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, July 1, 2026

On importance of not going to court - on some days

The secretary's voice was not reassuring.

- Sir M, there is associate Timmy McJudgeson on the phone.  It does not seem good.  You need to hear it.

Sir M swore.  That son of a... no, I have no complaints, the father is good to us.  But what did he get into again?

At the same time his second phone line started to flash - incoming call from partner.  Incoming call from another partner.  Another... Another...

- What happened? - barked Sir M. at the secretary - because as much as he wanted to bark at McJudgeson, there are limits on barking...

- So what happened, son? - Sir M. could not go any sweeter.

- My l...  my l... my l...!

Sir M. lost it.  

- I am tired of your goddamn love stories! just go do some work for a change, you useless son of a... - he caught himself.

- MY LAW LICENSE!!!  HE TOOK MY LAW LICENSE!!!

That got Sir M.'s attention.

- Son, stop drinking that early in the morning! Told you many times! Your f... well - there is no excuse!

- LISTEN TO ME, PLEASE!  It is the Brut!  He took my law license!

The Brut... The Brut?  

- Are you talking about The Honorable AI Bruticus TM 1.0?  How did your motion go?

- Remember what he said a week ago at what they called "prepared press conference" when he started:  "I am fair and reasonable.  No more word limits.  Do your best".



 - I did!  I gave him a 2,000 page record and a 5213-page brief!  You know what he did?  He blinked.  He displayed "Thought 4s".

And then he displayed:





Sir M. looked at his phone: 56 missed calls from partners.

He did not start returning calls.

Instead he switched on TV.

"...an average of 42% of the workforce was lost in law firms on the first day The Hon. AI Bruticus was presiding".

Timmy Judgeson sobbed on the loudspeaker:  "my f... f... my f... called him as colleague to colleague.... he took his law license, too!"


Sir M. lost it.

"Fired!" - he roared.  

And made an important phone call - to his accountant.  

"Come look at our.... well, at my vaults, bro... Looks like we beat the average.  Looks like it is all mine now".











Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)