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, January 21, 2019

Guilty of being Russian in America (as charged). And - #NoProsecutorsFightingWrongfulConvictionsInPublicOffice

I wrote on this blog about the anti-Russian hysteria in the United States triggered by some Trump opponents.

As a result of that hysteria, it is now scary and inappropriate, and suspicious, to even be an ethnic Russian and post comments on issues of public concerns - remember the time when Japanese Americans were locked up, and the U.S. Supreme Court considered that constitutional?

I have a feeling that the same will be done with any person of Russian ethnicity, citizen (like me) or not.

Here is the exchange of today - regarding the presidential run of Kamala Harris.

First of all, see what the New York Times (an anti-Trump media source said about Kamala Harris just 4 days ago):



Yet, see what happens when a person with a Russian first name and an admission in her social media account that she received two of her three advanced university degrees from Russian universities



 - and who posts in both English and her native Russian.





I asked this question today, in response to this comment, having in mind the publication in the New York Times:



Here is a response that I have got almost immediately:


I also visited the profile of the commentator - as she did mine - and discovered this pearl of wisdom:



"In November of 2020 I will vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever he or she is".

Including the candidate who has - let us get it once again from NYT:

  • "fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included
    • evidence tampering,
    • false testimony, and
    • the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors";
  • personally withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of "intentionally sabotaging" her work and stealing drugs from the lab;
  • systemic violations of the defendants' constitutional rights






All of that does not matter - if the candidate is a Democrat.

And, such candidates will attack anybody - especially a Russian, imagine the gall for a Russian (American citizen and a legal expert on issues of criminal and constitutional law and access to justice) to publicly utter an opinion on the matter of public concern.

A Russian criticizing a Democrat (based on documentary evidence of that Democrat's misconduct)!

A new crime.

Will Linda Halford Elzinga be very much surprised if A LOT of people, disgusted not only by the staggering disqualifications to any public office in Democratic candidates for presidency such as this one and by the Democratic crowd's aggressive and selective bigotry (Latino is presumed good, Russian is presumed bad) - will vote against candidates such as Kamala Harris in 2020?






No comments:

Post a Comment