EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY:

"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 cos
t.



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.



“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.

"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.

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Who investigates and prosecutes U.S. Supreme Court judges? Anyone?

On September 15, 2015, U.S. Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer has published a book, "The Courts and The World".

Justice Breyer then engaged in heavy advertising of the book in the media, and the mainstream media bends over backwards in promoting Judge Breyer's book.

Here are promotional articles by:


 The book is available in three formats - Kindle, Paperback, and even Audiobook.

That requires some work.

Justice Breyer is 77 years old.  

His court is presiding, as the FINAL appellate jurisdiction, over ALL appeals from 50 STATES and from 12 FEDERAL CIRCUITS.

Imagine the number of cases that people would like Judge Breyer's court to review.

Yet, with growing population - and thus, growing number of cases, the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court is "shrinking".

The shrinking docket of the U.S. Supreme Court was reported 


There is an ongoing battle of reviews on Amazon.com as to that book.

After a 5-star review, a 1-star review appeared asking to take Judge Breyer off the bench.

I added my 2 cents and mentioned sponsorship by Judge Breyer of a foreign all-expense-paid trip for his law clerk, after which trip Judge Breyer's book coincidentally appeared.

Because of appearance of impropriety involved, I gave the book 1 star only (Amazon.com does not allow to give less than that in ranking). 

Amazon deleted links from my review supporting my claim of the judge's solicitation of sponsorship for his law clerks, thus detracting from credibility of the review.

After my review, somebody else gave Judge Breyer's book 5 stars, with the same reasoning (or lack thereof) as the guy who asked to take Judge Breyer off that court.

 Amazon.com interlinks the name of the author to all of his products traded on Amazon.com.

I followed the link to Stephen Breyer as an author.

It has 63 titles, some of them are in several formats - audio CD, audio book, Kindle, hardcover, paperback.

Most of these books were written while the judge was on employed in public service and was on the bench.

Judge Breyer was in public service his entire life as a lawyer.

Judge Breyer was on the bench since 1980 when he was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.

For 14 years, while being on the busy bench of the Circuit that handles appeals from death penalty cases, Judge Breyer continued to teach in Harvard Law School - and write books at a speed raising a question whether he had time for anything else BUT writing books.

In 1994, Judge Breyer was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and continued to write books at the same speed, raising a question whether he has time for to review cases on the court's docket and raising further questions whether the "shrinking docket" of the court can be explained by the necessity for judges to reserve more time for their book-writing activities, and other activities that has nothing to do with judging.

Yet, Justice Breyer, first and foremost, is a public employee.

He is paid, per year, as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, $246,800 per year, out of OUR pockets.

And we, the taxpayers, have a right to ask where exactly does Justice Breyer find time for his book-writing, at his age, and at the background of the "shrinking docket" of the court, while population of this country, and the volume of litigation coming to the court, grows.

And whether we, as taxpayers, would prefer Justice Breyer to write and advertise his books in retirement - so that we are assured that his vigorous book-writing does not cut into his public duties as a judge, paid by us the taxpayers at the rate of $246,800 a year.

Interestingly, the latest book of Justice Breyer is about the use of foreign law in the U.S. Supreme Court cases.

Justice Breyer advocates wider use of foreign law, because of globalization of the world.

In this respect, I have even more questions about motivations of Justice Breyer for making that claim, and whether Justice Breyer uses his law clerks to provide information for him for his books.

And whether the trips by Justice Breyer's law clerks, which are likely used to collect information for Justice Breyer's books, are financed in such a way that suggests at least an appearance of impropriety - where the judge SOLICITS funding of such trips from private attorney organizations with secret membership.

And whether Justice Breyer's law clerks are used by Justice Breyer to draft all, or portions of those books, during their taxpayer-paid time. 

Here is the link to the list of "Temple Bar scholars" in an organization called "The American Inns of Court".

I've written about this organization on this blog during the last year.  You can word-search it in this blog.

