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.
Friday, June 20, 2014
Nothing like dismissing a lawsuit against yourself - who else has such power? Or rather who can abuse their power in such an extraordinary way?
(1) to verify membership of its judges who participated in any decisions which personally affected me, in a secret-membership organization the American Inns of Court,
(2) to verify what perks its judges received from attorneys in that secret-membership organization;
(3) who are the secret attorney members who sponsor judges in that secret-membership organization and
(4) to verify why the Northern District of New York conducted an ex parte investigation against me while handling my cases.
By the way, point (4) that I described earlier is the most often read post in this blog, the statistics about the readership is automatic, I don't participate in these calculations.
It must be frivolous if thousands of people read my blog.
I recently amended the complaint in the action in view of the statement of New York State Attorney General that my disciplinary case (filed in January of 2013) is related to my husband's post-disbarment so-far successful federal case Neroni v. Zayas (concluded in July of 2011).
My question posed by the lawsuit - who wined and dined my judges - is answered by Judge Suddaby, of Northern District of New York - I do not have a right to even ask that question, and it is frivolous for me to do so.
Judge Suddaby dismissed my federal lawsuit (after I have spent a month and over $2,000.00 on service of waivers alone) and before any defendants appeared in the action.
But think about it - isn't it awesome for a court to dismiss a lawsuit against itself and its own judges, sued in their individual capacities, for misconduct outside of any court proceedings? Before defendants even appeared in the action? While slapping against me the label of frivolousness?
Judges, you can wine and dine at attorneys' expense and enjoy your secret meetings with influential attorneys with your peace of mind undisturbed. You can accept perks from those attorneys undisturbed. The troublemaker's lawsuit was dismissed.
The mistakes judges sued for misconduct make become more and more bizarre...
But messages Judge Suddaby has sent by his sua sponte dismissal of the action against his own court and its judges, in response to my letter request to transfer the case to a court which will not be disqualified to hear the case, and before appearance of defendants are loud and clear:
(1) it is at presently a taboo in the American society to question a judge's integrity and to try to verify the judge's out-of-court potential conflicts of interest, even if evidence clearly points at potential violations of constitutional rights of litigants by such out-of court conduct;
(2) that judges will fight tooth and claw to protect their perks and privileges, legal or illegal; and
(3) that in protection of their perks and privileges, legal or illegal, judges will disregard every law in the book, including the U.S. Constitution they were sworn to protect - in order to protect their black-robed brethren.
P.S. I will appeal, of course.