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, September 25, 2014
About foxes watching a chicken coop...
In the case I reported on September 5, 2014 and yesterday, here and here, a police officer has intentionally driven back into a woman standing behind the vehicle while the woman was videotaping the police officer in order to, kill her, injure her and to destroy the tablet in her hands.
When a cop who is trying to kill or injure a woman by intentionally backing up into her a police car in order to destroy evidence in her hands, that cop does not have just anger issues, and the cop clearly puts the destruction of the object in a person's hands above her life, which makes him extremely dangerous on the police force.
This person may have deep emotional problems when he disregards human life to the point he did in Barbara O'Sullivan's case.
The cop had no reason to back up the vehicle at all, so it can be presumed that he did it intentionally, and especially when you consider that he did not close the door, leaving it hanging open while he was driving back (to have a wider span to hit the woman), and put the car in gear and drove it very fast, so that the victim would not be able to jump away.
From the amount of settlement reached above for lesser behavior, it is clear how high the stakes are for the cop here, as well as for his employer, the Delaware County Sheriff's Department which hired that cop, in the event that the police officer in question had anger issues in his background that the Delaware County Sheriff has disregarding when hiring him and giving him weapons and a vehicle that can also be used as a weapon.
It appears that these stakes are the only reasons criminal charges were fabricated against Barbara O'Sullivan, "coincidentally" by the offender cop - to discredit her as a witness and destroy her life in retaliation.
It appears that is why the Delaware County Sheriff's Department suddenly created a one-person policy for Barbara O'Sullivan's attorney not to be able to have access to Barbara O'Sullivan unless she allows the corrections officers, employees of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, to search her confidential attorney file.