The most prominent problem with the organization is that it reports that it has 27,000 attorneys AND judges as its members, but the membership in the organization is secret, and, according to the scant information that appears here and there on the websites of certain chapters of this organization, judges and their law clerks are not required to pay membership fees, while private attorneys do pay high membership fees, and the members (judges and attorneys) meet for attorney-funded receptions and, of course, for "educational meetings", over wining and dining, once a month, behind closed doors.

Not only there is a possibility of ex parte communications with undisclosed number and identities of powerful legal elite, but there is an appearance of impropriety where ALL judicial decisions in this country are compromised by a POSSIBILITY that your judge has been wined and dined by your opponent in litigation, behind the closed doors of this secret membership private attorney organization.

But the impropriety, as I found out from the "scholars" list, goes much further.

As the list of the Temple Bar Scholars suggests, since as far back as 1996, U.S. Supreme Court justices (not just Justice Breyer) SOLICITED funding of all-expense-paid month-long trips for their law clerks.

Year
Name of U.S. Supreme Court Justice soliciting Temple Bar Scholarships (and of appellate judges) for the justice’s law clerks

Number of law clerks sponsored that year
2015
·      Justice Thomas
·      Justice Alito
·      Justice Breyer

1 law clerk per each justice – total of 3
2014
·      Justice Scalia
·      Justice Alito
·      Justice Breyer (for law clerk Julia Malkina), together with retired Justice O’Connor
·      Justice Ginsburg

1 law clerk per sponsor – total of 4
2013
·      Justice Kennedy
·      Justice Ginsburg
·      Justice Scalia
·      Justice Kagan

1 per each sponsoring justice – 4 clerks in total
2012
·      Justice Ginsburg
·      Justice Kennedy
·      Justice Sotomayor + retired Justice O’Connor
·      Chief Justice Roberts, Jr.
·      Justice Thomas

1 per each sponsoring justice – 5 clerks in total
2011
·      Justice Ginsburg
·      Chief Justice Roberts, Jr. (2) clerks
·      Justice Thomas
·      Justice Kennedy

1 per each sponsoring justice, other than Chief Judge Roberts who sponsored 2 clerks – 5 clerks in total
2010
·      Justice Scalia
·      Justice Kennedy
·      Justice Seymour (U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit)
·      Judge Kavanaugh (U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit)

1 clerk each per sponsoring judge – 4 total
2009
·      Justice Scalia
·      Justice O’Connor
·      Justice Ginsburg
·      Justice Alito
·      Judge Ambro, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Justics O’Connor and Ginsburg co-sponsored the same clerk, otherwise one clerk per sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2008
·      Justice Scalia
·      Chief Justice Roberts
·      Justice Ginsburg
·      Judge Stahl, U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit
1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2007
·      Justice Stevens
·      Judge Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
·      Judge Gregory, U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit,
·      Judge Ambro, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2006
·      Justice Ginsburg
·      Judge Tallman, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
·      Judge Carman, U.S. Court of International Trade
·      Judge Boggs, U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2005
·      Justice Souter
·      Justice O’Connor
·      Justice Thomas
·      Judge Arnold, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit
1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2004
·      Justice O’Connor
·      Justice Stevens
·      Judge Scirica, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
·      Judge Boudin, U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit
1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2003
·      Chief Justice Rehnquist
·      Justice Thomas
·      Justice Scalia
·      Justice Breyer
1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2002
·      Justice Breyer
·      Justice Thomas
·      Chief Justice Rehnquist
·      Judge Scirica, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
2001
·      Justice Kennedy
·      Justice Breyer (2 clerks)
·      Judge Torruella, U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit
Justice Breyer – 2 clerks
Other judges – 1 clerk each, for a total of 4 clerks
2000
·      Justice Stevens
·      Chief Justice Rehnquist
·      Justice Scalia
·      Judge Cole, U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
1999
·      Justice Breyer
·      Justice O’Connor
·      Justice Souter
·      Judge Jones, U.S. Court Appeals, 5th Circuit
1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
1998
·      Justice Kennedy
·      Judge Kleinfeld, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
·      Judge Wald, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit

