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.

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Nothing like duping the public out of a public trial - in order to prevent observation of a trial-long ex parte communication between the court and plaintiffs' attorneys


A would be observer of the Mokay trial (see my previous posts of April 6, 2015 to date) contacted me and reported the following:

 1) On the first day of trial, April 7, 2015 (when I was, as I am now, sick in bed with a back injury while the court, despite being notified of a doctor-issued medical leave, happily proceeded in my absence), the observer attempted to observe the trial.

 That did not happen because the court officers diverted the observer by saying that the jury was dismissed and the attorneys are leaving to go home.

 2) On April 8, 2015 when the same observer showed up to the courthouse and asked about the trial, the observer was then informed that the trial is already over because, even though the jury was dismissed, the trial proceeded without the jury and is already over.

 By the way, there was a motion pending for multiple relief, including a request to allow to videotape proceedings, and the reason to ask for that was, among other things, an affidavit from a witness pointing out misconduct of Judge Dowd in a back room where he was badgering and insulting an immigrant witness. Another reason was that I myself observed nonverbal interaction between Judge Dowd and Plaintiffs' counsel at a previous evidentiary hearing in this case.

 I am an immigrant attorney, so Judge Dowd's bigotry was a very big issue with me and my client.

 Apparently, it was more convenient for Judge Dowd to hush the motion under the rug, use my illness to dismiss the jury, conduct a trial in my absence (which, again, was an ex parte communication of a giant proportions), and to fix the case on his own, the way he had always wanted it to be fixed.

 Thus, not only the judge made everything in his power to prevent the case from being tried by the jury (which would have highlighted to the community the illegality of the whole proceedings), but, apparently, on the court's directions, an observer who wanted to observe the trial and showed up exactly when the trial was supposed to start, was misinformed that the jury is dismissed and the attorneys are leaving, with an implication that the trial is over, when that was not true.

 So, not only the entire trial was one big happy ex parte communication since it was conducted during the absence of a defense counsel who was on documented medical leave, but the court also shut out a court observer, by tricks.

 If everything was lawful, why was there a necessity to engage in such tricks?

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)