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.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Will the judicial hopeful Richard Northrup charge Judge Kevin Dowd with a misdemeanor practicing medicine without a license?
Diagnosing medical conditions in New York requires a medical license.
Judge Kevin Dowd does not have a medical license or medical education.
Diagnosing a person without seeing her is medical malpractice.
Kevin Dowd did not see me at the time when I was reporting my injury.
In fact, according to the trial transcript, Kevin Dowd was happily outside of the State of New York when my injury occurred and could not see my medical condition anywhere.
Yet, Kevin Dowd with stubbornness worthy of better application, continues to accuse me of not appearing at a trial, lied to the jury pool (according to the court transcript) by claiming that I did not appear without specifying that I was ill and had a doctor's excuse from work, of which the court was notified ahead of time - while being fully aware that I was sick and remained at home based on a doctor's diagnoses and medical excuse from work, and, to crown it all, now, to cover his rear end and to preserve results of an ex parte trial, attempts to punish me for not appearing in court while knowing I could not appear because I was injured.
So, Judge Kevin Dowd rejected a medical diagnosis made by my medical doctor, after he saw me in person in his office, and made his own "diagnosis", "ruling" that there was no legitimate reason for me not to appear.
That is re-diagnosing, ladies and gentlemen, and a crime of practicing medicine without a license.
Now, will the Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup, the subpoenaed witness in the Mokay action and a judicial hopeful, charge Judge Dowd with a misdemeanor practicing medicine without a license for "rediagnosing me", something that become fashionable in Delaware County courts - judging by the fact that Judge Becker previously acted in various proceedings as an unsworn medical expert pediatric GYN, eye doctor, dentist, and surgeon?
Voters, you can ask Richard Northrup this question pertaining to his integrity as a prosecutor - why he did not prosecute these judges for practicing medicine without a license on the bench? They were never immune from criminal prosecution.
Post a Comment