THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.


Tuesday, February 17, 2015

New York State of the Judiciary Address of 2015 - "bail reform"?


9 BILLION dollars, ladies and gentlemen, homeowners in the State of New York.

That's the annual cost of pretrial detention in New York.

61%

That's the share of people held in New York jails who are put in jail before trial without bail or with a bail that they cannot pay, the number quoted in the yesterday's "State of the Judiciary 2015" address by Judge Jonathan Lippman, page 16.



Let's count.

That's $5,490,000.00 - 5 BILLION 490 MILLION dollars YOU pay PER YEAR to detain people who are presumed innocent, before trial.

No wonder we have a budgetary crisis in this country.

No wonder people cannot pay their mortgages because of high property taxes.

No wonder people are fleeing the state of New York to go to states with lower property taxes.

That's the money.

Now as to how bail issues are decided.

Here is a report by the New York State County Lawyers' Association which describes problems with the push for the so-called "bail reform" quite well:

(1) that it is inappropriate to set bail on people in such a way that people cannot afford it;
(2) that it is inappropriate to consider, for the so called "public safety" considerations, the same factors as when the judge decides whether the defendant will or will not return to court for appearances;
(3) that what constitutes "public safety" consideration for bail decisions/bail denials is vague and prone to arbitrary enforcement;
(4) that the reasoning for such "public safety" determinations are going to be obscured from public review;
(5) that it is simply wrong to presume that the person who can (or his family or friends can) pay a high bail is automatically safer to the community than the defendant who cannot pay bail.

Etc. etc. etc.

That report was issued a year and a month ago, on January 15, 2014.

It all fell on the deaf ears of the New York State Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals Jonathan Lippman.

In his State of the Judiciary Address he pushes for bail-for-public-safety as the paramount issue, while ignoring all concerns raised by practitioners (and judges, by the way) in the NYCLA report of January 15, 2014.

It is understandable that, with the possibility of Lippman's 70-year-old childhood friend Sheldon Silver starting to crack up and cough up to the prosecutors information about his still high-standing friends to avoid dying in prison, Lippman's goal at this time may be to present as many populist ideas to the public as it is humanly possible.

But, as the NYCLA report said, presuming that those who can pay bail are safer to society than those who cannot pay that bail is not a reasonable consideration.  It is quite a stunningly un-democratic consideration actually for Lippman who is knocking himself out at every turn with his claims as a champion of "access to justice".

Once again, nothing not to be expected from this judge who has no litigation experience before he was propelled to the Supreme Court bench and then propelled higher and higher, until he hit the ceiling (in the State of New York) by his - now disgraced - friend Sheldon Silver.

But thank you for the numbers, Judge Lippman.

They are, once again, staggering, for a human being, an attorney, a New York homeowner and a taxpayer.

And, yay, let's decide whether a person is or is not safe to the community by his own and his family's ability to pay his/her bail.

After all, money, status and power is all what justice system - and the judiciary - is concerned about.  Isn't it?

No comments:

Post a Comment