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.
Friday, August 7, 2015
Do we trust in God in a New York State Court?
Apart from other interesting details which I will discuss in a separate blog post, what jumps into view immediately is the huge inscription on the wall of the State Court of the State of New York: "In God We Trust".
That statement indicates that the judiciary in the State of New York operates by religious laws and not by the secular laws of the United States and the State of New York, nor by the state and federal Constitutions which all judges are sworn to protect and uphold, as a pre-requisite of taking that bench and donning those black robes.
I guess, it does not matter to the New York State Judiciary that promoting a religion in state court is a violation of the 1st Amendment of the litigants and their attorneys.
What if "we" do not trust in a God, in the particular God, or if we trust in Gods, or if "we" are pagans, or witches (wiccans - there is such a religion) - or, God forbid (no pun intended) if "we" are agnostics or atheists?
Then, we do not have a right to be heard in court?
I know, for example, that a prosecutor from Delaware County District Attorney's office, John Hubbard, was spreading rumors about me that I am nuts and should not be hired as an attorney because I advocated for two clients who objected to being summoned, under the power of the People of the State of New York (and the threat of criminal contempt of court) to have a court deposition in a church building.
So, remember - when you are going to a State Court in the State of New York, you'd better trust in God - or else.
And, since the picture includes the radiant Judge Elizabeth Garry of the NYS Appellate Division 3rd Department, the rule "In God We Trust" in state courts of the State of New York also applies to appeals.
So, for those of us who do not trust in God - God help us?
I have a better suggestion - just advocate for removal of the "In God We Trust" signs in State Courts of any state. Presenting those statements at all, and especially above the bench, above the U.S. flag and above the State seal is unconstitutional, unlawful and sends the message to the litigants and attorneys (albeit likely a correct message) that the judiciary in the United States is not governed by the law and is not enforcing the rule of law in the courtrooms, but whatever interpretation of God's (and the judge's own) will that the particular judge wants to impose on the people.