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.

Monday, April 6, 2015

Judge Kevin M. Dowd threatened to "secure my attendance in court" despite my sick leave - how much baser can this man get?


I REQUEST HELP FROM THE INTERNET COMMUNITY BY A MAXIMUM REPOST OF THIS ARTICLE AND OF MY STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

A JUDGE IS ABOUT TO HURT ME TOMORROW BY ATTEMPTING TO DRAG ME INTO THE COURTROOM DESPITE A MEDICAL LEAVE BASED ON BACK INJURY. 

Here is my story.


I am injured and in pain.

My doctor had given me a leave from work for two weeks, as well as prescription medication to help with the pain that makes me drowsy.

Based on that, I asked Judge Kevin M. Dowd assigned to our Supreme Court case in Delaware County, New York, to adjourn the jury trial that is to start tomorrow.

I notified the judge about my injury back since Friday, yet, I could not get an appointment with my doctor on Friday, so I got it today.

Judge Dowd required from me a "sworn statement" from my medical provider.

He did not require anything like that from my opponents when he granted TWO medical adjournment of the same trial in 2013 and 2014, just granted those adjournments, over my objection, for the asking, with later-provided copy of a letter (not the original of an affirmation) from the trial attorney's physician.

What did Judge Dowd do when I provided my medical leave from me and requested an adjournment?

Did he tell me to get better and grant the request?

No, Judge Dowd, through his law clerk Claudette Newman, denied me the adjournment request, and told me the following:

.

Once again, I have a legitimate leave from work based on back trauma, and Judge Dowd knows it.

That is all I need, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, not to do any work anywhere.

Yet, Judge Dowd threatens to use "legitimate means" (while there aren't any) to "secure my attendance".

I wonder how the "securing" will be taking place - will I be forcibly ripped out of bed, carried to the courthouse in my pajamas, put behind the counsel desk while aggravating my injury (possible bulging disk) and do what then?  Not allow me to leave that courtroom?

Judge Dowd's behavior is really getting out of whack.

Yet, Judge Dowd is not original in what he is attempting to do.

Recently, a Judge in Minnesota pulled such a trick with a female attorney (why male judges keep harassing female attorneys who moved to recuse them or who sued them - does anybody knows?),

According to a report about the attorney's federal lawsuit, the attorney was grabbed by the sheriff's department during a break in the hearing (after she moved to recuse the judge), then, according to the federal lawsuit of that attorney, the sheriff's department employees stripped her of her cell phone, notes, glasses and shoes (!), strapped her to a wheelchair, wheeled her into the courtroom, where the judge ordered her to proceed with doing the trial - without shoes, glasses, notes, pen or paper, and while strapped into a wheelchair.

Judge Knutson out of Minnesota also filed a complaint to the Bar authorities against the female attorney who he ordered to proceed into trial while strapped in a wheelchair by the sheriff's employees, stripped of her glasses, shoes, pen, paper and notes.

Yet, at the least, the attorney in question was not injured at the time of the judge's outrageous behavior.

I am.

I guess, Judge Dowd wants to outdo that.  

Stay tuned as to what Judge Dowd will do next.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)