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.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Those dangerous attorney blogs...


Unfortunately, I am not the only attorney in this country who is being persecuted for criticism of judicial misconduct - far from it.

Here is a blogpost from an Illinois attorney who challenged improprieties in that state's Surrogate's Courts that leave the elderly unprotected from robbing their estates, separating them from their loved ones and depriving them of the necessary medical care, all for the sake of greed of attorneys favored by courts.

The Illinois attorney's blog was considered a very dangerous thing, warranting a 3-year suspension from the practice of law, blocking the attorney in question from her ability to help the poor with her low-cost and pro bono services.

I guess, the danger of blogs written by attorneys are in their persuasiveness, because attorneys are witnesses of judicial misconduct who, due to their everyday experience with the courts, their legal expertise and knowledge and their eloquence, may carry a very persuasive message to the public that courts in this country are corrupt and are in dire need of reform - a concept to which the general American public is increasingly awakening.

I must mention that New York  appears to consider me a more dangerous person than Illinois considered JoAnne Denison - because JoAnne Denison at least was provided an evidentiary hearing and was allowed to call witnesses.  

Why?

JoAnne Denison's blog presents excerpts from an evidentiary hearing in her disciplinary case.

In my case, I am too dangerous to even allow me to have an evidentiary hearing, and especially an open public hearing in the county where I practice law the most (as I requested many times), and to allow me to call witnesses - lest the public hear from the lips of the witnesses that the charges against me were fraudulent and the real reasons were to discredit me as an eloquent and active critic of judicial misconduct in this state and in this country.

Vicious retaliation by the judiciary against attorneys who criticize judicial misconduct, and deprivation of the public of services of such attorneys, mostly those who provide low-cost and pro bono services, at the time when over 80% of the public cannot afford an attorney, is why regulation of the legal profession should be removed from the hands of the judiciary and the government altogether.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)