Constitutional Wrecking Ball: Obliterating Governmental Immunity

Guest

It's not just any police report. CSPD Incident Report 2026-09003584 details a $500,000 identity theft loss, with the critical timeline: Edward Young submitted a packet of his most sensitive identifiers — Social Security card, passport, military ID — to the court on April 12, 2026. Days later, law enforcement contacted him about fraud using that very data. The report itself is approved and documented. Now, from a constitutional standpoint, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects a person's property interest in their identity and financial integrity. When a state entity — here, the court — becomes the conduit for a breach, and then a police report memorializes that the source of the compromise was likely the court's possession of the documents, you have a prima facie due process violation. The Constitution doesn't just protect against intentional deprivation; it also covers situations where the state creates a danger or fails to secure entrusted information. That report, coupled with the timeline, is evidence that the court's actions — or inaction — violated his right to due process.

Guest

Because the Supreme Court has long held that sovereign immunity does not extend to violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment might bar some suits against states, but Congress, when it enforces the Fourteenth Amendment, can abrogate that immunity. And even without a specific statute, the Ex parte Young doctrine allows a plaintiff to seek prospective relief against state officials — like a court clerk or a judge — for ongoing constitutional violations. Here, the court's refusal to remedy the breach, or even acknowledge the evidence, is an ongoing violation. The police report itself becomes the factual basis for a constitutional tort that pierces the immunity shield. No state statute can cloak a constitutional breach.

Guest

Fraud on the court is a direct assault on the due process guarantee of a fair tribunal. The Supreme Court has recognized that the Due Process Clause requires an impartial decisionmaker. When a judge issues two irreconcilable orders, one acknowledging the defendant's fraud and then another that effectively rewards that same fraud, it creates a compelling inference of bias or arbitrary action. The August 31 order was based on a misapplication of C.R.C.P. 3(a) — the complaint was filed before service, so the 14-day rule didn't apply. The judge ignored the record. That's not just legal error; it's a deprivation of procedural due process and, arguably, a violation of the right to petition the courts for redress. The Constitution guarantees meaningful access to the courts, and fraudulent manipulation of the docket is a denial of that access.

Guest

Immunity cannot shield unconstitutional acts performed under color of law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that state officials who violate the Constitution are not immune from suit for injunctive relief or even damages under certain circumstances. For instance, in Pulliam v. Allen, the Court held that judicial immunity does not bar prospective injunctive relief against a judge. More fundamentally, the 14th Amendment was designed to override state sovereignty. If a state court judge commits a constitutional violation, the state cannot hide behind its own immunity doctrine. The fraud on the court here is not just a procedural slip; it's a deliberate or reckless disregard of the record, which is a classic due process violation. That takes it outside the protective umbrella of qualified immunity or sovereign immunity.

Guest

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the key. It prohibits the state from denying any person equal protection of the laws. When the court system repeatedly ignores lawsuits from a person who is elderly, disabled, and a member of a minority group, while presumably processing others' cases, it raises a strong inference of discrimination. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act is a state statute, but the constitutional violation is independent. The Supreme Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the judicial process. A systemic denial of access to the courts based on a protected characteristic is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment. Moreover, the First Amendment's right to petition the government for redress of grievances is implicated. The court's inaction is a de facto denial of that right.

Guest

Precisely. The state cannot claim immunity for enforcing a policy or practice that discriminates against a protected class. The Supreme Court in cases like Tennessee v. Lane held that Title II of the ADA validly abrogated state sovereign immunity because it enforced the 14th Amendment. Here, the denial of court access to a disabled person is a direct constitutional violation. The police report, the fraud on the court, and the protected class denial — all three intertwine to create a clear constitutional injury. Governmental immunity crumbles when the state itself is the violator.

Guest

Absolutely. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution makes federal law — including the Constitution — the supreme law of the land. Any state law that conflicts with the Constitution is void. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state sovereign immunity cannot shield constitutional violations. In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, the Court ruled that the Eleventh Amendment is limited by the 14th Amendment, and Congress can override state immunity when enforcing the 14th Amendment. Even without a congressional statute, a plaintiff can bring a claim directly under the Constitution — often called a Bivens claim or a Section 1983 claim — against state officials acting under color of law. The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act cannot immunize unconstitutional conduct because the Constitution is the higher authority.

Guest

Exactly. And the police report is the factual foundation that triggers the due process analysis. The fraudulent orders are the evidence of a biased tribunal that denies due process. The pattern of ignoring a disabled, minority, elderly litigant is the equal protection violation. Together, they form a constitutional trifecta that no immunity doctrine can withstand. The state's assertion of immunity is not just legally flawed; it's constitutionally offensive.

Guest

The Supreme Court has recognized a species of due process liability known as the 'state-created danger' doctrine. While its contours are narrow, the essence is that when the state affirmatively acts to create or increase a danger to an individual, it owes a duty to protect. Here, the court required the submission of sensitive documents for a legal proceeding. Once those documents were in the court's custody, the state had an obligation to secure them. The police report's timeline strongly suggests that the breach originated from the court's possession. That is a state-created danger. Additionally, the deprivation of property — the $500,000 loss — without adequate post-deprivation process is a classic procedural due process violation. The court's refusal to even acknowledge the breach or provide a remedy compounds the denial of due process.

Guest

A mere mistake might not be enough. But here, the contradiction is so stark and the factual basis for the later order is so clearly false that it suggests either intentional manipulation or a reckless disregard for the truth. The Due Process Clause is violated when a judge's decision is infected by bias or lacks a rational basis. The Supreme Court has said that a judge must recuse himself when he has a personal bias or prejudice. The August 31 order, which ignored the docket and the earlier order, can be seen as evidence of such bias. Furthermore, the plaintiff had a protected property interest in his default judgment. Depriving him of that without a fair hearing is a violation of procedural due process. The fraudulent nature of the dismissal — the defendant's attempt to slip a fake dismissal into the record, which the judge later validated — is a classic fraud on the court. That fraud, when ratified by the court, becomes a constitutional violation because it deprives the litigant of a fair tribunal.

Guest

You don't need direct evidence of a smoking gun. Discriminatory intent can be inferred from a pattern of disparate treatment combined with other evidence. Here, eight separate lawsuits, all properly filed and served, all uncontested, and not a single ruling on the evidence. That's not mere inefficiency; it's a categorical refusal to engage. The plaintiff is a 71-year-old, totally disabled, minority individual. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the state from treating a person differently because of their membership in a protected class. While the Colorado statute is the state's own anti-discrimination law, the constitutional claim is independent. The court's refusal to provide any substantive response to his cases, while presumably processing others, is a hallmark of discriminatory denial of access. The Supreme Court has recognized the right of access to the courts as a fundamental right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Denying that access to a protected class is a constitutional violation.

Guest

That's a perfect analogy. The Constitution is the supreme law, and when it speaks, state immunity laws are silent. The Attorney General's motion to dismiss based on governmental immunity is essentially a declaration that the state can violate the Constitution with impunity. But the Supreme Court has never sanctioned that. The three charges here are not just clever legal arguments; they are the direct application of constitutional principles that have been settled for decades.

Guest

The key is to frame every injury as a constitutional violation. Don't just say 'the court was unfair.' Say 'the court denied me due process of law.' Don't just say 'they ignored my case.' Say 'they violated my equal protection rights and my right to petition the government.' The Constitution is not a passive document; it's a sword. When you can show that a state actor has violated a specific constitutional right, the immunity doctrines that protect routine state functions don't apply. Build your case around the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment, and the Supremacy Clause. That's what Edward Young's strategy does, and it's the reason why the AG's immunity argument is doomed.