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, January 12, 2015
One more crooked decision from one more crooked judge - Judge Mary R. Connerton of Binghamton, NY shines in making a decision in reliance on an oral argument in front of a recused judge
The decision is made by Judge Connerton of Binghamton against whom I complained for misconduct and bigotry, see here.
Judge Connerton earlier sent me a letter indicating that she was going to rely in her review of the motion on the transcript of the oral argument before a recused previous judge.
That was a due process violation, and I immediately (1) turned Judge Connerton into the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, and (2) made a motion to recuse.
It did not ring the bell with the judge.
I asked her for a new oral argument, since the previous oral argument, held before a recused judge, was void, yet she stubbornly relied upon that oral argument before the recused judge:
And, Judge Connerton said she can be "impartial", therefore she refused not recuse, refused to provide me a new oral argument, and refused my motion that was contained in a 4-inch folder, contained multiple documentary exhibits and raised multiple fundamental constitutional issues, in one short paragraph:
No review of issues, no legal analysis, no explanation why she rejects my reliance on multiple legal authorities, including precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court.
And, judging by the statement to me of a witness that Judge Connerton told attorneys and parties in my absence on October 2, 2014 that she gets a headache even thinking about reviewing my humungous motion, combined with the lack of any explanation as towhy the motion was denied other than "it had no basis in law or in fact", I have a funny feeling Judge Connerton did not subject herself to the headache of reading the motion at all.
Of course, I will not let it slide.
Of course, I will appeal.
Of course, I will turn Connerton into the New York State Judicial Conduct Commission yet again.
It is interesting that Judge Connerton indicated that I had an opportunity to be heard after reading the transcript where the now recused Judge Revoir insulted me, cut me off, did not allow me to put the legal argument on the record, and claimed that any "alternative" legal arguments in the Family Court are "lies".
And this is what Connerton used as a basis to state that I had an "opportunity to be heard".
A real unbiased judge, this one.
Hope the Judicial Conduct Commission finally gets its collective head out of the sand and starts disciplining judges who get headache from doing their work.