1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
1997
·      Justice O’Connor
·      Justice Kennedy
·      Judge Scirica, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
·      Judge Sentelle, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
1 clerk per each sponsoring judge, for a total of 4 clerks
1996
·      Chief Judge William Rehnquist
·      Justice Stevens & Justice Powell
·      Justice Ginsburg
·      Judge Higginbotham, U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit

 

All justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and some federal appellate justices from federal court of appeals, solicited such scholarships for their law clerks since 1996.

According to the American Inns of Court, the scholarship is "competitive", and many law clerks other than those who are listed as having won the trip may have applied - which we will never know, unless applications for such private sponsorships by public servants are made public.

U.S. Courts of Appeals affirms most of appeals.  Now you need to wonder, is it influenced by those who "won" those appeals because of sponsorship of appellate law clerks.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects the overwhelming majority of cases.  Now you need to wonder if those cases which are rejected - and those few which were accepted for review - were the result of sponsorship of law clerks, and of membership of judges, by attorneys participating in those cases, through ex parte communications and wining and dining judges in the American Inns of Court.

All sponsoring judges listed as having sponsored their law clerks, as well as their law clerks, are members of the American Inns of Court, because the scholarships are a "member benefit" only. 

I am filing Freedom of Information Requests for the vacation schedules of all of the "scholars" in this list for the time of the years they made their trips, and will report to my readers as to the results.

Yet, people whose lives were affected by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court can only scratch their heads and ask, if they lost their case, or lost a petition for the writ of certiorari and were denied review by this court at all - was that denial motivated by your opponent's financing the trips of the law clerks of the U.S. Supreme Court justices behind the doors of the secret membership of The American Inns of Court?

Because, really, the Temple Bar Scholarship comes from England (which is one other matter of concern - where a foreign country sponsors trips of public servants, and then a U.S. Supreme Court justices, after such a trip, starts glorifying the use of foreign law in the American courts), but it comes in exchange for American Inns of Court sponsoring trips of British lawyers to the U.S., so the hands paying for the trips of law clerks of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices are BOTH foreign hands and the hands of undisclosed American private legal elite.

Which to me is absolutely abhorrent and requires intervention, through impeachment, of the U.S. Congress - of ALL U.S. Supreme Court justices involved in solicitation of such sponsorships.

And we, the People of this country, should ask the U.S. Congress not to slack on its duties and to investigate and impeach judges who undermine public trust to provide free trips to foreign countries for their clerks and - as it appears to be in Justice Breyer's case, benefit by such trips in later book-writing efforts.

Here is the entire list of law clerks sponsored only by this "scholarship" solicited by U.S. Supreme Court Justices since 1996.  Who knows how many more of such sinecures exist that are not published.  The links are to the glowing reports of public servants, law clerks to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, after they made those all-expense-paid trips, paid for by foreign entities and by private American legal elite.

And, of course, I am writing to the authorities in U.S. Congress requesting impeachment of these "sponsoring" judges.

I already requested discovery of information on membership of judges and lawyers in the American Inns of Court, the lawsuit was dismissed "as frivolous" by the very court whose judges participate in that organization and are thus witnesses in litigation.

Thus, there is no point filing lawsuits.

There is no point asking judges to police themselves - that will never happen.

I will try checking on the integrity of our representatives in Congress - I will write to a couple of presidential candidates who are U.S. Senators and see whether they will react.

I will post response of Senators Bernie and Cruz to my request to commence impeachment proceedings against the "sponsoring" judges on this blog. 

Stay tuned.

