Burdick Complaint Against SCOTUS Justices

7/24/2019 Burdick Complaint Against SCOTUS Justices

1/17

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

____________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Austin Burdick (Plaintiffor Burdick), and hereby

files this Complaint suing the above-named defendants (Defendants) for breach of

contract, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory relief, compensatory damages, punitive

damages, mental anguish damages, violations of the Fifth Amendment, attorneys fees

and costs pursuant to applicable Federal and State statutes and the common law.

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND PARTIES

1.

Plaintiff alleges violations of the Defendants oaths of office, the 14th

AUSTIN BURDICK,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUSTICE ANTHONY M.

KENNEDY, an individual, JUSTICE

STEPHEN G. BREYER, an

individual, JUSTICE RUTH BADER

GINSBURG, an individual,

JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, an

individual, JUSTICE ELENAKAGAN, an individual,

Defendants.

Civil Action File No.____________________

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

FI2016 Feb-24 A

U.S. DISTRICT

N.D. OF AL

Case 2:16-cv-00313-TMP Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 17


2/17

2

Amendment, 5th

Amendment; and the common law and seeks declaratory relief,

compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees and costs pursuant

thereto.

2. This Court is vested with original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C 1331

and 1343.

3. There is also complete diversity of the parties as shown below in that

Plaintiff is a domiciled resident of the State of Alabama and all Defendants are

domiciled residents of Washington, D.C., Virginia or Maryland. Plaintiff is a

domiciled resident within the bounds of the Northern District of Alabama.

4. The damages and harm suffered by Plaintiff are suffered in the Northern

District of Alabama.

5. Plaintiff seeks recovery of damages exceeding $6,000,000.00.

6. This Court has original diversity jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1332.

7. Venue is proper in this Court, the Southern Division of the Northern

District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) and Local Rules of the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

8. Plaintiff, Austin Burdick, is a resident of the State of Alabama.

9.

Defendant Anthony M. Kennedy (Kennedy) is an individual and U.S.

Supreme Court Justice who regularly conducts business intended to affect, and in fact

affecting, residents within the state of Alabama. Kennedys principal place of



3/17

3

business is Washington, D.C. Upon information and belief Kennedy resides in

Washington D.C., Virginia or Maryland.

10. Defendant Stephen G. Breyer (Breyer) is an individual and U.S.


affecting, residents within the state of Alabama. Breyers principal place of business

is Washington, D.C. Upon information and belief Breyer resides in Washington D.C.,

Virginia or Maryland.

11. Defendant Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Ginsburg) is an individual and U.S.


affecting, residents within the state of Alabama. Ginsburgs principal place of

business is Washington, D.C. Upon information and belief Ginsburg resides in


12. Defendant Sonia Sotomayor (Sotomayor) is an individual and U.S.


affecting, residents within the state of Alabama. Sotomayors principal place of

business is Washington, D.C. Upon information and belief Sotomayor resides in


13. Defendant Elana Kagan (Kagan) is an individual and U.S. Supreme

Court Justice who regularly conducts business intended to affect, and in fact affecting,

residents within the state of Alabama. Kagans principal place of business is



4/17

4

Washington, D.C. Upon information and belief Kagan resides in Washington D.C.,

Virginia or Maryland.

14. Most of the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred to effect the

Plaintiff in the Southern Division of the Northern District of Alabama. The Northern

District of Alabama is the appropriate venue for this matter.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

15.

Plaintiff is an attorney practicing law primarily in the Northern District

of Alabama. Defendants are United States Supreme Court Justices who have issued

opinions in violation of their oath of office and to the detriment of Plaintiff.

16. Plaintiffs practice of law is primarily focused on the protection of basic

constitutional rights of United States citizens. Plaintiff, on behalf of his clients argues

that the people of the United States are a free people and that the Constitution

functions to protect them from government interference in those rights.

17. On or about June 26, 2015, the Defendants issued an opinion that

renders the Constitution a nullity. For centuries the Constitution has been the

instrument of protection for the rights of citizens against government intrusion. And

specifically, since the ratification of the 14th

Amendment in 1868, interpreted the plain

language of the Constitution and that amendment to be a guarantee of freedom from

government interference in individual liberty.

18. The opinion rendered June 26, 2015, styled Obergefell v. Hodges,

abandoned the long standing tradition of interpreting the 14thAmendment in a manner



5/17

5

which gave words their plain meaning. The phrase: No state shall make or enforce

any law which shall abridge the privileges and 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 has been rewritten by the Defendants. The opinion now reads the 14th

Amendment as an expansion of government authority not a guarantee of liberty. This

interpretationis no interpretation at all. It is a tyrannical usurpation of authority to

rewrite the Constitution.

