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, March 17, 2015

On job security of judges...


Attorney to judge:   Judge, but you testified on behalf of my client's opponents and became a witness in this proceeding.  Here is proof - transcript of the hearing in question.  You are a witness now, you cannot continue to preside, it is a due process violation, please step down.  Since you have previously imposed an anti-filing injunction upon my client (for raising constitutional arguments), I ask you, on an application for an Order to Show Cause to allow me to proceed with a motion to recuse against you raising these issues of your misconduct, Your Honor.

 His Honor:  I will not sign it (and will not allow you to challenge my misconduct).

 Attorney to judge:  Judge, I saw you communicating with my opponents through your facial expressions.  I am concerned that you are going to do the same with the jury.  Please, allow me to videotape you to make sure you are not engaged in the same misconduct that I already witnessed on this particular date, date is specified.

 His Honor:  I will not sign it (and will not allow you to capture my misconduct on camera).

 Would you just LOVE to have such a job where nobody can question you because you can prevent anybody challenging you from even seeing the inside of the court with that challenge?

 Of course, the question remains whether His Honor acted honorably or, let's say, self-servingly, but that is, ladies and gentlemen, not a question of law and "honor" for these country's judges is a job description, not a moral and ethical restraint.

 And there is a long history in American courts to treat constitutional questions as frivolous questions, or pesky questions not worthy of the judge's attention.

 Moreover, what kind of constitutional question can overpower the requirement that litigants and attorneys must have faith in the integrity of the judiciary?  The legal profession and court proceedings have long become a brown-nosing exercise where the party who has the most brown-nosing potential (including political connections) always wins.

 Anything a judge does in his job is covered by the judge-created presumption of judicial integrity, which apparently is supposed to co-exist along with the judge-created absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench.

 And whoever believes that such a combination is illogical and incompatible, and who does not want to believe in the Emperor's new clothes, of the honor of the profession that absolutely immunized itself of liability for dishonorable acts, should be banned from any possibility to earn a livelihood and should be blackballed for life from any meaningful employment.

 And with all this job security in place, wouldn't you love to be a judge?
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)