integral tool to prove you are indeed an AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!!

Where is there "probable cause" for "seizing" birth records from the "person"? Adoptee birth records and personal information are effectively and capriciously seized. While this amendment usually pertains to land and other commonly "traded" materials it must pertain to intellectual property and papers also. Unreasonable seizure of personal information must not be tolerated.

The right to be free from seizure of one's property has been extended as the right to keep one's "privacy" as well. This law is equally applicable to being free from the absence of facts of obvious importance to the individual. Creating such a vacuum as closed records does for many people is a direct violation of the same rights, which give rise to privacy.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property , without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Personal information is not mere "fact" but joint and severally "private property" which can not be denied to an individual or selectively conferred to without imposing unequal protections. The right to" know" or "suppress" is equal with regard to personal information. Therefore, both must be respected. It is a presumption of guilt upon adoptees that they are to be barred from possessing their birth information or records of proceedings which concerned their own person. Closed records laws are a violation of fundamental aspects of life and liberty where the intent is to prevent other legal actions by the adoptee. Denying also the adoptee's due process rights to issues such as inheritance rights in many states. Liberty and "Private Property" arguments regarding "public use" are unjustified and "just compensation" hardens to forced gratitude.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Do suppressed records have to meet these tests? Or is it only a criminal's right?

Why are adoptees rights denied and then the adoptee is forced by most states to initiate a legal proceeding to regain their rights?(i.e. Petition to unseal records)

Under the Sixth Amendment, any closure of a suppression hearing over the objections of the accused must meet the following tests: the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the hearing; and it must make findings adequate to support the closure . Cf. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501. Pp. 44-47.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Wouldn't you say as an adoptee that knowing ones biological, familial, and medical histories are worth atleast $20.00?

When states like Illinois charge a mandatory Confidential Intermediary Fee of over $200.00 to consider whether to unseal portions of your records I'd sure say the value is over $20.00

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Excessive fees are extracted from adoptees even for abridged personal information by Confidential Intemidaries in many states and for the procurement of non-identifying information by agencies such as CATHOLIC CHARTIES. Search professionals (CI's) have a captive market when the searcher is not allowed to conduct their own search. This drives the demand and cost of locating ones relatives beyond that which is reasonable or tolerable. And, it is both cruel (if not unusual) to restrict a person from knowledge of their family and history.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Is there a law granting the state a power to selectively oppress innocent people due to the actions and biases of others? The right to personal records is retained by ALL people. Homosexuals have the same basic problem as adoptees. They are regulated by bias rather than cause. An example case under privacy is Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) which ruled the state can NOT regulate our basic freedoms "[UN]supported by a compelling interest."!

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The states argue that they are only balancing natural conflicts of freedoms not guaranteed in the constitution and that while "not always equitable" ( Labine v. Vincent ) we are to believe they are in the "states interests".

A parent's right to the custody of his/her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed by the 5th amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution." Metter of Gentery 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).

"The parent child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment." Bell V City of Milwaukee, 746 f2d 1205, 1242-45; US Ct Ap 7th Cir WI (1985) >

"The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See -Declaration of Independence - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution - No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws)" Kelson v Springfield, 767 F2d651;US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985)

"State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights." Gross V State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257, (1963) The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." Federal Courts (and State Courts) under Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, (l965)

On Wednesday, November 22, 2000, a family
court in Tampa, Florida, ruled that the PAS had gained enough acceptance
in the scientific community to satisfy Frye Test criteria for
admissibility.
Richard Warshak and Richard Gardner both testified at the Frye hearing,
which lasted two days.

Dr. Gardner's website
which includes approximately 100 articles on the PAS in peer-review journals and
38 courts of law that have recognized PAS -- played an important role
in the court's decision.
The citation for use in future cases:
Kilgore v. Boyd, 13th Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Fl.,Case
No, 94-7573, November 22, 2000.

This may be the first case in which a court has so ruled.
There is good reason to believe that this case will serve as a precedent.

Though the code cites pertain to
the State of Washington, other states are likely to have similar codes
and laws.

The case cites are from my files and have not been Shepardized, so
should be looked into. Nonetheless, they show it is possible to fight
and win against city hall.

RCW 4.96.010 Tortious conduct of local governmental
entities--Liability for damages.

(1) All local governmental entities, whether acting in a governmental
or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of
their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct of their past or
present officers, employees, or volunteers while performing or in good
faith purporting to perform their official duties, to the same extent
as if they were a private person or corporation. Filing a claim for
damages within the time allowed by law shall be a condition precedent
to the commencement of any action claiming damages. The laws
specifying the content for such claims shall be liberally construed so
that substantial compliance therewith will be deemed satisfactory.

(2) Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, for the
purposes of this chapter, "local governmental entity" means a county,
city, town, special district, municipal corporation, or
quasi-municipal corporation.

