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.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Justice Sotomayor's stomach as the Law of the Land in the United States
Apparently, a question arises who pays for those tours - transportation, hotels, meals, and whether Judge Sotomayor gets speaking fees for those tours.
The next question that readily arose is that Justice Sotomayor claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court should be more diverse in "experience, not appearance" - and then claimed that there are no Protestants on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Not atheists, not Muslims, not other religions, such as pagans, Satanists (why not?) - but, specifically, Protestants.
And, the peculiar issue arises - why does religious experience, or any other experience, matter for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in the eyes of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice?
Shouldn't the only thing that matters for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is fairness and competency in the law?
After all, justices may not venture outside of the record and should not, actually must not, act as "experts in all fields", as Justice Sotomayor claims a U.S. Supreme Court Justice has to be.
The U.S. Supreme Court is an APPELLATE court - and, if the record in the courts below, including issues that should have been highlighted through expert testimony, is not developed, the ONLY thing that an appellate court can do is REVERSE, not act as experts in their own right.
The next disturbing issue reflected in the speech of Justice Sotomayor is that criticism of her competence and the issue that she has been picked for the court only for her gender and race, and not on the merits, "got to her stomach".
When a judge admits that, anybody who openly criticized that judge, or who comes before the U.S. Supreme Court with a case involving criticism of a judge, should worry about Justice Sotomayor's impartiality.
And, how many attorney disciplinary cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court for criticism of the judiciary have been ditched on Justice Sotomayor's watch?
I know of several such cases in the past few years, I know of several others either already in front of the U.S. Supreme Court or heading there, and one of them is mine.
My disciplinary case was when my own law license was suspended for 2 years for motions to recuse a judge (that was not even claimed as an official version, the official version only mentioned sanctions for frivolous conduct - but sancitons were imposed for motions to recuse a judge). Recently, a disclosure was made by a disgruntled "insider" that my license was suspended for civil rights lawsuits - my own and my husband's for suing political figures in the State of New York an din the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
Justice Sotomayor's former law clerk Andrew Ayers in 2005-2006 participated in opposing the removal of my disciplinary case to federal court and fraudulently claimed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in an appellate brief that I was correctly charged for not appearing - as an attorney for clients - at a deposition in 2008 and for not opposing a motion filed against allegedly my clients in 2008.
While asserting those claims, Ayers knew they were not true.
The events in Charge I Specification I occurred in 2008, I was admitted in 2009, so I was prohibited by criminal laws to act in 2008 as an attorney - and could not be charged for misconduct for NOT acting as an attorney in 2008, and Andrew Ayers had a record in front of him submitted by me to the district court below and that was part of the record on appeal, court documents of the deposition where I was claimed not to have appeared (in 2008) and the motion I allegedly did not oppose on behalf of clients (also in 2008), but brazenly claimed to the court that those fraudulent disciplinary charges were legitimate.
I wonder if Judge Sotomayor taught Andrew Ayers to disregard the record and the law during his clerkship for her in the same 2nd Circuit.
Now that my case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, I am learning that only 66 lawyers, most of them former clerks or friends or former associates of U.S. Supreme Court justices, are granted review in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Apparently, when such a "tradition" of judicial bias exists - and has been in place for years - anybody who goes in front of the U.S. Supreme Court who does not have money or clout to hire those 66 "chosen" lawyers, or who goes against former clerks of the U.S. Supreme Court justices (as I am doing, claiming Justice Sotomayor's former law clerk Andrew Ayers committed fraud upon the court, a crime and an offense warranting disbarment, and still remains a licensed attorney, is screwed, right?
Moreover, now I hear that Justice Sotomayor openly admits that public criticism against her "gets to her stomach".
Well, I did criticize Justice Sotomayor's competence, very recently, on two occasions.
I criticized Justice Sotomayor for pushing her race as a factor in her judicial decisions, for endorsing slavery of lawyers by the government for a "good cause", and for drawing on her "experiences", in other words, for her unlawful unsworn testimony on behalf of parties to the appeal.
And, I criticized Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Steven Breyer of the same court, and openly called for a criminal investigation of possible corruption of those judges through the American Inns of Court - and that was, "coincidentally", 2 months BEFORE my suspension in November of 2015.
Now that in the summer of 2016, through a sworn statement of an attorney filed in federal court, my suspension was repeatedly claimed to have been caused by my lawsuits against political figures in the State of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, I must be wondering now whether my criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court justices also played a role in my suspension.
And, with a lawsuit challenging participation of judges in secret-membership organizations, such as the American Inns of Court and the State-Federal Judicial Councils, both organizations formed with a blessing of a U.S. Supreme Court justice, both meeting behind closed doors and thus providing unlimited opportunities for ex parte communications and case-fixing, and while my lawsuit is about to be revived through new evidence - I wonder if any judge in this blessed country will dare to rule in my favor, even though the law is squarely on my side.
Actually a motion to recuse another Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Ginsburg, was just made, by another attorney from New York State suspended for his criticism of judicial misconduct, Leon Koziol who testified in front of the Moreland Commission about judicial corruption in New York and whose law license was not reinstated because of that testimony.
Attorney Koziol's motion was based on Justice Ruth Ginsburg's recent public statements that indicated that Ruth Ginsburg might not be impartial in deciding cases.
Since Justice Sotomayor openly made a statement that lawyers are, in fact, slaves to the government and must provide free legal services as a condition of being allowed to earn a living - unlike any other professions in the United States - how can any attorney disciplined for challenging constitutionality of any disciplinary proceedings against him or her can count on fairness from Justice Sotomayor?
How can any critic of Justice Sotomayor, a judge who openly admitted that criticism of her competence "got to her stomach", be assured of her fairness in deciding the critic's cases and the cases of those who criticizes judicial misconduct, or misconduct of any other public official?
And, since decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are now claimed - without any legal basis - to be the Law of the Land, to the point that even state judges, such as Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore, are prosecuted for disregarding SOME of the U.S. Supreme Court cases (not those relating to 1st Amendment right to criticize the government) - I guess, the stomach of Justice Sotomayor becomes the Law of the Land in this country.
If arguments of any critic who had the misfortune of having his civil rights violated and having to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, get to the stomach of Justice Sotomayor - and if that person or his lawyer do not pay for Justice Sotomayor's law clerk's foreign trips through the American Inns of Court, or for Justice Sotomayor's summer vacation travels and speeches, or criticize judicial misconduct, or criticize actions or public statements of Justice Sotomayor - then the stomach of Justice Sotomayor will rule to deny review for that person.
Didn't Justice Sotomayor just talk herself into an impeachment charge?
Or do we now consider U.S. Supreme Court Justices as Gods who can do whatever they like and are not subject to public scrutiny - as any public servant paid by taxpayers should be?