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.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Were all judges from the entire recused court simply defrauded in the government corruption case or was there more to it?
stunning decision in California where a judge ordered recusal of all judges of a certain court in a corruption case involving federal prosecutors and investigators.
Comments as to that are also priceless, especially that they are complemented with documents evidencing judicial misconduct that the blogger describes.
Yet, the question remains - now that all judges of the district court are recused and the case is removed to another court, will there be any investigations into the character and scope of the recused judges' potential involvement in the government corruption case?
And here, where the federal prosecutors and investigators (who would investigate any potential criminal misconduct of judges) are themselves the defendants in a case - who is going to do the investigations and, potentially, prosecutions?
With my knowledge of how incestous connections of the judicial system are with the other branches of the government on state and federal levels, I somehow doubt that the judges' involvement was just that they were allegedly "defrauded" by the federal investigators and prosecutors in a case where a corporation was falsely accused of starting a massive fire and had to pay millions of dollars in fines and cede thousands of acres of land in satisfaction of the false claims of the government.
And yet another question arises.
A victimized corporation obviously has money and power to go against the federal government and make their rights vindicated.
What about the average person from the streets who was falsely accused and hurt by the government at any level?
For an average American - between ignorant, incompetent and biased state courts who deem constitutional claims frivolous and impose anti-filing injunctions for raising such issues, and Younger abstentions dumping all federal constitutional claims from federal courts into biased and incompetent state courts, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, "barring jurisdiction", in the opinion of federal courts, from review of constitutional claims filibustered by state courts in federal courts - no remedy for violation of his or her civil rights exists in this country.
And that has to change.