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, April 2, 2017

Pennsylvania disbars yet another attorney, #JosephRReisinger, for criticizing judicial corruption and for filing criminal complaints against judges - in the Kids for Cash Luzerne County

Pennsylvania has quite a reputation - while it is, on the one hand, a state in-famous for its ongoing corruption and misconduct scandals of its judiciary and prosecutors, it is also equally in-famous for suspending, disbarring and denying reinstatement to attorneys criticizing judicial corruption in the state.

The latest victim of that trend is the 72-year-old attorney Joseph R. Reisinger who was not only disbarred for "excessive court filings" challenging court corruption (of course, anything challenging judicial corruption is "excessive" - from the point of view of challenged corrupt courts), but also made to pay costs of investigation and prosecution against him.

The order of disbarment - a disbarment "by default" - is short and does not provide any explanations for this drastic measure.

Here is the same decision, together with the "Report and Recommendations" upon which it relies.

Attorney Reisinger was not only a licensed attorney, but also holds a masters degree in taxation, and he has filed a civil rights action against the Luzerne County - the very County where Judge Marc Ciavarella happily kept sending kids to juvie prison in exchange for kickbacks, for years, with nobody in the County supposedly knowing that what the judge was doing was illegal.

Attorney Reisinger's fight with Luzerne County over forced sale of his 26 properties appears to have been a long one.

But, attorney Reisinger was not disbarred for suing the county, and, as it appears, not even for "making excessive filings with the court".

He was disbarred for the ultimate no-no, the so-called "career suicide" for any attorney - for suing judges and claiming judicial corruption in those lawsuits.

Here are some portions of the "Report and Recommendation" for disbarment of attorney Reisinger showing just that.














So, attorney Reisinger alleged, in lawsuits, in public pleadings, corruption of not just one judge (a big no-no), but of several judges acting in conspiracy, an even bigger no-no.

Judges whose alleged misconduct attorney Reisinger challenged in his lawsuits are:


  1. the double-dipping #JudgeCharlesBrown - who was asked to recuse in a court case, but refused, and who attorney Reisinger claimed was unfit to sit in any court in the State of Pennsylvania judging by the quality of his performance;
  2. #JudgeKennethBrown;
  3. #AttorneyMichaelShucosky (Luzerne County Court administrator);
  4. #JudgeMichaelTVough;
  5. #AttorneyDanielPillets, law clerk to #judgeFredPieratoni;
  6. #JudgeLesaSGelb;
  7. #JudgeJohnBLeete.

Moreover, attorney Reisinger committed even more no-no's by suing a group of people, including his own disciplinary committee, for a conspiracy for fabricating disbarment charges against him:


And, of course, people who attorney Reisinger sued, of course, remained completely impartial throughout the investigation and impartially recommended his disbarment, which the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania (the one that permitted judge Michael Eakin, before his retirement, and during pendency of the then-AG Kathleen Kane's investigation involving his misconduct personally, to be part of the panel suspending AG Kathleen Kane's law license) then no less impartially accepted and disbarred attorney Reisinger "by default".

Considering that the U.S. Supreme Court has declared attorney disciplinary proceedings quasi-criminal in nature, there can be no adjudication in attorney discipline "by default", but we are talking law, and here there was a necessity to quickly punish the arrogant heretic attorney who dared to engage in seditious libel against the King's Court, because that's exactly how these proceedings look like.

Attorney Reisinger even filed complaints to investigate the judges' allegedly criminal conduct with the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office Kathleen Kane in 2015.

It is interesting to know whether AG Kathleen Kane added attorney Reisinger's complaint to her investigation - because AG Kathleen Kane was herself suspended from the practice of law during the pendency of her investigation of the Porngate scandal where justices of the "investigating" and disciplining Pennsylvania Supreme Court were targets of investigation.

The Luzerne County Court administrator testified at the hearing against attorney Reisinger in the disciplinary proceedings and alleged that attorney Reisinger was doing something improper simply by filing civil rights actions against "judges, attorneys, counties and so forth":


So, in the court administrator's view, exercising constitutional rights enforceable through an act of Congress (Civil Rights Act) by an attorney is evidence of attorney misconduct.

It was held against attorney Reisinger that, predictably, expecting corrupt courts to resolve issues of judicial corruption against themselves proved futile:


The Court administrator then testified that judges are afraid to take attorney Reisinger's cases - possibly, because attorney Reisinger did not have "deference" to evidence of judicial incompetence, bias and corruption and called it as it is, and judges did not like exposure:


The court administrator (and defendant in lawsuits filed against him by attorney Reisinger, so he was a witness with a huge conflict of interest) also "credibly" (of course) testified that criminal complaints by attorney Reisinger were delivered on the day of hearings for judges, and that attorney Reisinger would then claim that judges are biased and disqualified from presiding over his hearings because of their criminal behavior.




