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, February 16, 2017

It is time for the federal government to revoke tax-exempt status of churches giving sanctuaries to illegal aliens, and to prosecute such church officials for violation of federal laws

The concept of using churches as sanctuaries from secular laws is ancient.

 Watch how it works - in a screenplay of Victor Hugo's "Notre Dame de Paris".

 A prisoner condemned to death by secular authorities, when brought to the place of execution, runs into the church and is thus absolved of the reach of secular laws requiring her execution for as long as she stays within the church.

 Yet, in the U.S. the church is separated from the state, and the concept of church as a sanctuary is not legal.

 Otherwise, imagine how many people will live in churches to escape criminal prosecution.

As I wrote on this blog, harboring illegal aliens is a federal felony.

And, in 2015, for example, the Obama administration was engaged in immigration raids to deport illegal aliens from Central America - which "sanctuary churches" defied -



but the Obama administration did not dare to prosecute the churches involved in violation of federal criminal laws.

 ACLU was nowhere near those Obama raids, it was not newsworthy and not raining donations at that time like it does now.

 ACLU did not put out donation solicitations aimed at President Obama at that time, like it does now aimed at Trump, saying:

Nope.

Didn't do that.

 In November of 2016, after President Trump was elected, but while President Obama remained in office, some churches and synagogues started offering sanctuaries to illegal aliens.



Those were federal crimes, but the Obama administration chose not to enforce federal criminal and immigration laws, leaving the job to be done for the successor, and instead spending the last days in office by throwing parties and "showing class" to the throng of its admirers.

 Nor did Obama administration order raids of the churches and synagogues whose officials committed the federal crimes of harboring illegal aliens.

 Nor did the Obama administration start forfeiture proceedings against church properties for using the property acquired with the help of tax exemptions, and thus with the help of tax money, for committing federal crimes.

 Nor did the Obama administration direct the IRS to revoke the church's tax-exempt status since 400 churches, while continuing to claim tax exemption from the federal government, were openly defying federal laws, and were taking a political stand against the President Obama, defying President Obama's authority to enforce immigration laws.

 President Obama refused to do his job in the last months in office, leaving the unpleasant, but necessary job to enforce federal criminal and immigration laws to his successor.

 Now, President Obama disappeared for a "long-deserved vacation" sponsored by a "billionaire friend", and is posting pictures from that vacation of such questionable character that even Obama's ardent supporter and Trump's ardent opponent John Oliver finally criticized Obama for "fiddling while Rome is on fire" for posting pictures of his "kitesurfing adventures with billionaire friend Richard Branson".

 A good choice of friends, by the way, Mr. former President.  I wouldn't think you would go kitesurfing with an ordinary citizen, the Democrat and classy guy that you are.  A billionaire is more your kind of friend.

 But, now that President Trump is saddled with doing the job that President Obama refused to do - I, as an American citizen and taxpayer, have a question:
  • if churches are allowed to break the law in:
    • harboring illegal immigrants;
    • obtaining tax exempt status from IRS and then engaging in political activities, without revocation of that tax-exempt status
then all of us mere mortals, are also allowed to disregard the law?

Any law?

We have equal rights here in our free country, don't we?

So, if people who violate statutory laws, created by American people's elected representatives, are treated as the good guys, and the organizations that harbor such people - and, in their turn, violate the law - are also treated as part of the "movement", instead of criminal enterprises - if breaking the law is suddenly in vogue, is breaking the law allowed only to illegal immigrants?

Why?

Why not to us all?  That would be only fair, isn't it right?

We will have our own home-made good little (or not so little) chaos.

And, by the way, I see more information about such "sanctuary churches" offered by NYCLU and ACLU on social media, as well as openly praising "policies" of state officials irresponsibly encouraging violation of federal law.

 And that is why continuously soliciting from the public tax-free donations, the tax free status given to ACLU by that very person who they are suing (and, by the way, when a President is sued in his official capacity, as ACLU is doing, it is the American people who are being sued, and ACLU fails to disclose that detail), on a condition that ACLU does not engage in political activity.  Just visit ACLU.org - and see how aggressively those donations are solicited:   



So, donate $5, $10, $50, $250, donate more - but while you are donating, do not be so sure that your donation will be tax free, if ACLU's tax exempt status is revoked for engaging in political speech and activities.

And yanking ACLU's and NYCLU's tax-exempt status will only be fair under the circumstances.

As lawyers, you want your freedom of speech on political matters?

 Great.  Have your freedom of speech.

 Just pay your taxes, like every one of us, while you engage in that free speech.  That is the federal law on tax-exempt status that ACLU and NYCLU, as law firms, must know very well.

 And have your donors pay their taxes on the money they donate - I will then see how many people would like to donate to ACLU.

 So, while federal authorities are engaged in immigration enforcement, they need to apply federal law evenly to everybody who is violating it, and that should include:
  • charging church and synagogue officials and city officials giving "sanctuaries" (harboring illegal aliens) with federal felonies;
  • revoking their tax exempt status;
  • bringing forfeiture proceedings against properties used to harbor or transport illegal aliens.

And, while doing all of the above, the federal government, acting on behalf of American citizens and at their expense, should not be swayed by the fact that those are churches, synagogues, ACLU and NYCLU - the only relevant fact is whether these entities and people do or do not violate the law.  If they do, they must be held accountable, to the fullest extent of the law.


I do not see why this illegal alien considers that the church is somehow free of the reach of federal law.  Since where she is, is well known and announced, nothing prevents federal authorities from storming that church, arresting and deporting the illegal alien, and arresting the church officials and charging them with a felony of knowingly harboring the illegal alien.


Because, in our nation that supposedly lives under the rule of law, nobody is above the law, and if the law is broken, there should be accountability for it.

There is a deportation order for Jeanette Vizguerra.  Using the church as "sanctuary" is still defying that order and being in contempt of court, which is a crime of its own.

Yet, the illegal alien Jeanette Vizguerra is giving conferences claiming that she "will not allow the system to break her".  Nobody is breaking her.  She has broken the law, lived in the country since 1997 illegally, while people who want to lawfully immigrate into the U.S. were patiently waiting their turn.

Harboring illegal alien is a federal felony.  The Denver church that is harboring Jeanette Vizguerra are committing federal felonies, and should be prosecuted for their crimes in accordance with the law.

If immigration laws are not enforced, legal immigration is not encouraged, instead, illegal immigration is encouraged.

Will the federal government do its duty and enforce the law against those who break it and sabotage the actions of immigration enforcement?

It had better do that.



 
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)