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).


“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.


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.







Monday, July 11, 2016

A slap on the wrist to Florida judge Gregory Holder who advocated out of court for a litigant who appeared in front of him, a former Green Beret who pointed a pistol at a person, uttered a racist slur and urinated at the counter of a Muslim gas station clerk

On June 7, 2016 I wrote a blog about #JudgeGregoryHolder, of Florida, who advocated for a former "Green Beret", over whose cases the judge presided, to the point of writing to a Senator, pleading to a college board not to expel the violent veteran from college and accusing the board of misconduct when they still expelled the former Green Beret.

You can read in the blog that I interlinked above an account of what the Green Beret did - complete with pointing a pistol in the face of a person, uttering a racist slur and urinating on the counter at a gas station.

The Florida judicial authorities just issued a ruling as to Judge Holder's behavior.

The ruling:

"guilty of misconduct", the judge violated 5 canons of judicial conduct.

The sentence:

a reprimand and 5 hours of training in ethics.

Why?

The judicial qualification panel was afraid of another claim for millions of dollars in attorney fees by Judge Holder - in case the decision about his reprimand is overturned on appeal - like the one he made in 2005 when he was accused of plagiarizing a research paper when in the Army?  And the case was dismissed because the original of Judge Holder's paper "could not" be located or produced.

How coincidental.







No comments:

Post a Comment