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, August 10, 2016

The American Bar Association's Report on the future of legal services in the U.S. - the "sensitive" core issues are conspicuously and cowardly not addressed

A 116-page report on the "future of provision of legal services" was released by the American Bar Association in August of 2016.

 No revolutionary changes were proposed by the ABA.

 Do not search the report for words such as

  1. judicial misconduct
  2. immunity
  3. whistleblowers
  4. retaliation
  5. antitrust
while judicial misconduct, judge-invented "immunities" of government officials as to accountability to constitutional violations, relentless persecution of attorney whistleblowers and antitrust activities of attorney disciplinary committees acting to protect their markets rather than protect the consumers - are at the core of public discontent with the legal profession, the judiciary, and at the core of unavailability of affordable legal services to the majority of the U.S. population.

Instead, the ABA wants to keep regulation in the hands of the judiciary - which is a big problem, creating an ability for the judiciary to hold attorneys in a death grip, and preventing independent representation of clients, and especially in cases involving governmental misconduct and judicial misconduct.

And, of course, the ABA, a non-profit corporation that has foreign funding, wants to control attorney regulation and provision of legal services in the United States, jamming down consumers' throats what consumers do not want - government-imposed expensive attorneys (or incompetent assigned attorneys for the indigent) instead of court representatives of consumers' own choice, as it should be, with or without the government's approval of such a choice through law licensing.

Well, no matter what the length of the ABA report on the "future of provision of legal services", when the core issues making the legal profession and its regulation the main reason why the majority of the U.S. population cannot have true access to impartial courts and cannot have effective remedies at law for violations of their rights are not reflected in that report, the value of that report is zero.

And, of course, the report is a prime example that the ABA knows that the legal profession is in jeopardy and is trying hard to save it - by further rearranging the chairs on the deck of the sinking Titanic.






Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)