Whether a judge knowingly replacing facts with false statements is a judicial act

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : This Case presents conflicts regarding what is considered as a judicial act and the availability of alternative remedies in the application of judicial immunity. The Supreme Court held that (1) judicial immunity is meant to protect only a judicial act;! an act is "judicial" if it is “a function normally performed by ajudge.”2 (2) Granting immunity to a judge’s malicious or corrupt judicial acts is possible because review of the potential damages from the judicial acts are : available on appeal.’ : Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) is the leading modern case on the application of judicial immunity. It provides a test to determine whether an act is judicial. However, the Stump test has caused confusion among lower courts because it “explains neither the precise meaning of a judicial act, nor how to apply the majority's definition to a given act.”4 Further, unlike other Supreme ‘Court cases (e.g., Bradley, Pierson, & Forrester), the majority opinion did not address the availability of alternative remedies in the application of judicial immunity. Petitioner’s Complaint against Defendant District Judge Colin S. Bruce arises out of her prior lawsuits over which he presided. In the prior lawsuits: (1) Judge Bruce fabricated false statements which his rulings were then founded on, and denied Petitioner’s motions to correct the false statements, considering them as collateral attacks on his verdict, violating FRAP 10(e); (2) he then neither included Petitioner’s motions and his orders over the ; motions [crucial documents] on the record, nor sent them to the Seventh Circuit, violating FRAP 10(a)(e) and Circuit Rule 10(b); (3) his false statements along with his violation of Federal rules precluded Petitioner’s chance to be heard on appeal because the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District judgment without considering the crucial documents as they stated, “we 1 Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 347, 348, 349, 351, 354, 357 (1872). 2 Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,362 (1978). 3 See Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 80 U. S. 354 (1872); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 226227 (1988). 4 Joseph Romagnoli, What Constitutes a Judicial Act for Purposes of Judicial Immunity?, 53 FORDHAM L. REV. 1508, 1507 (1985). . Il . cannot admit on appeal documents that were not made a part of the record in the district court.” (Seventh Circuit Order p.9, ECF No. 74, Case No. 18-3017). In other words, Judge Bruce’s rulings based on his fabricated statements were not open to correction on appeal because he violated Federal rules. Given the situation, the questions presented are: (1) Whether a judge knowingly replacing facts with false statements is a judicial act, which is a function normally performed by a judge. (2) Whether judicial immunity is available when a judge’s acts led to a judicial result that precludes all resort to judicial remedies to a litigant. This Case provides an excellent opportunity to review the problems inherent in the application of judicial immunity and their effect on the integrity of the judicial process.