EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY:

"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 cos
t.



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.



“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.

"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.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

How the organizers of the "Women's March" lured vulnerable women with real discrimination issues into participating in an anti-Trump protest by telling them the protest was not against Trump

Yesterday, 1 day after the inauguration of President Trump, hundreds of thousands of women protested in the streets.

What they protested about, was not clear.

The President did not do anything yet to warrant protests.

Not that it mattered to protesters - they already made or bought their pink pussyhats and were not to be stopped, issues or no issues.

Double-amputee U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth, a military veteran pilot who lost both legs in Iraq, claimed that she did not lose her body parts for somebody to destroy our Constitution.  Which part of the Constitution Donald Trump managed to destroy in his 24 hour in office, she did not mention.  She simply used her veteran and amputee status to gain, by false claims, political capital - same as another military veteran did before her, Ronald Castille, who:

  1. Got elected as a Philadelphia, PA, District Attorney using his status as a veteran who has lost his leg in the service of his country in the military;
  2. Obtained multiple death sentences, some of them through fraud, as later came out in Williams v Pennsylvania (a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case);
  3. Used those fraudulently obtained death sentences to get elected to the top court of the State of Pennsylvania, and then
  4. Blocked habeas corpus petitions to vacate those fraudulently obtained death penalty sentences, presiding over at least one of the as a judge - and, obviously, an investigation is warranted as to how many more similar cases happened, and how many people went to their deaths with the military veteran and amputee Judge Ronald Castille acting as both a (fraudster) prosecutor and a judge in their cases.
Now yet another military veteran and amputee is using her disability status and military service to give credibility to her as-yet false claims.

Donald Trump did not yet do anything to women, and the protests were planned before he even took office, so the protests  were not about anything he did, it was about "who he is" - which is a discrediting to women's and human rights movement.

I was following the media coverage very closely.

I saw both the so-called mainstream media, and the crowds:

  • attack the President's wife for being an immigrant, a non-native speaker of English, for marrying a rich man, for posing before her marriage in the nude (while not trying to similarly attack a federal judge for posing for Playboy during her law school  years), for having her teenage son allegedly not wanting to walk with his mother holding hands (a natural behavior for a boy his age), for not making enough speeches because she is allegedly dumb or not being able to speak English - you name it, every crass thing about the First Lady was out there;
  • attack the President for the size of his penis - that is a qualification for office that I was not aware of;
  • asking the Presidents to get out of their uteruses and underpants - while the President did not make any attempts on either so far;
  • harass the President by besieging his residence in New York City and even getting access to the building, the Trump Tower;
  • mock the physical qualities of the 70-year-old president, from the size of his penis, with slogans that I refuse to republish, to the color of his hair,

and insinuating that Donald Trump is bald;


And, I saw a lot of real and virtual pussy-hatters making comments in the media, viciously attacking the women who dared say that the protests are not in their name, and are not a real fight for women's rights.

Such dissenters were speedily dealt with by grandstanding sermons that the pussy-hatters are allegedly out there to fight for all women's rights - in fact, they said, "for your rights", and that we, those women who said that the protests are premature, silly, unnecessary and a waste of time and money, including taxpayer money - on the necessarily enhanced security for any contingency that such a large crowd can result in (people collapsing from health issues, an act of terrorism, a stampede, a riot, as it happened the day prior in the same Washington, D.C.) - do not understand what the issues are, should educate ourselves, and will thank the pink pussy-hatters in the future for their one-day stint in the streets.

Even in the God-forsaken neck of woods of Delaware County, New York, the land of rampant corruption where people are afraid to take the corruption head on because of the real possibility of retaliation, because critics of government corruption in Delaware County so far:


  1. had their occupational licenses revoked (at least 3 I know);
  2. were charged with fabricated crimes;
  3. their dogs were killed;
  4. their houses were burnt down, without an investigation;
  5. they were assaulted by police with police vehicles - with nobody wanting to investigate the assaults, and courts dismissing lawsuits about the assaults without legal grounds,
and where, as a result


  1. attorneys are afraid to speak up or make motions to recuse corrupt or biased judges,
  2. readers who write to my blog with tips with requests to have their names not mentioned for fear of retaliation (which requests I honor),
  3. the local press who ignore issues of corruption until it erupts into an FBI investigation, and then write only sparingly and only about people who are no longer in a position of power - in that Delaware County, NY,
that same "courageous" local press published pictures of pink pussy-hatters lining the Main street in front of the courthouse - no, not facing the courthouse where the corruption is taking place, but facing the street and the oncoming near-non-existing traffic (on a Saturday, in winter, in Delhi, NY) to "fight for women's rights".

