Minor L. McNeil, et ux. v. Gary Arnold, Judge, Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas, et al.

This case presents the court an opportunity to clarify the intention of Congress in enacting Title 42 Section 1983, which passed over Presidential veto, and the doctrine ofjudicial immunity created by the courts. Guidance is requested to distinguish between judicial conduct, for which State jurists can expect never to face a financial liability, and those ultra vires acts done under color ofState law by which judicial immunity is lost, and which subjects the judicial officer in his person to financial liability in consequence of his own conduct. The Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, and decisions taken by this court, are both sought to be applied to the named debt collectors who falsely represented the nature of an alleged debt. The Supreme Court of Arkansas refused, without comment to consider those issues fairly presented to it. This court is asked to remand the issues to the Supreme Court of Arkansas with instruction. Whether a State judicial officer acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction when issuing a judgment in rem, as used in the courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Whether the Supreme Court of Arkansas erred by refusing to apply the terms of the federal FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA), to a Law Firm and its Attorneys who omitted the language required by the Statute from its products used in litigating a foreclosure action.