A judge (let's call him Judge # 1) refuses to grant an adjournment of appearance to a young mother and then publicly humiliates her in court for breastfeeding her sick and hungry baby, after making her wait, calling her case only when he sees she is breastfeeding (he was alerted to that fact by a court employee by a note), and then, when the mother asks for a minute to arrange her clothing, puts her on the spot and tells her publicly that he considers her brestfeeding in "his" court in appropriate.
The judge's boss refuses to discipline the judge because he believes, the judge did nothing wrong.
Another judge, Judge # 2, refuses to grant an adjournment to a young mother, an attorney, after she gave birth to a child, causes her appearance in the courtroom and publicly humiliates her for neglecting her child BECAUSE she appeared with her child because she could not arrange for daycare!
Judge # 3, after being sued by a party in litigation, has the party's female attorney arrested during recess of a trial, has her handcuffed to a wheelchair, has court attendants take away from her her pen, case files, GLASSES, and orders her to conduct a trial this way, out of a wheelchair and handcuffed, without glasses or any trial material, and without presence of her client - at the threat of a default to her client.
Judge Knutson was sued for that, and a petition for the writ of certiorari is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.
A video of some of what happened to the female attorney in Judge Knutson court is available on the Internet.
Judge # 4, Judge Kevin M. Dowd of Chenango County Supreme Court, punishes a female attorney (me) for failure to appear at a trial during my documented medical leave because of a back injury.
It appears that courts have an open hunt on women litigants and women-attorneys, especially those who sue judges or are independent.
The system calls them "judges" and refuses to discipline them because they "did nothing wrong".
I call them male chauvinist pigs that should not be allowed to be judges, or attorneys.
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment