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, December 10, 2015

The sagging pants and the butt display by (very) social worker Meghan Barnes, Delaware County, New York


In June of 2011, a man was arrested for refusing to pull up his sagging pants when boarding a plane in San Francisco, California.  Charges against him reportedly included "suspicion of trespassing, battery and resisting arrest".

 In November of 2013, 38 Ervin Edwards was reportedly jailed and tasered to death in Louisiana after the police started to pick on him about, among other things, his sagging pants.

 In May of 2014 two men were reportedly arrested in South Carolina and charged with disorderly conduct for refusal to pull up their sagging pants that showed - no, not their butts, only their boxers.

 In 2014, several municipalities in Florida made prohibited saggy pants in public places in the city.

 In September of 2015, students in Mississippi were reportedly arrested for protesting a "sagging pants ban" on campus.

 Today, on December 10, 2015 a South Carolina news source Fox 8 reported that several South Carolina high school students were jailed for wearing sagging pants to class.
In 2010, Delaware County (NY) District Attorney Richard Northrup who is elected to become Delaware County Judge since January 1, 2016, for 10 years forward, refused to prosecute Delaware County social worker Meghan Barnes, relative to Delaware County Treasurer Beverly Shields who was at the time reportedly a girlfriend or close personal friend of now-retired Family, Surrogate's and County judge Carl Becker, for showing an eagle tattoo going into "the crack of her butt" (child's statement) to an 8-year-old on school premises during an official social services investigation.

 As Delhi Village Police Michael Mills explained Richard Northrup's refusal to charge Meghan Barnes for indecent exposure before a minor and for endangering welfare of a minor, "the standards of female nudity have evolved".

 So, for Richard Northrup, it is ok for a government official, while discharging her official duties, in a school full of children, to display the crack of her butt to an 8-year-old boy as part of her investigation.

 Think what local teachers can do now that they know that such behavior is allowed!

 If anything, those standards are de-volving across the country, where people are actually arrested, jailed and even tasered to death for showing simply their boxers, not tattoos of the country's symbol going into the cracks of their butts.

 Think about mentality of a person who puts the symbol of her country into such a place, she really respects her country, doesn't she?

 Well, everybody has a 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression, even such a crude one.

 Yet, public officials do not have a right to expose little children to their freedom of expression on intimate body parts.

 By the way, Delaware County is a legal guardian of foster children on an ongoing basis.  Shouldn't parents of children in foster care start wondering whether Meghan Barnes exposes her wards to viewing the eagle that has only grown since 2009, along with the butt?

 Meghan Barnes, upon my information, has not been demoted or disciplined for her behavior.

 She continues to draw, according to a public records source, seethroughny.net, $49,398 a year of the taxpayers' money, and it is a big concern whether she draws this money while indulging her exhibitionist habits with little children.




By the way, when I raised the issue of Meghan Barnes little exhibitionist tricks on little children in court, I was accused of invasion of privacy and indecency.

Once again, it is an invasion of privacy of a public official to publicly discuss in court public exposure of public official's private parts to a small child during official investigation in a public place.

And, it is an indecent exposure to publicly expose in court proceedings the public indecent exposure by a public official in a public place.

Just for your information.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)