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.

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

King Baker and his disgusting graces

 

A letter the NYS 6th Judicial District's "supervising judge" Christopher Baker sent to two disabled parents of an honorably serving U.S. soldier - in retaliation for my three recent blogs about him:

here, 

here, and 

here, 

for anti-discrimination lawsuit against him

here, and

here

 - in one of them, Judge Baker not-so-smartly-or-competently defaulted (and obviously blames it on me), and for a lawful a request for a disability accommodation:



Note that the judge represents that providing disability accommodations REQUIRED by mandatory federal law - Americans With Disabilities Act: specifically, allowing two invalids to appear in court remotely rather than be made to travel 1,700 miles roundtrip from South Carolina to New York for mundane motion hearings - as a big favor that he gave us as an exception (notably, he gave it to us only after I filed with the court the photograph of pools of blood from my husband's ruptured veins).

Notably, the judge pretended not to know of any other disability that we had - even though such disabilities were documented and filed with the court since 2023: he simply did not want to read.

And, obviously, the judge does not know that if he does not have enough information - regulations require him to SEEK it, not to deny accommodation outright - and in such a snotty way he did.

OK - we filed an administrative appeal for denial of disability accommodations.

Here it is - maybe, it will help somebody else, too.









I will publish any responses to this appeal.  I am sure, Judge Baker - and other NYS judges - discriminated not only against us as disabled litigants, since NYS Court Administration disclosed to me in response to a FOIL request that NONE of NYS judges are trained in handling disability accommodation requests.

That shows, big time, in today's snappy disrespectful letter of "supervising judge" Baker - the one who got elected by telling electorate how he "served" the disabled 



The hypocrites.

Polished.  Sleazy.  Incompetent.  Uppity.  Disgusting.









Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)