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, September 26, 2016
The raving lunatic, #JudgeNicholasGaraufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York - outrageous, irresponsible and insulting
Here is Judge Garuafis' official biobraphy from the court's website:
Judge Garaufis is an Ivy League educated lawyer, and has been a lawyer for 42 years, since 1974.
Judge Garaufis has a Bachelors and a Juris Doctor degree - BOTH rom Columbia University.
So, Judge Garaufis is a highly educated and intelligent person.
With all that, Judge Garaufis, reportedly told attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II who appeared in front of Judge Garaufis in a court conference - this:
So, what was wrong about attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II appearing in front of Judge Garaufis?
Was the attorney unlicensed?
Obviously, the attorney was admitted - otherwise he would have been criminally charged for practicing law without a license.
And, we have this sticky situation that federal district courts act as regulatory agencies for attorneys practicing in that court.
So, if the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York admitted attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II to practice law in that court, that means that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York thus proclaimed to the public and the world that attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II is competent to handle ANY legal issues in that court.
Yet, for judge Garaufis attorney Thomas Aulden Burcher II was not good enough.
But, that attitude turns into a real problem.
Is licensing by the Eastern District of New York two-tiered - a "better quality" license for partners and a "second best" for associates?
Is sending an associate a sign that the case is treated as not important?
Should clients know that?
What about solo attorneys?
At what time after admission does their license become "good enough" where they are neither associate nor a partner, but just a solo attorney?
Or is a solo attorney appearing in front of pre-eminent judge Garaufis insulting the judge by his presence?
Does Judge Garuafis just have a bad case of a black robe disease, or is he clinically demented? Is he a danger to other attorneys and the public?
Some bloggers considered it just a bad case of judicial misconduct.
And some bloggers (on Twitter) pointed out Judge Garaufis double-standards, because he does not require the government to sent the U.S. Attorney General where they send just-admitted prosecutors:
and Judge Garuafis does not have the "send the partner only in front of my pre-eminent eyes" in his personal rules:
And fellow Twitterers had a couple of suggestions about what needs to be done with the judge:
1) take him off the case for bias and
2) "kick his belligerent ass"
I am all for #1 - but you know what happens to attorneys who criticize judges in motions to recuse, so it is unlikely a motion to recuse will be made.
And, I am all for #2 in terms of judicial discipline - but, that is not going to happen because the U.S. Congress does not allow discipline of judges for misconduct in court cases.
So, the raving lunatic and bully, federal #JudgeNicholasGaraufis is there to stay - unless we ask the U.S. Congress to impeach him, and change rules of impeachment to allow REAL accountability of federal judges for misconduct IN COURT cases. Because, where else does misconduct of federal judges matter? In their kitchens?