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.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire: Delhi Volunteer Fire Department holds secret meetings and asks her to leave the meeting when she was invited there by the Department's Chief
The Volunteer Fire Department - according to the advisory opinion of the New York State Committee for Open Government - is subject to Open Meetings Law.
Moreover, Barbara was invited to that meeting personally by the Delhi Fire Department Chief Mr. Evans.
Yet, Tim Murray (husband of Delaware County Sheriff's Department dispatcher Michelle Murray, who is a Facebook friend of Sharon Reichert-Morgan, and participated in the hate-comment campaign of this blog's coverage of Barbara's house fire), as Barbara said, "took issue" with Barbara and her daughter being present at the meeting of the Delhi Fire Department, invoked his official status as alleged "Assistant Chief", and then, according to Barbara, "went into the bully mode" and demanded to know why Barbara and her daughter were at the Fire Hall.
And said that the meeting is not open to the public.
Well, guess what, since the Fire Department meetings are subject to Open Meetings Law, they must be open to the public, and the only time when they are not open to the public are when the Fire Department is going into an executive session, which can be done only at a properly noticed public meeting, with a proper announcement before the public.
I will FOIL the Delhi Fire Department to verify certain facts about compliance (or apparent noncompliance) with Open Meetings Law and publish the results here.
But, so far the "irregularities" with Barbara's house fire and how it was handled, continue.
Now, the Fire Department very obviously discussed their strategy o how to handle the case behind closed doors, at a meeting that was held in violation of Open Meetings Law.
Barbara's access to records of the Fire Department continues to be stalled, access to records of police agencies continues to be stalled, and she was now ousted from a meeting in the "Fire Hall" which very obviously was going to handle the issue of her house fire, and was supposed to be public and noticed to the public.
And, to add insult to injury, the deputy Chief of the Delhi Fire Department is the husband of a Delaware County Sheriff's employee who may have been involved in the case as a dispatcher, and who is also up to her ears in controversy based on her hateful Facebook comments in support of her friend Sharon Reichert-Morgan's own hateful comments AGAINST the victims of the house fire, where Reichert-Morgan spread the allegedly "confidential" information shared with his wife by Reichert-Morgan's husband and, when that information was published, backing out of it (I saved the comments).
The land of kissing cousins, what can I say.
Stay tuned for the continued coverage of this case and the workings of the local clans in Delaware County that are pretending to be "the local government".