19. There is great room for interpretation in the face of ambiguity, but to

interpret yesto mean noor upto mean downis neither clever nor ingenious,

but rather simply dishonest.

20. The opinion in fact rewrites the 14thAmendment to read: Everystate

must make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of

citizens of the United States; fur ther, each state shal l deprive any person of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law under the guise of extending tax

benefits or some other license; and any person within its jurisdiction may be

deprived of the equal protection of the laws when it is fashionable to do so.

21. This is not a simple matter of a difference of opinion or perspective. The

disagreement is not over what the Constitution means; the disagreement is over

whether the Constitution should have any meaning at all. The recent decision of the



6/17

6

Defendants goes beyond a manipulation, twist, strain, or unique perspective on the

text and crosses over in to an abandonment of the Constitution.

22. The actions of Defendants not only exceed the authority of their office,

but conflict with their oath of office; a sacred promise that they voluntarily entered

into. Defendants promised:

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against allenemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance tothe same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservationor purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge theduties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

5 U. S. C. 3331.

23. Interpreting no to mean yes, or restraints on the power of the

government to be a grant of power to the government does not bear true faith and

allegianceto the Constitution.

24. Defendants were not satisfied with merely trampling the Constitution.

They casually redefined marriage to satisfy a perceived growing popularity. The

redefinition of marriage was a mere trifle in comparison to the Defendantsbrazen

attack on the very principles of freedom and liberty. They have assumed to

themselves the authority to redefine freedom and liberty as government issued

benefits or licenses. However, freedom never was, nor ever can be, something that

you stand in line to receive from a government office.

25. Because the Defendants actions have rendered the Constitution a nullity,

plaintiff has been deprived of a property right interest in his law license. Plaintiff



7/17

7

cannot fulfill his obligation and oath to defend the Constitution if the Constitution is

discarded. Plaintiffs livelihood is dependent on his ability to protect his clients

constitutional rights. If the Constitution is no longer a charter of liberty that

guarantees the rights of U.S. citizens then Plaintiff has lost all income that he would

have received had the Constitution not been destroyed. Without the Constitution

Plaintiffs law license is greatly diminished in value if not ruined entirely.

26.

This nation is a nation of laws and not of men. No one is above the law.

The only authority that the Defendants enjoy is that which has been granted them by

the Constitution. Their authority is inferior to that of the Constitution. They have no

authority to alter the Constitution. The power to alter the Constitution is restricted to

the amendment process set forth therein.

27. Defendants cannot shield themselves from liability by claiming

immunity. Absolute judicial immunity is unconstitutional. Because no one is above

the law Defendants must be accountable for their own actions.

28. The doctrine of absolute judicial immunity is directly in conflict with

the Constitutions plain language. The doctrine of judicial immunity is not a creature

of statute or the Constitution. The Constitution speaks to immunity for the legislature

but not for judges or justices. U.S. Const. art. I 6. As the concept of immunity was

clearly understood by the drafters of the Constitution it must be assumed that the

failure to include judicial immunity within the text was no oversight. Further, the

doctrine of absolute immunity for judges is in conflict with language which was



8/17

8

included in the Constitution. Absolute judicial immunity has become so broad that a

noble class of judges has been created. Absolute judicial immunity is so broad that

judges are thereby immune from knowingly violating the Constitution as well as

malicious acts. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 566-357 (1978)(This immunity

applies even when a judges acts are in error, malicious, or were in excess of his or

her jurisdiction). This creation of a class of persons above the law is contrary to U.S.

Const. art. I 9 cl. 8 which states No title of nobility shall be granted by the United

States. This clause clearly precludes the creation of a class of persons that are above

the law.1

29. The founders of the nation thought it sufficiently important to the

preservation of our republic to include this clause. America was founded on the

principles of an equal and just society. Thomas Paine decried titles of nobility as they

had the effect of forbidding inquiry into the character of the possessor, much as

absolute judicial immunity would preclude inquiry into acts of malice and

1 It cannot be argued that absolute judicial immunity does not create a class whichholds itself superior to all others. As noted in the dissent in Stump,judicial immunitysprings from "an aura of deism which surrounds the bench . . . essential to themaintenance of respect for the judicial institution." Though th[is] rhetoric may beoverblown, even the dissent does not quarrel with it. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 US

349, 369 (1978). However, any aura of deism that once accompanied the bench hasnow been dispelled as evidenced by the increasing number of citizens who appear forjury duty wearing sweatpants and flip flops. If the dignity of the court is crucial to theoperation of the court, then the Court must claim dignity by conduct which is abovereproach not by concealing and protecting bad behavior. Judicial immunity in theabsolute to the citizen appears not as a robe of honor but as a cloak for hypocrisy.



