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.

Monday, July 4, 2016

New York State Attorney General's 4th of July statement misleads the public as to what Schneiderman actually does in court - making sure victims of civil rights violations would not get a remedy in court

Today, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a statement, as follows:

Note the words:

 "Today, we should be mindful of our duty to defend the rights of our friends and neighbors who still face discrimination and bigotry".

 The statement reads as a pledge to protect ordinary people from discrimination, which is a civil rights violation.

 You know who are "friends and neighbors" who Schneiderman usually defends in court in civil rights cases?

 The defendants.

 And it is the New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman who, feeling the "duty to defend the rights of our friends and neighbors who still face discrimination and bigotry", defends those who are sued for committing that discrimination and bigotry.

 Schneiderman is the one who seeks dismissals of civil rights lawsuits.

 Schneiderman is the one who seeks sanctions against civil rights plaintiffs "for frivolous conduct", for raising frivolous constitutional arguments, imagine, arguments asking the court for fairness, asking the court for help against violations of people's civil rights are frivolous in Schneiderman's view.

 You know why they are frivolous?

 Because plaintiffs are still asking the court for help when the court already said the government is immune from lawsuits - that is what Schneiderman is saying to federal courts, against the "friends and neighbors" who he now pledges his duty to protect.

 Here is the list of cases litigated by Schneiderman in federal court.

 In many of them Schneiderman is listed as "dft" (defendant) or as "res" (Respondent), that means that people are suing Schneiderman for violation of their civil rights - those same rights he declares it is his duty to protect.












In the column designated as "NOS" there are numbers.  Those numbers are types of lawsuits, by classification designated on a court form, here and here.

 Here are the scans of portions of the classification matching lawsuits against Schneiderman. 



Here is information to match the dates to Schneiderman's service as Attorney General:  Schneiderman was in public office since 1998, as a New York Senator, and was took office since January 1, 2011 as New York Attorney General, so lawsuits filed against him as a party before January 1, 2011 are lawsuits against him as a New York Senator.

Apparently, out of 279 lawsuits Pacer.gov lists with Eric T. Schneiderman as an attorney or party, most of them were filed after Eric Schneiderman became NYS Attorney General, most of them are civil rights lawsuits, and most of them are concluded, and I do not doubt that those lawsuits concluded with dismissals, knowing how courts and NYS AG's office deals with civil rights lawsuits.

 I will shortly provide a summary table of lawsuits against Eric Schneiderman which will show statistics as to those lawsuits.

 So, while claiming that attorney Schneiderman is fighting for civil rights of "neighbors and friends", in reality he is OPPOSING civil rights lawsuits on behalf of VIOLATORS of civil rights and is HELPING VIOLATORS of civil rights escape accountability, and is helping to PUNISH THE VICTIMS of civil rights violators for seeking help from a federal court for such violations.

 But, who would expect honesty from a top public official in New York State.




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)