"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.

Friday, July 31, 2015

Is the "right" of the government to hire dumb brutes for the police force, affirmed as a matter of constitutional law in the 2nd Circuit 15 years ago, responsible for the widespread wave of police brutality across the country?

I've recently blogged about the little scheme in Delaware County where prosecutors, police and probation officers are paid out of conviction fines through a "STOP DWI" program.

As much as it was pounded to the public as "savings" for taxpayers, it is a blatant constitutional violation that is geared to increase numbers of convictions without any regard to their legitimacy or constitutionality.

I've also blogged about incompetence and corruption in the Delaware County Sheriff's Department where police officer Derek Bowie who has been engaged in a vehicular assault upon a resident, a middle-aged disabled woman, and did that clearly in retaliation for her stance against misconduct in the government on the County level and in local courts.

I questioned more than once how can a police officer, or other public officials involved, be so DUMB as to not realize that their corruptness is quite transparent through their actions?

Well, I now found the root of the question.

Not only police officers in Delaware County are corrupt, incompetent and dumb, but the federal constitutional law in that jurisdiction allows the local government to sieve out smart applicants for police officer positions as a matter of intentional discrimination.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, 15 years ago (!), found that discrimination against applicants for the police force with a high IQ level.

Here is that brain-dead decision, in full glory.

Now, this is a galore for criminal defense attorneys... This "law" gives defense attorneys legitimate grounds to seek IQ scores of police officers in application for the position.  And, if that is not a discrimination against an applicant, that is clearly a constitutional issue for members of the public who are stopped, investigated, prosecuted and put in jail by police officers picked out BECAUSE THEY ARE DUMB!


Names of the "winner" judges of the 2nd Circuit who produced this masterpiece back in 2000 are:

  • The Hon. Jon O. Newman - still on the court and was even chief judge of the 2nd Circuit court from 1993 to 1997.  Judge Newman got his bachelor's degree in 1953, which puts his age at 69 at the time of his "IQ discrimination is constitutional" decision in 2000, and at 84 years of age now.
  • The Hon. Rosemary S. Pooler, Circuit Judges - is still on the court, in an active status.  Judge Pooler recevied her bachelor's degree in 1959.  That puts her at about 63 years of age when she made the decision in the "IQ case", 15 years ago, and 78 years old now.
  • The Hon. Lloyd D. George,* District Judge - is still on the Nevada District Court.  Since judge George reportedly received his bachelor's degree in 1955, and bachelors degrees are received usually at the age of 22, his date of birth is approximately 1933, 67 years of age or more at the time he made the "IQ case" decision, and at 83 years of age now.

* Honorable Lloyd D. George of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

The "trio" above affirmed, in a summary unpublished opinion, the decision of the Hon. Peter C. Dorsey, Senior United States District Judge - who died in 2012 at the age of 80.

Think about it!

All of these seniors making all of these CLEARLY DUMB decisions - while proclaiming the government's right to discriminate against the intelligent people in matters of employment!

How many lawyers argued, with a straight face, that intentionally putting in a ceiling blocking intelligent individuals from being employed on the police force is constitutional and is not violation of equal protection rights!

4 (four!) judges agreed!

Agreed that the government has a "state interest" to intentionally "dumb down" police force that is armed and is supposed to be able to make split-second judgment calls about life or death of citizens, your life or death.

After this decision, why NOT expect police brutality after that? 

Why NOT expect dumb actions of police, like chasing shoplifters at ungodly speeds, that take away lives of innocent bystanders (2,400 innocent bystanders were reportedly killed in the US in a 35-year span as a result of high-speed police chases alone)?

Why NOT expect police to use their weapons, their TASERS, their vehicles, as tools of abuse of those they simply do not like?

Don't you think that this decision, and decisions like that may be responsible for the wide spread and ever spreading police brutality - because employing dumb brutes on the police force is the POLICY of the government?  And NOT employing intelligent people is also the POLICY of the government - to prevent job turnover!

I think the same test is actually applied to judgeships and attorney jobs for the government.  

I remember how a retired judge from the Appellate Division 3rd Department (he is a local of Walton, NY, an ardent supporter of Carl Becker), Judge Carl Mugglin, told me, without having any record in front of him, and without having any basis to "rule" at an appellate settlement conference - "you will dig a hole for your clients, Mrs. Neroni, with your intellectual efforts".

I was stunned, my female client was stunned, but obviously, with all my legal education, I did not know about the case, it was not taught in our Civil Rights litigation class in law school, my law school professors did not impress on me that being smart may prevent you from getting a job in the government!

The last question - if judges would apply their own "discrimination on the IQ basis is constitutional" test to themselves, would they have passed the test?  

I bet they would.

No comments:

Post a Comment