9/17

9

corruption.2 The Court on which the Defendants sit has clearly stated that no one

ought to be above the law:

No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of

the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All officers of thegovernment, from the highest to the least, are creatures of the law, andare bound to obey it.

Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 506 (1978); citing United States v. Lee, 106 U.S.196 (1882).

30.

Whether you call it nobility, royal sovereignty, or judicial immunity, it

is all the same. They all stand for one and the same principle: a nation ruled by men

and not laws. The patriots threw tea into Boston Harbor as a token of their rejection of

royal sovereignty. Thomas Jefferson penned and others signed the Declaration of

Independence pledging their lives and sacred honor against the tyranny of a

government of men. And later the Constitution was drafted to perfect our union and,

of primary importance, establish justice under law and not men. U.S. Const.

Preamble. The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of the dangers of royal

sovereignty and a privileged class that operated above the law; they faced it, fought it,

and rejected it. Had they embraced the common law doctrine of royal sovereignty and

its appendage, judicial immunity, they surely would have included it in the

Constitution.

31.

The doctrine of absolute judicial immunity is far too broad. The

2 The Life and Works of Thomas Paine. Edited by William M. Van der Weyde.Patriots' Edition. 10 vols. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Thomas Paine National HistoricalAssociation, 1925.



10/17

10

executive and legislative branches of government have a measure of immunity, but

their immunity is humble in comparison to judicial immunity. Neither the executive

nor the legislative is immune for acts of corruption and malice.3 The justification for

the breadth of judicial immunity previously offered by its proponents is not

adequate.4

32. The Court has stated that the justification for absolute judicial immunity

lies in the need for a judge to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of

personal consequences. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 363-364 (1978).

However, the personal convictions of the Defendants are directly at odds with the

Constitution. Defendants must not be allowed to act on personal convictions that

place the Constitution in jeopardy. The oath of office entered into by Defendants acts

as a limit on personal convictions. Defendants are not permitted to rule on the basis of

3 E.g. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976);OConnor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S.

563 (1975);Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.349 (1974);Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 506 (1978). No court has ever explainedwhy judicial immunity must be absolute while executive and legislative immunityremain qualified and tempered. The courts have easily grasped their role in limitingexecutive and legislative authority but have yet to contemplate the need for restrainedjudicial authority.4 Absolute judicial immunity was more tolerable when other means of relief existedin law.Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (1872). However, Plaintiff has no other meansof remedy, therefore judicial immunity cannot be justified. Additionally, Bradleyreasoned that the court needs a vigorous and independent mind thus immunity is

necessary. However, absolute immunity serves to protect the judiciary even in thosecases when the mind is neither vigorous nor independent. Holding judges accountablefor knowingly depriving citizens of their constitutional rights does not underminejudicial impartiality. Holding judges accountable for unreasonable or knowinglyunconstitutional acts would only serve to encourage judges to pay careful attention tothe merits of a dispute. This would improve not hinder judicial function.



11/17

11

personal convictions that are contrary to the plain language of the Constitution.

COUNT I - VIOLATIONS OF 5th

AMENDMENT

33. The previous paragraphs are adopted by reference as though restated

within this cause of action.

34. The 5thAmendment states in pertinent part:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without dueprocess of law

35. Defendants actions have deprived Plaintiff of his liberty and property

interest (law license to protect constitutional rights of clients) as set forth above in

violation of the 5th

Amendment.

36. Defendants acted under color of law as federal officials as set forth

above.

37. Plaintiff has a cause of action and right to seek relief in this matter for

violations of constitutionally protected rights pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Federal bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); Davis v.

Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979); and other applicable case law.

38. There are no special factors that suggest that the Court should decline to

hear this matter and award an appropriate remedy.

39. As set forth above, no theory of immunity may appropriately be applied

in this case.

40. The actions of Defendants, having rendered the Constitution a nullity,



12/17

12

have deprived Plaintiff of income that he would have received had he been allowed to

practice law under the Constitution.

41. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the actions of Defendants.

WHEREFORE, PREMESIS CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays this Honorable

Court will (1) enter judgment for Plaintiff, (2) award Plaintiff damages in an amount

of at least $6,000.000.00 or some other amount sufficiently large to fully compensate

him for all the harm occasioned by Defendants conduct, (3) award attorney fees to

Plaintiff, (4) award punitive damages in a sum large enough to punish Defendants for

their conduct and to deter Defendants and others similarly situated from repeating this

conduct, (5) award mental anguish damages, and (6) award any other and further

relief deemed just and proper.

