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, October 9, 2014
Should Delaware County Sheriff Thomas E. Mills and the Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup be impeached and removed from office for their office's role in Barbara O'Sullivan's case?
I also wrote about that incident right on that day, September 5, 2014, as accounted to me by the still shaken victim.
Since the day of the incident, September 5, 2014, Derek Bowie filed criminal charges against Barbara O'Sullivan, her daughter and even the dog that lived in the house, accusing the dog of biting Derek Bowie and inflicting upon him serious bodily injuries, specifically, numbing of his fingers, according to Derek Bowie's testimony that he delivered while being in uniform, and in possession of a Taser gun and a pistol. Obviously, the alleged numb fingers did not prevent Officer Bowie from having access to deadly weapons.
Yesterday, an interesting public document came into my possession.
It is a statement of Derek Bowie dated September 6, 2014, one day after the incident, where Derek Bowie acknowledges that an incident occurred and that he may have struck Barbara O'Sullivan with his vehicle, but, of course, he blames the victim.
Nevertheless, as of September 6, 2014, in an official statement of which Delaware County Sheriff's Department must be aware, a police officer of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department made a statement that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident, let's say, that resulted in an injury to a woman.
Yet, the Delaware County Sheriff made no efforts whatsoever to take Derek Bowie off the case investigating and prosecuting the victim and her daughter.
Instead, the Sheriff's Department allowed Derek Bowie not only to press charges against the victim and her daughter, but to obtain arrest warrants against them and execute them under the circumstances that may suggest that he sought to get both women and their dog out of the house to search the house for the tablet as evidence of his wrongdoing. In his statement of September 6, 2014 Derek Bowie actually acknowledges that Barbara O'Sullivan was videotaping him from the time she opened the door to him that day.
Even though the Sheriff's Department's cars are or are supposed to be equipped with videotaping equipment, and despite the fact that Derek Bowie stated to Barbara O'Sullivan that he was in fact videotaping her, no such videotapes were submitted by the prosecution in the felony hearing of Barbara O'Sullivan brought against her on charges pressed against by Derek Bowie.
I understand that Derek Bowie used his position of power to race to the court ahead of his victim to press criminal charges against before she sues him, and the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, fully aware of what happened, allowed this abomination of justice to proceed.
Moreover, the Delaware County Sheriff's Department engaged in harassment and bullying against me as Barbara O'Sullivan's counsel, invented on the spot a "policy" of searching attorney files in order for me to visit Barbara O'Sullivan in jail, something that no other attorney in this county has experienced, and some sources out of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department leaked unofficial information to the press and television bad-mouthing Barbara O'Sullivan, her daughter, providing mug-shots and causing a wave of hatred on Facebook against both women, because people assumed that these two women were responsible for the officer being hurt and for the dog being hurt.
Officer Bowie then dared to file a complaint even against the dog, which could result in a forced euthanasia. Luckily, the complaint was dismissed, but without prejudice, which means it can be brought back.
It is apparent that the Delaware County Sheriff's Department has a policy allowing their officers to handle cases where they are involved as witnesses and, possibly, defendants.
Derek Bowie admitted to backing in a car into a human being on September 6, 2014, and then tried to discredit his victim and was allowed to do so, by the Delaware County Sheriff's Department and the Delaware County District Attorney's office, through criminal prosecution against the victim, arrest of the victim and her daughter that Derek Bowie himself carried out, detention of both Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter in jail of the victim, and by grievous abuse of a dog taken from the victim's house.
It is also apparent that the Sheriff's Department might not have any control over his officers since not one, but two unofficial press-releases were made in Barbara O'Sullivan's case, while the Delaware County Sheriff's Department did not make any official press releases on that case.
It is apparent that Derek Bowie was building his own media campaign to discredit his victim, and the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, as well as the Delaware County District Attorney, instead of investigating and prosecuting Derek Bowie, turned the power of the state against Derek Bowie's victim, obviously protecting their own.
The Sheriff and the District Attorney are both elected positions. Both the Sheriff and the District Attorney ran for office assuring the public that they will make it safe.
Instead, they are allowing an officer who was involved in striking a woman with a police vehicle while she was videotaping the officer, to investigate and criminally prosecute his victim and her immediate family member, cause the victim to be arrested and detained, cause her financial losses, leak information to the press to discredit his victim and deprive her of a fair trial.
It has gotten to the point that the officer nearly succeeded in having the dog taken out of the victim's household, the dog that may be the witness to his misconduct, adjudicated a dangerous dog and forcibly euthanized.
Can the Delaware County Sheriff and the Delaware County District Attorney be trusted with protection of the people from criminals or should they immediately be impeached for attempting to help suspects in uniforms use the power of the state to intimidate and prosecute their victims?