(3) For the purposes of this chapter, "volunteer" is defined
according to RCW 51.12.035. [1993 c 449 º 2; 1967 c 164 º 1.]

************
RCW 4.92.010 is similar to chapter 4.96 RCW, but pertains to the State,
rather than counties.

************
RCW 42.52.050 Confidential information--Improperly concealed
records.

An employer is liable for unauthorized acts if they are done in
conjunction with other acts which are within the scope of the employee's
duties, citing Smith v. Leber, 34 Wn.2d 611, 623 (1949) and Dickinson v.
Edwards, 105 Wn.2d 457 (1986).

"When is government officer or employee acting within the scope of
his office or employment for purposes of determining government
liability under 28 USC, section1356 (b), 6ALR FED 373?

The federal government, by its consent, is stripped of all immunities
with regard to negligent or wrongful acts or omissions by government
employees. Still, one cannot maintain an action for intentional torts,
strict liability, or discretionary acts by government agents.
("Discretionary" acts have been defined by the cases to mean
administrative decisions at the "planning level as opposed to those at
the "operational" level.

Case law HAS held that judges are accountable. See Com. v. Ellis, 429
Mass. 362, 371 (1999), where the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts recognized that "Article 5 . . .
provides that officers of government `are at all times
accountable to [the people]

Two cases to look at: Hafer v. Melo, 112 S.Ct. 358(1991). U.S.
Supreme Court held that state officials (including judges) can be sued
in their personal capacity. But you have to prove they violated your
rights by violating their oaths of office and "stepped down off the
bench," as some other private entity, in doing so.

Then see Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262 (6th Cir. 1984) where judges
were found liable for civil rights damages for initiating both civil and
criminal contempt proceedings against fathers in child support
proceedings which constituted non-judicial acts because, pursuant to a
contract with the county (all judges and counties have child support
enforcement contracts with state and feds) judges were responsible for
collecting overdue child support and directed hearing officers to
initiate criminal prosecutions against fathers and then later civil
contempt proceedings in which fathers who were not current in their
payments were incarcerated or made purge payments out of which judges
and hearing officers received part of their salaries (and/or
pensions--my note).

Judges collecting support to supplement their incomes and pensions, are
not acting in a judicial capacity (acting in ministerial capacity) and
have no immunity whatsoever.

FALSE ARREST: MENTAL DISTRESS: SETTLEMENT.
Jackson v. Harrah 's, U.S. District Court, D. Nev., No. R-82-98 ECR,
Oct. 26, 1984.

s1983: MALICIOUS,PROSECUTION: FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT: INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: SETTLEMENT.
Lucas v. Township of Jefferson, U.S. District Court, D.N.J., No.
82-4242, June 11, 1984.
$55,000 settlement for a man who was accused of sexual assault and
incarcerated for 28 days although the evidence brought in a conviction
only for simple asault.

s1983: MUNICIPAL LIABILITY: FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL ATTENTION TO
JAILED
DETAINEE: WRONGFUL DEATH: STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT.
Carter v. City of Flint, U.S. District Court, E.D.
Mich., No. 81-40016, Apr. 30, 1984.
Structured settlement with a present cash value of $750,000 for
wrongful death.

POLICE TORTS: ASSAULT AND BATTERY: STRIP SEARCH: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION:
VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS:
COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES: ATTORNEY FEES.

Franklin v. City of Detroit, Wayne County 36th District Court, No.
4724312, Nov. 5, 1982.

Jury award of $330,000 in compensatory and punitive damages against the
city of Detroit for police misconduct. An additional $35,175 was
awarded for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C., sec.1988.
*************

Kalomiris v Bykash, N.Y., Nassau County Supreme Court, No. 9460/76, June
7, 1984.

Bench verdict of $60,000 compensatory and $1million punitive damages
against defendant

Section 1983: MUNICIPAL LIABILITY: POLICE TORT: RAPE OF ARRESTEE AFTER
DISCHARGE FROM CUSTODY: FAILURE TO SECURE PROMPT MEDICAL ATTENTION:
COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

Robinson v. Vanguard Insurance Co., Fla., Palm Beach County 15th
Judicial Circuit Court, No. 83-384 CA (L) 01 1, Mar. 21, 1984.

Jury verdict of $75,000 compensatory and $5,000 punitive damages for a
38-year-old woman who was raped following her release from police
headquarters.

MUNICIPAL JUDGE LIABILITY: FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT: ACTION IN
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION: JUDICIAL IMMUNITY INAPPLICABLE: COMPENSATORY AND
PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

Jury verdict of $10,000 compensatory and $50,000 punitive damages
against defendant municipal court judge for wrongfully jailing plaintiff
for contempt.