The bar is supposed to be a voluntary association.
Yet, in New York, one cannot leave the allegedly voluntary association, if disciplinary charges are brought against the attorney, no matter how fraudulent or unconstitutional are the charges, unless one acknowledges that the charges are true and agrees to a disbarment.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals invented an even better way to harass attorneys who are NOT admitted to the 2nd Circuit bar - forced admission to the bar.
I am NOT a member of the 2nd Circuit bar.
I have NO INTENTION of becoming a member of the 2nd Circuit bar.
Each time I file a federal appeal PRO SE in a 2nd Circuit bar, I get a call from the 2nd Circuit clerk's office trying to persuade me that I must apply for admission to the 2nd Circuit bar because "those are the rules of the 2nd Circuit".
A pro se party is just that - a pro se party. Representation of YOURSELF is not practicing law.
Yet, in the 2nd Circuit, if you are an attorney in state court or in the lower district court, you apparently must get admitted to PRACTICE LAW in the appellate court in order to REPRESENT YOURSELF in that court.
Does it make sense?
No, it does not?
Does it violate the 1st Amendment, access to courts?
Most definitely.
Does the rule requiring pro se parties who are attorneys IN OTHER COURTS to get admitted into the 2nd Circuit bar IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES ON AN "AS OF RIGHT" PRO SE APPEAL remain on the books?
Yes, it does.
How come that in the 2nd Circuit pro se representation became practice of law? Does anybody in the 2nd Circuit read the U.S. Constitution that every single judge of this court is sworn to protect?
And, coincidentally, the lawsuit that the 2nd Circuit is trying to dismiss because I, a pro se appellant, did not get admitted to the bar in order to practice law, has wide implications for the work of the judiciary system OF THIS ENTIRE COUNTRY.
It seeks information of judge's back-room associations in secret-membership organizations, and information as to judges obtaining financial perks from influential attorneys and engaging, potentially, in ex parte communications with influential attorneys through organizations of the type of the American Inns of Court - asserting that NO COURT DECISION made in the United States since the American Inns of Court came into existence can presumed to be valid because of the relationships between judges and attorneys in these organizations.
Isn't it too much of a coincidence that (1) the defendant district court dismissed the case before it was served; and now (2) the appellate court (where each of its judges will be affected by their own decision) is trying to harass me into getting admitted to the bar in order to represent myself on this appeal?
By the way, there is no such thing as an automatic admission to the 2nd Circuit bar, one needs a recommendation from members of the bar, disclosure of personal information, paying additional money - doing all of the things that other pro se appellants are not required to do.
Why? Because the appellate court feels threatened that it will actually have to decide the appeal that can undo the way the judiciary receives its back-door financial perks?
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment