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, June 2, 2014
I wonder if a married woman in the state of New York has a separate identity from her husband. It appears that according to Delaware County Supreme Court judge Carl F. Becker, NYS Attorney General and the 2nd Circuit Appellate Court, she doesn't. No matter which Neroni is punished - I do not care, revisited
On May 25, 2014 I have published a blog post indicating that for the Acting Delaware County Supreme Court Justice Carl F. Becker it does not matter which of the Neronis to punish, myself or my husband, and that we were punished by this judge for each other's alleged acts or omissions.
On May 27th and 29th, 2014 several more public officials made assertions indicating that for them, I do not have a separate identity or separate rights from my husband and that whatever my husband does must be visited upon me.
On May 27, 2014, in a federal civil rights action, Neroni v. Zayas where only my husband is the Plaintiff and where I only represent my husband as a civil rights attorney, the New York State Attorney General and the Delaware County Attorney concurred that my own disciplinary case removed to the federal court and made public only after I filed the Neroni v. Zayas action is "related" to my husband's civil rights action against the Professional Conduct Committee and the Appellate Division Third Judicial Department.
To me, it means an admission that I am being prosecuted in the disciplinary case because I sued the Committee and the court on behalf of my husband, and was so far successful in the lawsuit.
On May 29, 2014 in the DEC case I wrote about on May 25, 2014, I requested an adjournment based on the filing of a new federal civil rights lawsuit.
The New York State Attorney General, his assistant Andrew B. Ayers, Esq., opposed the request while claiming that "[o]ver the course of five years of litigation, the Neronis have avoided complying with the Department's order requiring them to restore the protected trout stream on their property. They should not be permitted any further delay".
Andrew B. Ayers, thus, indicated that he considers that the DEC order was directed at my husband as well as at me, same as Judge Becker did in his sanctions imposed upon me in an unrelated action (Shields v. Carbone) where Judge Becker also engaged in an ex parte communication with Delaware County Attorney and concealed his close friendship with the Plaintiff Beverly Shields.
Yet, the DEC Commissioner's order that Mr. Ayers is talking about had nothing to do with me, and over the "5 years of litigation" Mr. Ayers were supposed to be able to read and know his record, instead of publishing books and advertise his clerkship with the now U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayorm, while claiming to the court that it is the "evil Neronis" who allegedly prevented Mr. Ayers from meeting his deadlines in litigation and not his own publication schedule which was supposed to be done in his free time, if any.
It remains to be explored whether Mr. Ayers prepared, published and marketed his book on taxpayer-paid time while neglecting his cases, and while being paid by taxpayers (including by my taxes).
I doubt though that anybody at any time will explore that issue because - guess what - NYS Attorney General's office/ Andrew Ayers represents the Commmittee for Professional Conduct and Andrew Ayers represents the Appellate Court which is in charge of attorney licensing, so who in their right mind will prosecute and discipline their own attorney? I did turn Andrew B. Ayers into the Committee, for lack of other tribunal, not tainted by conflict, they predictably tossed the complaint without investigation and without seeking appointment of a special investigator or prosecutor, in view of the fact that I asked to investigate and prosecute their own counsel. The rule of law in its bloom and glory in the state of New York...
On the same date as Andrew B. Ayers stated to the court that I did not comply with the DEC order that had nothing to do with me, May 29, 2014, the 2nd Circuit Appellate Court ruled that the appeal in a case Neroni v. Becker, where the Appellant was only my husband and where the appeal was prosecuted by my husband on his own behalf (meaning that I had nothing to do with the appeal, either as an attorney or party), was about "the Neronis", plural, indicating that my ghost is present in and my rights are affected by whatever my husband is doing whether I am part of it or not.
It appears that for the collective mind of multiple public official in New York executive and judiciary branch and even in the federal appellate courts, I have no separate identity from my husband, any orders directed only at my husband are affecting me, too, and I have no separate rights or separate voice from my husband.
When I immigrated to the United States in 1999 I did not know that this country held such caveman views of women's rights.
Due process of law, anyone?
Rights of a separate identity for married women in the U.S., anyone?
Oh, and I forgot that in this country the precedent is still on the books of the U.S. Supreme Court, not overruled, where the U.S. Surpeme Court, in its infinite wisdom, has ruled that married women may not engage in the practice of law, because nothing such a woman does can be binding without consent of her husband, and that denial of a law license to a woman because she is married is not unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court elaborated in Bradwell v Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) that the U.S. Supreme Court must adhere to the common law of England, that the statute based on which Mrs. Bradwell was denied a law license despite her qualifications was passed at the time common law of England was adopted in the United States, that in England female attorneys were unknown, and, therefore, there should not be any reason to believe that they should be known in the U.S.
Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court, when asked a question whether admitting women to the bar is constitutional or not, relied in answering the question not upon the U.S. Constitution, but upon the common law of England from which the U.S. declared independence specifically because of its lawlessness and tyranny.
This precedent is still on the books, was not overruled and, as federal courts claim about non-overruled U.S. Supreme Court decisions, constitutes mandatory precedent for the entire country and mandatory interpretation of women's rights in America.
My rights included.
And it appears to me that the aforementioned public officials were following the spirit if not letter of this decision in lumping me together with my husband and denying me separate identity and separate rights.
The rule of law, anyone?