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, August 20, 2015
"I ran for a judge for my children!" Sons-of-a-judge in the making - not on my dime
That phrase got me going and got my readers who listened to the interview and gave me feedback, going.
WHY running for a judicial office is done for Lisa Fisher's children?
Is it because being "son-of-a-judge" is a sure career path in the State of New York and in this country? And a sure guarantee that NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that you can do, no matter how wrong, will garner you any punishment?
I wrote a lot about sons-of-judges on this blog. My blog is word-searchable, just enter "son of a judge" or "sons of judges" in the search window on the right of the blog posts. I wrote extensively on this blog, with documentary evidence and references to the applicable law, about the horrible, fraudulent things that sons-of-judges and their friends do in court, without any reaction from the court and without any reaction from any prosecutorial or disciplinary authorities that must pay attention, but prefer to be selectively blind when offspring of judges are involved.
I wrote a lot about law firms employing sons-of-judges and then appearing before parents of their employees, gaining favors from such parents-on-the-bench - like the New York State Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney General from Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York who has put his two sons, Michael Aaron Sharpe and Robert Alan Sharpe, respectively, in the described offices which appear in front of their employee's father's court regularly - and, overwhelmingly, win. I was punished by judges for even raising this taboo issue in court pleadings.
Look at faces of Judge Lisa M. Fisher's children, faces that Judge Fisher publicly flaunted and continues to flaunt on her Facebook page as marketing tools for her successful judicial election campaign, making her children's pictures public records - don't tell me that I am invading anybody's privacy by publishing their faces, their own mother made their faces public, in order to get to that bench "for them".
"Fisher" is a common name.
Remember these two Fishers. They may be not bad people by themselves. I have nothing personal against them - or Judge Fisher.
But I do not tolerate, as a taxpayer, when children and gender are used to get into public office for reasons that have nothing to do with public service.
Not on my dime.
See if in the future these two boys will get any benefit, or job, or career advancement that they were not qualified for and did not deserve.
If that happens, look no further than to their mother's determination to get to the bench for the answers as to why.
And do what you legally can to prevent them from getting benefits they do not deserve, simply because of who their mother is.
Do what you can legally so that our government officials, operating on your dime, on our dime, should not be allowed to create dynasties of aristocracies for personal gain, their own and their families and friends - under the guise of public service.
Post a Comment