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.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Judge Guy and Judge Mulvey did not come through with the "amended orders of assignment"
I've written on this blog recently how Judge David H. Guy claimed that the order of his assignment to a Delaware County Supreme Court, removed from the Delaware County Surrogate's Court is one big error (because Judge Guy was caught issuing orders out of Surrogate's court and pointing out to me that my perfectly correct service under the CPLR was incorrect and must be redone in accordance with the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act).
Of course, see, when you are a judge and you are supposed to APPLY the law AS IT IS WRITTEN, but when you, at the same time, know that you are covered by ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY whatever crap you commit on the bench - negligently or intentionally - that power goes to your head and prevents you from making rational decisions.
So, Judge Guy, when caught red-handed in acting in clear absence of all jurisdiction as a Surrogate's Court judge, advised me and clerks of two courts that the order of his assignment to the SUPREME COURT case is an error and that the case remains and is calendared in the SURROGATE'S COURT to which Judge Guy was never assigned.
I notified of Judge Guy's misconduct the following authorities: Judge Guy's superior Judge Robert C. Mulvey and the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct.
Today is May 23, 2015.
The "calendared" date was May 22, 2015.
Judge Guy told Delaware County Supreme Court Kelly Sanfilippo as of May 13, 2015 that it was all big error and his order of assignment will be corrected.
To this day (and today's mail already came, with no new orders of assignment), the only order of assignment for Judge Guy was dated April 4, 2015 and directed him to be assigned to a Delaware County SUPREME COURT case which Judge Guy read as SURROGATE'S COURT case.
I do not know what is Judge Guy's problem - is it the eyesight, perception, lack of reading skills, all of the above?
Yet, as of today, Judge Mulvey did not come to Judge Guy's rescue yet with a new court order of assignment, and I did not submit anything to the Surrogate's Court because it lost jurisdiction over the case as of April 4, 2015, in accordance with Judge Mulvey's order of removal/assignment.
I will hold my breath to learn how Judge Guy will rule on his pretend calendar date in the court he was not assigned to.