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, June 1, 2016
#BarbaraO'Sullivan'sHouseFire: an investigation after the crime scene was irreversibly, and deliberately, compromised by the police?
In other words, after the crime scene was irreversibly compromised, and after certain things, according to witness accounts to me, appeared at the crime scene which were not there before, and certain things disappeared or were destroyed - after all of that, the investigators suddenly took the heads out from where they were so far, and started the investigation.
An undercover investigator, claiming he is just a lay individual who wants my "opinion" about Barbara and her case, contacted me through e-mail with a request to call him to discuss Barbara.
The person claimed he had no news for my blog - he just wanted my "opinion" about Barbara.
Of course, I have no use for strangers asking me opinions about my friends, behind my friends' back.
And, of course, the guy contacted me because my opinion was already published since the day of the fire - which I cannot say of the cowardly local media, and while the local and state law enforcement did nothing to secure the crime scene and preserve the evidence of an attempted murder on the critic of governmental misconduct, her daughter and her unborn grandchild.
Securing the crime scene was not important. Because of whose house burnt down.
So, my opinion is, dear investigators - with the crime scene irreversibly compromised, deliberately, by law enforcement, elements, animals and an unknown number of unknown lay individuals with motives and opportunity to tamper with evidence at that unsecured crime scene, it is unlikely that any report you plan to produce now will be of any probative/evidentiary value.
What was compromised was compromised.
You cannot unring the bell.
So, dear lazy (and/or corrupt) investigators who did not do their jobs in Barbara's case from day 1 - you can now look into a collective mirror and thank themselves for your own incompetence.
You accomplished it.
Your reports, present and future, are worth nothing.