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, April 8, 2015
Delaware County Supreme Court, New York, parades its bigotry against immigrant female attorneys
When attorney James Hartmann of Delhi, NY was (allegedly) ill in 2013 and in 2014, right before the jury trial in the Mokay v. Mokay action, Delaware County Index No. 2007-695, see description of the Mokay saga here and here, plaintiffs' "trial co-counsel" sent a letter (no sworn statements from medical doctors) to Judge Dowd - and those jury trials were immediately adjourned, for an indefinite time, both times over my objection.
When I got ill (back injury, I could not stand, sit or walk because of pain), and had a medical leave, issued by a physician after the physician personally saw and diagnosed me, excusing me from work from April 6, 2015 to April 20, 2015, Judge Dowd did the following:
1) refused to acknowledge validity of my medical leave, issued by a professional physician after seeing me personally and diagnosing me;
2) threatened to "secure my appearance" at trial, and, when I did not appear - because I was injured, on medical leave and COULD NOT appear,
3) then the court, whichever judge was presiding, upon information that I have, dismissed the jury and conducted a bench trial (scheduled with the jury for 3-4 days) in one or 1.5 days.
Yet, the jury trial scheduled for April 7, 2015 and that had to be adjourned because of a documented illness of defendant's counsel, was not waived in writing by the Defendant, as required by the New York State Constitution.
So, that will be one interesting appeal...
And - as to medical leaves - a precedent has been set that in the Delaware County Supreme Court, State of New York, medical leaves are valid only if they are issued (even if only by Harlem Law Office) for American-born male attorneys (whose wives are on the "judicial candidate qualifications committees" and who are hired for trial by sons-of-judges who are unsinkable no matter what they do).
For Russian-born female attorneys and their clients, no physician-issued medical leaves are valid, it is the court who makes its own "medical diagnosis" - and that "diagnosis" can only be against such an immigrant attorney, and, apparently, against her client.
It's easy, immigrant attorneys! Just don't get ill - and you and your clients will be all right in the openly bigoted Delaware County Supreme Court.