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, May 13, 2015
Judge Guy insists on his non-existing authority to proceed as a Delaware County Surrogate even after being notified that I know of the order of removal to the Supreme Court
Yet, even after being notified that I know of the order of removal, Judge Guy acts pretending that he still has authority as a surrogate.
Today I received an e-mail from the Delaware County Surrogate's Court Clerk Lisa Hulse forwarding to me the letter of Judge Guy responding to my letter dated May 6, 2015 where I asked for an adjournment in the Surrogate's Court, not knowing that the Surrogate's Court does not have jurisdiction over the proceedings since April 3, 2015, pursuant to the order of removal.
In the letter, Judge Guy stubbornly (and unlawfully) states that the case will remain "on the calendar" in the Surrogate's Court, even though it has been removed to the Supreme Court (without my knowledge) as of April 3, 2015, of which Judge Guy has failed to notify me - or anybody else.
Of course, I know, as well as Judge Guy does, that I have absolutely no obligation to serve anybody in accordance to the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act once the case has been removed to the Supreme Court, or follow directives of the Surrogate's Court as to service, scheduling or anything else, after that court has lost jurisdiction over the case, as per court order of Judge Mulvey dated 4/3/2015 (above).
Judge Guy stubbornly continues to tell me that I did or did not acquire personal jurisdiction in the Surrogate's Court pursuant to the SPCA (Surrogate's Court Procedure Act), while knowing very well that (1) he was never assigned to that court in this case, (2) the Surrogate's Court no longer has jurisdiction over the case since April 3, 2015, (3) SPCA no longer applies.
Due to Judge Guy's stubborn unlawful actions the only conclusion that I can reasonably arrive at is that his misconduct in concealing the order of removal from me was deliberate, and that he is acting in this case (not surprisingly, as many judges did before him) as an advocate on behalf of Richard Harlem (son of the retired and now late Supreme Court Justice and Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District Robert Harlem) and on behalf of Richard Harlem's client the Estate of Andrew Mokay.
Well, one of the judges who were committing misconduct in this same case, Judge Carl F. Becker, is retiring 3.5 years before his mandatory retirement time.
Maybe, it is time for Judge Guy to consider retirement, too, if he cannot either read, or understand, or follow, even his own orders of assignment.
Post a Comment