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, October 6, 2014
A complaint was filed against Judge John Weidman, Oxford Town/Village Court, NY
I made a motion to recuse the judge in a criminal case, based on my personal knowledge and affidavits from two witnesses, about judge's ex parte communications, history of misconduct with defendant's brother and disrespectful behavior toward me.
The judge had an opportunity to recuse without any statements, that is what judges usually do when they recuse.
This judge was different.
He waited until I came to argue the motion, ordered me to argue only the portion of the motion to recuse out of the omnibus motion (several motions in one, as required in the criminal case), then repeated my claim that in view of evidence of judge's disrespect to me my client cannot obtain a fair trial from this judge, CONFIRMED that the judge did not respect me, and stated on record that "one gets respect that one deserves".
With that, the judge NEVER DENIED what was in the sworn statements in support of my motion to recuse.
Rules of judicial conduct MANDATE judges to respect attorneys and parties appearing in front of them.
If the judge cannot abide by that requirement of respect, he must recuse - and Judge Weidman did recuse from the case, but only after he claimed his disrespect to me, in violation of the rules of judicial conduct, as a matter of right, and claimed that I do not deserve respect.
And made this claim before a courtroom full of people, sending the present lay individuals and attorneys a message that to make a motion to recuse is wrong, no matter how meritorious such a motion may be, and that making such a motion will subject the defense counsel to humiliation from the court.
I bet that no attorney whose livelihood depends on assigned cases from this judge would dare to make a motion to recuse after today.
Good job, Judge Weidman, in intimidating the public and attorneys into believing that it is YOUR rule and not the rule of law that is the law in the Town of Oxford court.
Naturally, today I filed a complaint about Judge Weidman's behavior to the Judicial Conduct Commission (including two instances of ex parte communications, an improper threat of a bench warrant, disrespectful, demeaning and sexist conduct toward a female attorney).
If the complaint is tossed, we will know that what Judge Weidman did is an allowed and encouraged behavior in New York judges, and we will then expect more of the same, from this judge and from other judges.
As to the judge's expression of disrespect to me, I am not surprised. Usually abusers of women do not respect their victims, especially those who stand up for themselves and for others. And Judge Weidman is no exception.