"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.

Monday, August 17, 2015

Male chauvinistic pigs on the bench galore

After I've read enough about judges deliberately humiliating women for being women - and for speaking their minds in what judges perceive should be a male-ordered world - I decided to start running reports on my blog about this particular "phenomenon".

The first "winner case" is the 2011 case of a Michigan judge, Judge Robert Hentchel, a Van Buren County judge who (I believe) deliberately humiliated a young mother, Natalie Hegedus, for breastfeeding her baby son in the courtroom.

According to information that is available on the Internet, this male chauvinistic pig is still "serving" the public, and will be "serving" until 2016.

You can see the picture of the male chauvinistic pig here.

Yet another male chauvinistic pig, judge Hentchel's boss, Circuit judge Paul E. Hamre, who "voluntarily" retired in 2013, and whose picture is available here, refused to impose ANY discipline upon Judge Hentchel because, as Judge Hamre stated, "[Judge Hentchel has] done nothing that would remotely appear to be something that I would reprimand him for".

So, Judge Hamre would not consider behavior of his subordinate judge warranting even a reprimand where:

1) a judge first issued a bench warrant for a mother to appear on "contempt of court charges" for, reportedly, "missing an initial hearing on a case from July when she was ticketed for boating too fast in a no-wake zone and failing to produce her boaters safety certificate".

With a bench warrant like this the woman had no choice but to appear.

She had a son whom she breastfed.

She had no choice but to appear with him in court, because the child developed an ear infection and the mother had to pull him from daycare.

2) Judge Hentchel, seeing a young mother with her baby in court, did the following:

  • he did not call her case at once;
  • made her wait until her baby became hungry and started crying;
  • waited until the mother started to breastfeed the baby; and
  • THEN called the mother's case, while she was breastfeeding, and
  • while the mother asked for some time to arrange her clothing;
  • asked the mother if she considered it appropriate to breastfeed in court, and, when the mother said she thought it is because her son was hungry and because it was not against the law, said the following to the mother:
  • "my court, my rules, I consider it inappropriate", and
  • reportedly told the mother that she needs to understand that in "his" courtroom, the laws do not apply, it's the "judge's law" that applies.

None of that appeared inappropriate to not one, but to TWO male judges who are put on the bench by the people to uphold the rule of law.

It is interesting to mention that people are so afraid of the power of the judge to punish them in contempt of court, even for lawful behavior, that a "nurse-in" protest by breastfeeding mothers was held OUTSIDE of the courthouse, not IN the male chauvinistic pig Hentchel's courtroom, which is not Hentchel's courtroom, but the courtroom of the People of the State of Michigan who conferred upon Hentchel the DUTY to apply the laws and adjudicate in accordance with the law in that building - and not to express to the world what he considers personally appropriate or inappropriate - if it is lawful.

The mother actually indicated in an online discussion that she wanted to feed her sick son at that point openly, but was afraid to be thrown in jail and for her son to be taken away by social services - even though the mother knew the law was on her side.

The mother's fear was repeated by other breastfeeding mothers when they staged only an "outside" nurse-in as a protest for a public humiliation of a woman inside the courtroom, and that fear is exactly what is wrong with our judicial system - the rule of men presented as the rule of law and instead of the rule of law, which people are afraid of to the point of obeying it while knowing that the judge's actions are unlawful.

I am sure that the pig would not have dared to order breastfeeding mothers, members of the public who came to observe open court proceedings, to be incarcerated or removed for breastfeeding.

I encourage breastfeeding mothers to do what is natural to them anywhere - including in courtrooms.  Breastfeed your children.  Do not try to be discreet.  Just feed them.  And let everybody else go read the law.

As to the male chauvinistic pigs, they two "H" judges, Hentchel and Hamre, put themselves down in history as dishonorable jerks.  May at least that be their discipline.

On the other hand, in the state of New York, for example, there is no statute of limitations on judicial discipline, as well as on attorney discipline.

I bet the same rule exists in Michigan.

It is not late yet to discipline pig Hentchel.

My question is - why attorneys of the state of Michigan do not insist that Hentchel be taken off the bench and disbarred?  The honorable profession?

Here is what the woman said on the day of the appearance:

And here is what people's comments say:


No comments:

Post a Comment