"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.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Did Judge Dowd acknowledge his incompetence by raising the defense of absolute judicial immunity - based on Richard Harlem's legal viewpoint, he might have

In the ex parte secret Mokay trial, Richard Harlem was testifying as a witness as to the legal fees of his two law firms that he claimed as the only damages for the plaintiffs (by the way, plaintiffs' presence was not noted on record).

He was claiming, as damages, legal fees in "having to oppose" a motion that I made on behalf of Mr. Neroni - asking the court to apply the newly created precedent from the case where I sued an attorney for defamation, fraud and fraud upon the court.
In that case, the same court (another judge), Delaware County Surpeme Court, has granted the private attorney absolute judicial immunity for deceitful acts during litigation.
That was exactly the same as Mr. Neroni was sued for.
Absolute judicial immunity is, as applied by all courts, a jurisdictional bar to the court proceedings.
In other words, if absolute judicial immunity applies, the courts consider such immunity as stripping the courts of jurisdiction, and the courts have no longer any authority to proceed with the action on the merits.
That is exactly what I asserted in the motion.
Here is Richard Harlem's comment about that in his testimony at the ex parte secret Mokay trial on April 7, 2015 which was held without my presence, when I was at home with a back injury, after having duly notified the court of that injury and after presenting to the court a doctor's note releasing me from work.

Richard Harlem claims that by raising the defense of absolute judicial immunity, which was just granted to another attorney in the same Delaware County Supreme Court, Mr. Neroni somehow acknowledged misconduct.

That statement says a lot about competence, or rather, incompetence of Richard Harlem who apparently does not distinguish between juridictional defenses and arguments on the merits of a case.

Yet, when applied to judges who routinely claim absolute judicial immunity when sued for civil rights violations, that would then mean that judges acknowledge misconduct alleged in the court actions against them by raising that defense?

And, since Judge Dowd was sued by Mr. Neroni in a pro se civil action (dismissed based on absolute judicial immunity rasied by Judge Dowd), Judge Dowd acknowledged his misconduct that Mr. Neroni sued him for by raising that defense?

It is interesting how Judge Dowd will rule on this new rule formulated by Richard Harlem - when you raise a jurisdictional defense, you acknowledge allegations in the complaint on the merits.

Looks like Richard Harlem would benefit from another trip to law school, for an extended period of time.

No comments:

Post a Comment