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.

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Prattsville justice court and its luck with judges. Judge Rikard, would you, please, pee in a cup before each court session?


In August of 2014, the "father-and-daughter" court team in Prattsville, NY, (the father as a judge, the daughter as a court clerk) "resigned amid investigation" into the alleged "financial irregularities".

 Now who was the replacement judge? 

David Rikard!  The attorney who lost custody of his child in the past because he used cocaine and was never disciplined as an attorney (see my blog here)!  Rikard's defense in the custody proceeding was that he did not use cocaine in the presence of the child.  My question is - does he use cocaine now and does he use it before coming to the bench?  My experience (as an attorney) with people who use cocaine is - once they get on it, they never get off it.

 Moreover, according to the information I have, David Rikard requested the Town of Prattsville not to create a second judgeship because he allegedly "could handle it all" as a Town Justice on his own.

 So, people of the Town of Prattsville were supposed to use just David Rikard as a judge - who obviously does not like competition.

 I wonder whether voters of the Town of Prattsville knew of the decision by the Appellate Division Third Department in 2011 when David Rikard ran for judge in 2013.

 When Judge Rikard tried to prevent an second judgeship from being created though, the Town of Prattsville voters, thankfully, voted against such a proposition at a referendum.

 The second judgeship was created, and the local businessman Robert Compton who was voted in as the second judge, pledged to serve for free and return his salary to the town, and to attend the judiciary school at his own expense.

I wonder how cases are assigned between judges Rikard and Compton in the Prattsville Town Court, but if your case is assigned in front of Judge Rikard, you should be "very afraid".

And, since the possible use of drugs by a judge is a matter of public concern, do we need to make sure that Judge Rikard did not use illegal drugs before he gets on the bench by asking him to pee in a cup before every court session?


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)