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 2015 - here goes the "fourth power", independence of the grand juries


Jonathan Lippman appears to be really upset with existence of a power in the State of New York which is not under control of the judiciary.

 That is the grand juries.

 In fact, a criminal offense in the State of New York "superior" court may not be prosecuted other than "through the agency" of the grand jury.

 In other words, a court higher than a village justice court will not receive jurisdiction over criminal proceedings other than through the indictment of the grand jury, which is a fairly independent body, not answering to the court.

 In fact, I would add to the powers of the grand jury to commence their own investigations without presentment by local district attorneys.

 Judge Lippman, of course, paid the lip service that the grand jury is a good thing and that it would not be proper for him to criticize their decisions:


 Then Lippman starts to claim that the grand jury, an body independent from the court and giving (or not giving) the power to the court in felony cases, is actually, in Lippman's view, "a part of the court", and "an institution for which the Judiciary is ultimately responsible".

Grand jury is not "part of the court", it is a fairly independent body, but it is clear that Lippman is suffering from control pains since he considers himself "ultimately responsible" for the institution that he (and his courts) cannot control, but instead the grand jury controls the courts by giving or withholding from the court jurisdiction over felony proceedings.

 And, even though Lippman recognizes that "it is not his role to defend or decry a particular grand jury decision", he pretty much does that:


Now not only 23 men and women of the grand juries cannot be right in indicting - or not indicting - a particular individual.

 Now prosecutors cannot be left to themselves to present a case to the grand jury.

 If Lippman thinks that prosecutors may be just a little bit too partial to police if, say, a case is presented to the grand jury against a police officer, what would be the logical solution?

 I thought it would be a no brainer, especially for such a man of brilliance as Jonathan Lippman, the Chief Judge of the State of New York, the man commanding all this "spectacular" and brilliant judiciary, the "absolute best" in the country, according to his statement in the same address.

 It would be to EXPAND the grand jury's independent powers, to allow the grand juries to conduct independent investigations on complaints of citizens, and to eliminate prosecutors from their official position as, both the person interested in the indictment, and the "legal advisor of the grand jury".

 But that would mean - the horror! - more independence from the judiciary, too!

 And less possibility of getting indictments against people "not liked" by the government.

 So,  Lippman had a diametrically opposite plan - to put the grand juries under the control of the courts.

 Presumably, a judge, in his or her infinite wisdom, will direct the unreasonable 23 men and women toward the light of what needs to be done and whether to return or not to return an indictment.



And the judge will steer the grand juries from "sensitive" indictments against corrupt public officials to the "correct" indictments against "incorrect" people who government dislikes - right, Judge Lippman?  Isn't it the purpose of putting the grand juries under control of the courts?

 And, of course, this power-grab is meant to be for "the public good".

 There is a saying: "when it isn't broken, don't fix it".

 Whenever a public official tells you he/she is trying to do something new and cancel something old and working well "for the public good"...

 Should we push for grand jury reform?  Definitely.

 To make it MORE independent from courts.

 For the Grand Juries to have their own independent investigative powers.

 For the Grand Juries to be able to hire their own legal advisers and experts, not to be led by the nose by the prosecutors - or by judges - as unreasonable children.

 We need independent grand juries to clean up the corrupt mess that this state has become, including its "absolutely best" "spectacular" and spectacularly corrupt judiciary.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)