Here it is, the "courageous" protest for women's right in Delhi, NY:



Right.

How about protests against Social Services (the building that the pink pussy-hatters are facing, across the road) ripping newborns from the breasts of their breast-feeding mothers, in order to


  1. get the federal grant money for adoption out of foster care; and
  2. to give jobs to friends, the foster care parents;
  3. give jobs to friends and relatives employed in DSS-friendly pet non-profits, and non-profits spawned by DSS officials; and
  4. to have friends and relatives of DSS officials adopt a baby who does not remember his or her parents yet.

I didn't think so.

Too sticky a topic, too scary to risk retaliation from the local authorities.

Protesting the size of the President's penis on his 1st day in office is safer.

I posted an answer to one such sermonizing pussy-hatter who claimed women, including myself, who did not join the protests in the streets, must be thankful to those he did, and am re-publishing it here.

"No, you are not fighting for my rights, nor for the real issues of discrimination against women.

Instead, I have been fighting for your rights, without any support, for many years, in and out of court, to the point of my law license suspended for fighting abusive treatment of women in court and for publicly blogging about it, for which the government tried to jail me, and I had to leave the state of New York to escape harrassment and threats. 

Women I write about have names, I am writing about them, calling things as they are, as the mainstream media is afraid to do. 

As to my own case, legal relief was denied to me all the way to the U.S.Supreme Court, under Obama administration, so the US Supreme Court, as of January 13, 2017, did not consider stripping, without a hearing, a female attorney for making a motion to recuse an abusive and corrupt male judge to secure for her indigent female client her constitutional right for impartial judicial review a big deal warranting the high Court's time.

3 female judges, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg




participated in that decision, which hushed up discrimination against women in court.

I saw Ginsburg's face later carried as a banner for female rights carried by you pink-hatters.

Do you want to protest that there are no effective mechanisms to enforce women's rights in court, as exist in the Eurooean Union countries, or in countries who, unlike the U.S., permitted their citizens to sue their counties for human rights violations in the United Nation's court of human rights?

Did you join Zena Denise Crenshaw in her fight to provide this access to justice for all Americans, women included? Do you know that claims of constitutional violations usually die at the lowest court level, and, through court-invented tricks, all further appeals and civil rights actions are made futile?

Rights are as strong as their enforcement. 

I describe the mechanisms of how your enforcement rights are taken away by courts. 

While you are attacking the President after 1 day in office, the main culprit is not the executive branch, it is the judicial branch of the government, the one you are not protesting. 

Educate yourself first, who is who and what is what in your own women's rights movement before telling other women you are fighting for us by wearing a pink hat for 1 day in the streets. 

I don't see any demonstrations on the topic of discrimination and abuse of women in the legal profession and the courts, which I am publicly covering in my blog for 3 years. 

Look up "Tatiana Neroni blog" on Google and look up the number of views. Over 1,200,000, on hard-core topics of legal theory and practice of constitutional law, from around the world, so, I guess, there is a need for coverage of such topics, which the mainstream media does not satisfy. 

I am writing about the government handcuffing a female attorney for making a constitutional argument, or about another female attorney being stripped of her glasses, shoes, papers, pens, steapped into a wheelchair, brought into the courtroom this way and ordered by a male judge to handle her client's hearing, at the threat of losing the case for her female client, where the male judges who ordered that escaped any accountability. 

I am writing about potty mouth male judges and about male judges who are sexual predators and who escape any accountability for decades, continuing to prey on women. 

I am writing about a house of a female critic of corruption among the local police, social services, prosecutor's office and a judge, Barbara O'Sullivan, burnt to the ground, two dogs are killed, she and her daughter narrowly escaped death, and that is after a police officer, relative of a DA investigator tried to intentionally run her over with a police vehicle for trying to videotape his misconduct, and nobody is investigating or prosecuting the multiple attempts to kill them. 

Do you want to demonstrate about that?

Because I don't see any coverage of these scary topics and no protests in the streets. 

I guess, too scary a topic to show solidarity, can lead to too judicial retaliation on all levels, and that is too adverse of a consequence that women, women's organizations and the mainstream media won't touch it. 

So, please, don't you dare tell me you are fighting for my rights, or for other women's rights by donning a pink hat and putting out crass slogans about the size of the President's penis. 