And, of course, the big no-no was that attorney Reisinger has contacted the FBI - the feds who already had to judges out of Luzerne County convicted and sentenced to several decades in federal prison, after disciplinary authorities turned a blind eye on actions of those same judges, so the feds brought them away in shackles.

Given that history, it was reasonable for attorney Reisinger to expect that only federal criminal authorities could help him resolving issues that he saw as judicial criminal acts of corruption and conspiracy for corruption.


Of course, testimony of judges was regarded, by fellow judges and by licensed attorneys whose livelihood was in the hand of those judges, to be credible - and, of course, no jury trial is envisioned for attorney disciplinary proceedings in Pennsylvania, why, a jury may choose to acquit, and those targeted for discipline must hang, it is usually pre-decided before such disciplinary proceedings are even brought.

So, attorney Reisinger was hung for violation of this in-famous rule:




As I have stated in my blog article just two days ago,
  • there is no such thing as false statements about competence (qualifications) or integrity of a judge, that
  • competence or integrity are subjective, non-quantifiable, non-objectively-measurable, non-falsifiable opinions and not statements of fact, because
  • binding U.S. Supreme Court precedents declared that there is no such thing as a false opinion,
  • because attorney speech is protected as well as anybody else's, and attorney license may not be revoked as punishment for contents of attorney speech - as three (3) precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited withholding or taking away state benefits as punishment for exercising federal free speech rights;
  • because there is a long string of U.S. Supreme Court cases that content-based regulation (criticism of judges) is subject to strict scrutiny, because engaging in lawful conduct (complaining about criminal acts to criminal authorities) may not be punished in any way other than for filing false criminal complaint - and that punishment must be meted out by a court of law after a jury trial.

The U.S. Supreme Court clearly stated, in several precedents, most recently on March 29, 2017, that content-based regulations of any speech, even of commercial speech, are unconstitutional.  Criticizing judges is political speech, entitled to the highest degree of protection under the 1st Amendment.

In June of 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reed v Town of Gilbert that content-based regulation of speech is subject to strict scrutiny.

No such scrutiny was applied to speech of attorney Reisinger in the "Report and Recommendations".

On August 15, 2016 the disciplinary Board of the State of Pennsylvania has filed the following "recommendations":













So, since judges say they didn't do it - in a hearing where 72-year-old attorney Reisinger was not even present because he was incapacitated by the onslaught of disciplinary proceedings against him, following what he says happened to his properties and what happened to him in court when judges "did not conspire" (of course) to fix his cases, but the disciplinary authorities obviously refused to give him adjournments, which is required under the Americans with Disabilities Act under the circumstances - and since attorney Reisinger had a "penchant" of filing criminal complaints against judges, and since filing lawsuits and complaints against judges is an equivalent of frivolous conduct (unless the feds grab and lock up those judges for corruption in that same Luzerne County, as it happened before) - attorney Reisinger is, of course, to blame.

That's what the disciplinary board said, without any application of strict scrutiny in this clear content-based speech regulation case (and thus disregarding binding precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court).

So, the U.S. Supreme Court said in June of 2015 - no content-based regulation of speech without strict scrutiny.

The disciplinary board asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in August of 2016 - disbar attorney Reisinger for his criticism and criminal complaints against judges (for contents of his speech) without any strict scrutiny, and without even giving him an opportunity to recover so that he would be able to fully participate in hearings seeking to take his livelihood.

On March 22, 2017 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regulated speech based on its content by denying reinstatement to civil rights attorney Andrew Ostrowski for, among other things, engaging in "advocacy" through his organization called "Pennsylvania Civil Rights Network" and, implicitly, for running for Congress on the platform of judicial reform.

The U.S. Supreme Court said again on March 29, 2017 - content-based regulation of speech violates the 1st Amendment.

2 days later, on March 31, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court disbarred attorney Reisinger, without stating its reasoning, fully accepting reasoning in the "Report and Recommendation" of the disciplinary board - which clearly violated the 1st Amendment and a string of U.S. Supreme Court precedents on content-based regulation of speech.

And, this whole circuit of self-protection by judges is presented to the public as protection of the public.

From whom?

From knowledgeable and vocal critics of corrupt courts?

Is it the same court that ruled back in 1880, this:

“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).

I guess, democracy in Pennsylvania has regressed dramatically from 1880.




No comments:

Post a Comment