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.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

The Schultz defense in LA - 1,000 criminal cases fixed over 5.5 years for $8,000 a pop, but judges and prosecutors knew nothing about it

Interesting news are coming from California.

 A now-former court clerk, and 10 of his alleged accomplices, were indicted in a federal 38-count indictment for fixing court cases.

 1,000 of them over the period of 5.5 years (since 2010), for $8,000 a pop.

 Here are the names of the defendants:



And, of course, it is being claimed that judges and prosecutors who were supposed to handle and monitor all those cases were not aware of the case-fixing, where the clerk noted the bought-off cases on the court computers as fines paid when they were not, and as charges reduced when they were not.

 I do not know who would believe in this bullshit.

 First of all, that shows that judges and prosecutors do not do their job monitoring cases post-conviction.

 Second, such a massive bribery scheme, going on over the years and involving 1,000 cases in 5.5 years in the court of one county (one courthouse) is not possible either.

 That is 181 FELONY cases fixed in any given year - because nobody will pay $8,000 to pay for fixing a misdemeanor charge.

 Not only judges and prosecutors had to be involved, but the charging police officers too.  It is a matter of professional pride, not to mention record of employment, for the arresting officer in each case to monitor how the case progresses.

 A lobotomy is required to believe that an officer would not be pissed off that his FELONY cases were reduced to nothing en masse.

 And, we are talking about the same Orange County Superior court in California which was recently the center of a controversy where:
So, we have a whole lot of grounds to trust in the integrity of prosecutors and local police officers for telling the truth whether they were not involved in the case-fixing.

And, we have a lot of grounds to trust integrity of Los Angeles judges, too - after they
Imagine that you commit a crime, and then the state legislators, to rescue you, gave you immunity from criminal liability going backwards.

Such legislative gifts will are never given to "ordinary Joes".

As to the "we didn't know anything" indictment-for-corruption in the Orange Count Supreior Court, I will continue to cover this story, which has only begun to develop.

Stay tuned.




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)