I did not see abuse and discrimination of women in courts and denial to them of access to justice mentioned even once in those slogans of protestors shown in the media coverage by sources favorable to the protests, only about uteruses, pussies, penises and how perfect women are. 

To me, such a "protest" is a disgrace and a discreditation of women's equal rights movement, especially protesting before the President even did anything wrong. 

So, no, I won't thank you, now or later, and I don't need your thanks. 

After you put your pink hat away after your 1-day protest, I will continue to fight discrimination against women, among other civil rights issues, through my blog, educating people about real issues."

It was a party time for you, pussy-hatters.

It was a "mission" to make a million pink hats - a mission announced since Thanksgiving - and once those hats were made, and sold, at a profit for the makers, they "had" to be used, for the political gain of the makers of the march, and that decision was made before President Trump took office or did anything in that office.

I don't know whether some protestors were paid or not, as some comments on the social media claimed.

But, I did see that many people perceived the "march" as "fun time",



protesting "women's issues" before the new President even had a chance to do anything, a "preventive" protest.

While allowing the real issues of discrimination against women - too sticky to mention out in the open - remain un-answered, and allowing the real culprits of discrimination against women remain unaccountable.

So, now you can put away your pink hats (ugly creations, by the way - made in the most fast and primitive way, I can tell you as an expert knitter since childhood) - your job has been done.

Party is over.

But, all you did is associating women's movement with nuts who address contrived issues before they emerged and engaging in vulgar conduct which has nothing to do with political protest.

And that set back women's movement years if not decades.

So, no, I will not thank you, pink pussy-hatters. 


When Zena Crenshaw Logal, a female attorney disciplined for raising constitutional issues in court, reposted my statement, she's got the following comments:





And that is what I find to be the most wrong with this march - capitalizing on the REAL suffering of real women, and brainwashing them into believing that, somehow, Trump is to blame in his 1st day in office for what happened to this woman and her son during President Obama's rule.

I do not know why Sharon Duttle spent time in solitary confinement, and I do not know in which prison she went, in order to write about the prison conditions she reports.

Sharon Duttle actually answered my questions as to why she protested against Trump while all the atrocities happened to her under Obama - she did NOT protest against Trump, she was simply used by the march's organizers as a number for that protest.

Here is our discussion:









 


So, Sharon Duttle, a real woman with real discrimination issues, was lured into this march against the new President Donald Trump by assurances that the march is not a march of protest against the President Trump, but is a general march of protest on women's issues (coincidentally, scheduled one day after inauguration of Donald Trump, even though all the bad things happened to Sharon Duttle before Donald Trump came to office).

 When Sharon Duttle confronted me as to where I got the idea that the protest was against Donald Trump - which was fairly obvious, with the protestors besieging and getting access to the Trump Tower, making speeches against Trump and carrying slogans and cartoons against Trump - I, asked her where she got her idea that the protest was NOT against Trump, but simply a general protest of "women's causes".

First, Sharon Duttle confirmed to me that the organizers told her that the protest was not against Trump:



Second, Sharon Duttle provided to me links to the guidelines for the march that, yes, is positioned only as a "women's march" and says nothing about Trump - even though its timing, and its slogans, and its speeches, and the reports about numbers were specifically as protests against Trump.





Here are the links about the Women's March that were used to lure Sharon Duttle, and other women, into an anti-Trump protest under the guise of a general-mission march for women's rights - and, if the organizers pull these materials off line, I have them saved and will republish them:

1) the "Frequently Asked Questions", and
2) what Sharon Duttle explained was given to her as a "mission" of the march.






For Sharon Duttle and her son, and, very possible, for many other women, marching was an outlet of emotions, a sharing of grief that the organizers of this march unscrupulously capitalized on - for their own political reasons.




So, my question to Sharon Duttle:



as to why she did not protest before the Obama administration, the President under whom she and her son actually suffered those atrocities that she describes, was answered very easily - Sharon Duttle, as, I am sure, many other yesterday's protesters, were duped into believing that

they are not participating in an anti-Trump protest, while the protest was meant, held and advertised in the media as an anti-Trump protest around the world (like in the interlinked Reuters article "In challenge to Trump, women protesters swarm streets across the U.S.),

but that what they are participating in is a general-mission women's march for human rights, women's rights and "betterment" of women.

Here are other comments regarding the march:





Shame on you, the people who capitalized on real women's real miseries for getting political capital, while having no intention whatsoever to really fight for their rights - in the right places, by the right means, at the right time.


No comments:

Post a Comment