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.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Another interesting quote suggesting an interesting parallel...
"It was obvious to every unprejudiced observer and to the members of the international press present at the trial during these scenes how nervous the ... leadership has become, and it is impossible to overlook how the court was hopelessly failing to meet the ... expectations and simultaneously to preserve a shred of its own dignity in the public eye".
In my disciplinary case, the "unprejudiced observers" and "the members of the international press" were not allowed into the hearing - and even the hearing was ordered, but not given to me, and the disciplinary prosecutor is now trying to have the court put me in jail for even trying to call public attention to the nightmare of lawlessness that my disciplinary proceedings have become.
And yet, it is still impossible to overlook how the New York State Appellate Division Fourth Judicial Department is, same as described in the quote above, failing to meet the expectation of the judicial and political establishment of the State of New York to have me disbarred and now convicted of a crime I did not commit, after an impeccable record in two countries for over half a century, and to preserve at the same time a shred of its own dignity in the public eye.
And, for the reference, the quote at the beginning of this post was from the book by Ingo Muller "Hitler's Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich", 1999, p. 32, but there uncanny parallels, in my opinion, between what is happening in my "Star Chamber" court insulated from any rule of law and any public scrutiny, and what was described of the German judiciary which endorsed their corporate loyalty and loyalty to "the government" of any kind, right or wrong, over the rule of law.
The "Reichstag Fire" trial was at least open to the public, so the Nazi state at the very least attempted to make a pretense of dignity and of an independent and public court proceeding.
In my case, all such pretenses are tossed to the winds, it is Star Chamber and any attempts to reveal what is happening within the Star Chamber are now sought to be punished as a crime, with a punishment of incarceration and criminal record.