At common-law extortion under the color (third-party benefit) of official right (with official acts) was a public official anti-corruption crime. There was no requirement to show any kind of threat or inducement. Rather, the U.S. Supreme Court said an accuser need only show a public official obtained property with official acts for third-party benefit.
Were Judicial Officers Immune from an Extortion Charge?
The Judiciary was 100% not immune to an extortion charge. Would a judge been immune to a bribery charge? This is why we had courts of law and courts of equity. In a court of equity a public official or chancery would take or withhold official acts to enforce property rights. In a court of a law a jury would make a determination of fact and obtain property rights for third-party benefit.
What is the Supreme Court of the United States opinion?
Whaley was about a charge of extortion against a justice of the peace who wrongfully ordered a litigant to pay compensation to the other party as well as a small administrative fee to the court. Because the case involved illegally obtaining property for the benefit of a private third party, it does not stand for the proposition that an act for the benefit of the Government alone can be extortion.
Judge, Jury, and Executioner!
Judge, jury, and executioner is just a saying right? No! If you are any of those two positions then your punishment is not just, but rather mafia style. That is precisely the difference between vengence and justice.
Where does the word "Justice" come from?
Just means right. A right to exclude others is property. A just system is about right and wrong. Owners vs. trespassers. You cannot vote away someone else's property rights. That is the definition of mob rule. Our system is just a system of corruption and power. There is NO JUSTICE in a system with immunized extortionists. Tyrants!