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, January 29, 2015
The elusive decision of Referee Sirkin
As I wrote on this blog, Mary Gasparini attempted to bring a criminal proceeding within a civil case, by "making a motion for criminal contempt" against me, see my previous posts today, with documentary evidence in them.
I wrote earlier on this blog that Referee Sirkin announced to me on January 12, 2015 that he allegedly "granted a motion" to the prosecution, while
(1) the purposes of the appearance was to schedule a fact-finding hearing;
(2) Referee Sirkin was appointed for the only purpose of holding a fact-finding hearing and had no authority to review or grant any motions;
Referee Sirkin promised me to provide his written decision about "granting the motion" to the prosecution during that same January 12, 2015 telephone call, but never got around to send that decision to me.
Yet, in the transcript of the hearing that Mary Gasparini filed in support of her "criminal" charges against me, there appears a curious last page, "Exhibits".
And as an "Exhibit" there appears a "Decision (5 pages)".
Mary Gasparini, as an attorney with many years of experience, must know that admission of an "exhibit" at a "hearing" must be reflected in the record, and any exhibit should be first shown to all parties before being admitted.
You will search the transcript of the pre-trial conference in vain to try to find the place where the "exhibit" (Decision, 5 pages) was offered for my review in any way, and where it was described and admitted into the record.
Moreover, the exhibit "Decision (5 pages)" was not actually attached by Mary Gasparini to the transcript and was not provided to me, either directly, as Referee Sirkin promised during the conference of January 12, 2015 on record, nor by Mary Gasparini as part of the court rules requiring the prosecutor to serve the disciplined attorney with the copy of the transcript with all exhibits, nor as part of the "transcript" that was provided by Mary Gasparini to the court.
This "Decision, 5 pages" is consistently hidden from me, same as the alleged "open file" that Gasparini first welcomed me to and then refused to show me.
Yet, a supposedly court decision on liability against me must be at least shown to me, shouldn't it?
What is so bad in that Decision that Mary Gasparini and Referee Sirkin are continuously hiding it from the very person whom the Decision concerns?
The mysteries of Mary Gasparini and Stephen R. Sirkin continue.... Stay tuned.