===

The list of law clerks "sponsored" by judges for free trips funded by foreign entities and private American attorneys (undisclosed identities because of secret membership), as published by the American Inns of Court:

===
 


2015 
  • Jennifer M. Bandy Sponsored by Justice Clarence Thomas
  • Megan M. Dillhoff Sponsored by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
  • Ilana B. Gelfman Sponsored by Justice Stephen Breyer
  • Megan M. O'Neill Sponsored by Chief Judge Diane P. Wood
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
  • Rachel Kovner Sponsored by Justice Antonin Scalia
  • Joshua Hawley Sponsored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
  • Ashika Singh Sponsored by Judge Norman H. Stahl, Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit
  • Zachary D. Tripp Sponsored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
2007
  • Jean Galbraith Sponsored by International Criminal Tribunal / Justice John Paul Stevens
  • Azra Hot Sponsored by Judge Harry Pregerson, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
  • Candace Rae Jackson Sponsored by Judge Roger L. Gregory, Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
  • Intisar A. Rabb Sponsored by Judge Thomas L. Ambro, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
2006
  • Rebecca Gabrielle Deutsch Sponsored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
  • Peter M. Koski Sponsored by Judge Richard C. Tallman, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
  • Catherine Dong Soon Miller Sponsored by Judge Gregory W. Carman, U.S. Court of International Trade
  • James C. Owens Sponsored by Chief Judge Danny J. Boggs, Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
2005
  • J. Alexander Cooke Sponsored by Judge Morris S. Arnold, Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit
  • Matthew S. Hellman Sponsored by Justice David H. Souter
  • Joshua A. Klein Sponsored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
  • Henry C. Whitaker Sponsored by Justice Clarence Thomas
2004
  • Janet Rhiannon Carter Sponsored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
  • Arthur W.S. Duff Sponsored by Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
  • Leondra Reid Kruger Sponsored by Justice John Paul Stevens
  • Anna-Rose Mathieson Sponsored by Chief Judge Michael Boudin, Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit
2003
  • Leah Brannon Sponsored by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
  • Adam K. Mortara Sponsored by Justice Clarence Thomas
  • John C. O'Quinn Sponsored by Justice Antonin Scalia
  • Maritza U.B. Okata Sponsored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer
2002
  • Collin Joe Cox Sponsored by Judge Anthony J. Scirica, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
  • Mirah Anne Horowitz Sponsored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer
  • Brett H. McGurk Sponsored by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
  • Neomi Rao Sponsored by Justice Clarence Thomas
2001
  • Brett Gerry Sponsored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
  • Asha Rangappa Sponsored by Chief Judge Juan Torruella, Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit
  • Alexander Reinert Sponsored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer
  • Russell Robinson Sponsored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer
2000
  • J. Brett Busby Sponsored by Justice John Paul Stevens
  • Trevor M. Jefferson Sponsored by Judge R. Guy Cole, Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
  • Neil M. Richards Sponsored by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
  • Kannon Shanmugam Sponsored by Justice Antonin Scalia
1999
  • Curtis E. Gannon Sponsored by Judge Edith Jones, Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
  • Jenny Martinez Sponsored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer
  • Jennifer Mason Sponsored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
  • Catherine Sharkey Sponsored by Justice David H. Souter
1998
  • Michael Raibman Sponsored by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
  • Laura Heymann Sponsored by Judge Patricia Wald, Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
  • A. Louise Oliver Sponsored by Judge Douglas Ginsburg, Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
  • Stephanos Bibas Sponsored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
1997
  • Rebecca Beynon Sponsored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
  • Julian T.H. Kleindorfer Sponsored by Judge Anthony Scirica, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
  • Kristen Silverberg Sponsored by Judge David Sentelle, Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
  • Anthony Vlatas Sponsored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
1996
  • Eric Claeys Sponsored by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
  • Mark Harris Sponsored by Justice John Paul Stevens & Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
  • Michael Wang Sponsored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
  • Norman Williams Sponsored by Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham, Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit















No comments:

Post a Comment