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.


Wednesday, January 9, 2019

The quality of the jury pool and lynch-mobbing a presumed-innocent person of color as a legitimate way to grieve in Oneonta, New York

In my previous article about the criminal case People v Terrence Truitt, started in Oneonta, NY, Otsego County, I mentioned the history of racial profiling in that predominantly white area in criminal cases, and posted one attack on me by a potential juror from the area who called me an asshole simply for mentioning that the defendant charged with arson (in a fire where a former firefighter John Heller died after he saved his 4 young nephews and his fiancée) is presumed innocent.

That is part of standard jury instructions usually given to potential jurors by the court, and that is a fundamental constitutional right.

But no.  Not in Oneonta, New York.  Not in Otsego County.

In Otsego County white men and women come to comment on posts made in local newspapers by all-white police and all-white prosecution in order to "grieve" and "mourn" the victim, and their mode of mourning and grieving is - lynch-mobbing a person of color picked by the police for a crime, and, yes, presumed innocent at the time.

Anybody who mentions presumption of innocence is:

  • meddling;
  • harassing people;
  • deliberately hurting people - that is what I read in comment I was doing by mentioning Terrence Truitt's presumption of innocence
Go away, a@@hole.



You only have to pay taxes to support our local government, including racist police and prosecution, but you have no right to criticize them.

Many, many commentators tried to shoo me away from the thread where people were "grieving" by listing the ways they want the presumed-innocent colored man to die because he was already ruled guilty-by-news release.

Here are some of the comments - any criminal defense attorney worth his salt would have a galore reviewing these comments from potential jurors and likes and loves posted to those comments.

So, here is the perception of white people about the colored (and presumed-innocent) defendant Terrence Truitt charged with a crime of arson in a case where a former firefighter died - charged by local law enforcement that, by virtue of obvious conflict of interest (investigating circumstances of the death of "one of their own") should not have been allowed any place close to the investigation.

Here is my comment.


Here is the reaction to that comment of the potential jurors.








































So, all these nice white people 

  • want a person of color charged with a crime to die - because they are sure he is guilty, because the police said so in a press conference designed to inflame the jury pool; and
  • are viciously attacking anybody who so much as mentioned the very basic concept of presumption of innocence, from their own Constitution.


Here are people who considered it necessary, in response to my "inappropriate" mentioning Terrence Truitt's presumption of innocence, to attack me (and my husband) personally:







And, many people tried to tell me to stop commenting about presumption of innocence and go away from the thread, and even "back to Russia", for various reasons:









One person - a FB friend of a FB friend, approached stalking me on Facebook as a result of my comment about presumption of innocence, quite seriously, to the point of asking to join my group "Independence of Human Rights Defenders" - but then lashing out at me in comments on the Daily Star thread, after I mentioned Otsego County's history of racial profiling:


So, this person presumes the truth in anything the police say to the media before trial - which is the reason why the police conducted the press-conferences, to firmly embed the presumption of guilt in the minds of potential jurors.





Remember, this person, Marshall Kruse, believes that to burn a man of color accused of a crime and presumed innocent is too easy a death for him:


Because I interfere with how people grieve and mourn (and lynch-mob a presumed-innocent man of color):






Only two other commentators out of many, many commentators on that thread mentioned presumption of innocence not in a derogatory fashion:




The comments demonstrate the chances of the accused to get a fair trial in this case in this area - or, possibly, anywhere else, since all this publicity is readily available from any place on this planet.

This area appears to be hopelessly racist - specifically because they consider it a legitimate way to grieve the loss of a loved one to invent ways how to kill in the most horrible manner and inflicting the most torture upon a presumed-innocent man of color before seeing any evidence against him in the court of law, and before any jury verdict.

I will address the contents, and impropriety of those contents, of the police video press-conference and the right of the accused to an open fair trial, in the next articles.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment