Whether a judge can be liable for acts outside the scope of Barron judicial immunity, including theft of a non-party's personal property without due process and financial accountability

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court presses judicial equality}, yet Judges under the two-part Barron Test? can cause . intentional unconstitutional harm to a Party and still have judicial immunity. The Defendant (Judge) deliberately deprived the non-Party Petitioner of [her] personal property forever, based on pre-bias and retaliation? i.e., Judicial ‘theft via the guilt by association fallacy intentionally harms the non-Party “““rz -: Petitioner and is not a covered immunity under the Barron Test. Why? Because the Defendant Judge 7 allowed a Party to sell the non-Party’ personal -. . 7. property: for profit without a financial accounting requirement? thus is outside [his] judicial purview. : Se Under the Barron Test a judges’ harm to litigants are vast and immunity is just as broad. In i . this Courts’ courtroom there is no room for a Barron cm, Judge® but only a Judge who ensures due process of _ law from the very beginning and sees it through®. Is ¢ tiavie tox -it possible for a judge to be liable for acts outside the . + asus 7+ scope of. Barron judicial immunity? If so, is theft _+ ++. =. . described herein to a non-Party covered under Barron judicialimmunity? . -1 The Defendant demonstrates a known pattern of misconduct. . 2 John v. Barron, 897, F.2d 1387 (1990) at 1391. 3 And continues to retaliate, In re the Marriage of Amy L. Fuss . v. Jay L. Fuss, 2010-FA-185 4 A financial adjustment for neither party was made, resulting in intentional theft by the Defendant Judge. 5 A Barron Judge wears a cloak of judicial immunity to defend ; their premeditated unethical conduct resulting in one Party being maliciously favored. 8 Marchant v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 153 U.S. 380 (1894). F