COUNT IIBREACH OF CONTRACT OR OATH

42. The previous paragraphs are adopted by reference as though restated


43.

As set forth above, Defendants entered into an oath or contract to

support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign

and domesticand to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

44.

They have failed (breached) in that duty, oath and contractual

obligation.

45. Plaintiff is among the intended beneficiaries of said oath or contract.



13/17

13

46. Plaintiff has been harmed by, and suffered damages as a result of

Defendantsbreach of duty.

47. Plaintiff has suffered actual and consequential damages as a result of the

aforementioned breach. He has been deprived of the ability to advocate for

constitutionally protected rights by Defendants. Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive

damages as a result of his suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, WHEREFORE, PREMESIS CONSIDERED, Plaintiff

prays this Honorable Court will (1) enter judgment for Plaintiff, (2) award Plaintiff

damages in an amount of at least $6,000.000.00 or some other amount sufficiently

large to fully compensate him for all the harm occasioned by Defendants conduct, (3)

award attorney fees to Plaintiff, (4) award punitive damages in a sum large enough to

punish Defendants for their conduct and to deter Defendants and others similarly

situated from repeating this conduct, (5) award mental anguish damages, and (6)

award any other and further relief deemed just and proper.

COUNT IIIBREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

48.

The previous paragraphs are adopted by reference as though restated


49. As justices on the Supreme Court, Defendants occupy a position of trust

owing a duty as set forth in the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the

United States against all enemies, foreign and domesticand to bear true faith and

allegiance to the same.



14/17

14

50. Defendants are made aware of their fiduciary duty be the plain language

of the Constitution which demands good behaviour. U.S. Const. Art. 3 1.

51. They have failed (breached) in that duty, oath and fiduciary obligation.

52. Plaintiff is among the intended beneficiaries of said oath or fiduciary

relationship.

53. Plaintiff has been harmed by, and suffered damages as a result of

Defendantsbreach of duty.

54. Plaintiff has suffered actual and consequential damages as a result of the

aforementioned breach. He has been deprived of the ability to advocate for

constitutionally protected rights by Defendants. Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive

damages as a result of his suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, WHEREFORE, PREMESIS CONSIDERED, Plaintiff

prays this Honorable court will (1) enter judgment for Plaintiff, (2) award Plaintiff

damages in an amount of at least $6,000.000.00 or some other amount sufficiently

large to fully compensate him for all the harm occasioned by Defendants conduct, (3)

award attorney fees to Plaintiff, (4) award punitive damages in a sum large enough to

punish Defendants for their conduct and to deter Defendants and others similarly

situated from repeating this conduct, (5) award mental anguish damages, and (6)

award any other and further relief deemed just and proper.



15/17

15

COUNT IVDECLARATORY RELIEF

CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER SO AS TO

MAKE IT A NULLITY

55.

The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are deemed to be repeated

and incorporated by reference in this Count.

56. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201(a) Plaintiff seeks a declaration of rights

and responsibilities of the parties, to wit:

a. The Constitution cannot be altered or ignored by Defendants in any of

its rulings;

b. The Constitutions 14th Amendment is a guarantee of protection of

rights of U.S. citizens not an expansion of government authority;

c. Defendantsactions interpretingthe Constitution in such a manner as

to render it a nullity violates both the oath of office for Supreme Court

Justices and violates the duty of good behaviour set out in the

Constitution;

d. The Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land and no

interpretationof the same may render the same to be of no force or

effect;

e. Absolute judicial immunity is contrary to the plain language of the

constitution;

57. Declaration of the aforementioned will clarify the relationship of the



16/17

16

parties and serve to resolve the controversy between the parties.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Declaration of the

aforementioned is necessary to a resolution of the controversy between the parties and

the preservation of the republic.

***PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY***

Dated this the 23rd

day of February 2016.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Austin Burdick

Austin BurdickAttorney for PlaintiffBurdick Law Firm1020 Ninth Ave. SWBessemer, Alabama 35022205.565.8909(f) [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


17/17

17

CLERK OF COURT PLEASE SERVE THE DEFENDANTS AT THE

FOLLOWING ADDRESSES BY CERTIFIED MAIL:

Anthony M. Kennedy1 First Street NE

Washington, D.C. 20543

Stephen G. Breyer1 First Street NEWashington, D.C. 20543

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Sonia Sotomayor1 First Street NE

Washington, D.C. 20543

Elana Kagan1 First Street NEWashington, D.C. 20543

1 First Street NEWashington, D.C. 20543


Documents

Burdick Complaint Against SCOTUS Justices