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.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
A judicial immunity precedent was created for yet another son-of-a-judge, which will now be applicable to all judges: judges are now immune from suits for trading judicial decisions for sex with litigants. And that is, presumably, for public good... Boy do we need a collective lobotomy!
Yet, I believe that the public, the voters for judges, must know that such a phenomenon exists and is wildly proliferant in the American court system.
The phenomenon is called "the new nobility - sons-of-judges". Of course, the term "sons-of-judges" is general and includes daughters, nieces, grandchildren and other relatives.
What I mean is that relatives, friends, clerks, personnel of judges - whoever is related to judges in any way, shape or form - are immune from real punishment. They are the modern-time nobility in the United States.
As I wrote in this blog earlier, judges in this country are untouchable by judicial discipline, are untouchable by attorney discipline, and invented for themselves absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench - acts in obvious violation of their constitutional oath of office.
This is a quote from the civil rights lawsuit against the former judge who was involved in the "Kids-for-Cash" scandal where the judge was sentencing juveniles to time in a juvenile facility because the judge received kickbacks from the owners of the facility. The judge was actually given immunity for this corrupt sentencing - and it was claimed by the court that granted immunity to be in the public interest and to be the law.
Think about it again - for the judge to commit an unconstitutional act on the bench, in violation of his oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution must be for some warped reason protected by common law immunity? Common law now allows judges to violate the U.S. Constitution by covering them with absolute immunity for corrupt acts? While there is no clause in the U.S. Constitution allowing anybody to violate it or absolving anybody from abiding by it?
You know that the strength of any law is in its enforcement.
If the U.S. Constitution cannot be enforced against judges, the most powerful branch of the American government as far as rights of individuals are concerned - constitutional rights of individuals in the U.S. are dead.
Here is the quote of how the federal district court in Pennsylvania wiggles out of the sticky issue of judicial corruption:
“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.
Absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts is a relatively recent invention of the courts: it was only introduced in American jurisprudence in 1978, through a dictum in Stump v. Sparkman, a case dealing with an ex parte order to secretly sterilize a young girl without serving her with a petition for sterilization, allowing her right to counsel or opportunity to be heard and misleading her that the surgery she is undergoing is for appendicitis.
So, it is only for 36 years that America is living in the dark ages while claiming to the world that it is a beacon of democracy.
A judge may not be sued for selling sentences of juveniles for a kickback - according to Pennsylvania District Court.
Now, according to the Federal Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit a judge may not be sued for trading sex for judicial decisions in a child support/contempt case, also involving jail time. And - coincidentally - the 6th Circuit made such an interesting decision in favor of the son of the first African American judge appointed (surprise!) to the 6th Circuit.
Yes, the judge-father is deceased by now. But there is still an appearance of impropriety for the 6th Circuit to handle the case - and to render a decision such as this. And I fully support the attorney for the plaintiff who is planning to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to loosen (abolish?) this doctrine covering up and protecting self-interest of judges.
In Stump v. Sparkman there was no indication that the judge was bribed or had any personal interest in the case, therefore, the decision in that case covering with judicial immunity malicious and corrupt acts does not have the force of law, constituting the so-called dictum (which the judiciary also is using very selectively - based on the status of who should be protected or punished when a dictum is involved).
In H.T., et al. V. Ciavarelly, Jr. (selling sentencing of juveniles for kickbacks) the judge had a personal financial interest in the outcome of litigation, which absolutely disqualified him from presiding over the case.
In New York, for example, Judiciary Law Section 14 provides a jurisdictional bar for a judge to preside over a case where he or she has a personal interest in the outcome of the case (not that the courts are following that statute, but it is at least on the books).
Of course, it is a due process violation for a judge to preside over a case where the judge has personal interest in the outcome.
If the judge is disqualified from presiding over a case, simple logic prompts that he cannot be immune from suit in a case where he had no authority to preside. Yet, judges continuously rule in favor of immunity for their colleagues.
Let me ask you a question.
Has corruption among the judiciary become so wide-spread by 1978 and into nowadays that the judiciary feels that it must protect itself from such claims by all means?
Wade McCree, the son-of-a-judge, is also an arrogant moron. He has triggered his own investigation by complaining against his lover, a woman who had hundreds of incriminating texts and e-mails from him and who claimed she was carrying his child - he complained about her for allegedly stalking him. He also did that, reportedly, when he was busted by his wife.
The aggrieved lover went to the media - predictably so.
Wade McCree previously mailed his shirtless photo to a married female bailiff. What did he get for that? A censure. Meaning - he was not taken off the bench for engaging in sexual misconduct with a court employee.
"McCreep" did not learn his lesson.
He engaged in sex with the complaining witness in a felony criminal case, agreed with her on a sentence in the same text message where he discussed the scheduling of the next sex session with her.
And he is still immune from lawsuit by the criminal defendant whom the judge - corruptly - injured in that case.
The only reason why this sordid story came to light is because of supreme stupidity Wade McCree. Had he not turned the girlfriend into the police, he could have happily proceeded having sex with her in chambers, deciding with her how to rule on cases and sending to her messages about how he thinks about their nights together to the point of ejaculating while on the bench.
So, immunity for "McCreep" is in public interest - in your interest? How many more judicial creeps are now encouraged and enabled by this immunity decision?
Meaning - any female can now buy her sentence from a male judge for sex and the judge will get away with it even if caught. Or, let's be "gender-neutral" here - any male can buy a sentence from a female judge for sex in her chambers? What is the deterrent - being taken off the bench without being disbarred? Oh, please.
So - criticizing a judge may lead to a disbarment, but putting people in jail in exchange for sex doesn't?
Why wasn't McCree criminally prosecuted?
Why wasn't he disbarred?
Why didn't the court personnel report him for having sex in chambers REPEATEDLY - there is no way they did not know!
Because of fear?
Didn't we get to a point where judicially became uncontrollable because of their self-imposed immunity?
Let's start reversing this situation by demanding that this son-of-a-judge be (1) criminally prosecuted; (2) disbarred, (3) stripped of any immunity from lawsuits, Mr. King's and others, whose cases he discussed with his lover in texts.
To believe that this son-of-a-gun is immune because that is in public interest, we really need a collective lobotomy.
How many other sentences out there were bought for sex?
Easy to pick girlfriends out of litigants and interested witnesses, isn't it? Such a power rush, too...
How can we believe, especially now, after the "McCreep immunity case", that our prisons are not filled by corrupt and sex-hungry judges?
The rule of law has become a joke.
Post a Comment