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
Your voting records as a target of marketing campaigns - be an SELF-informed voter
Yet, it is not a crime to obtain records showing WHETHER you voted.
In a recent controversy, New York Democratic party was reportedly threatening its voters to "out" those of them who did not vote.
And, in the recent audio interview a successful judicial candidate, now judge Lisa M. Fisher clearly admitted that she and her husband purposely made their financial investment into advertising and "marketing" Lisa Fisher to voters by getting access to e-mails of female Democratic voters (Lisa Fisher ran on a Republican ticket) and sending them Facebook ads and targeted newsletters.
When you get sales ads for soap - or other stuff - you usually toss the sales ad in the garbage without looking.
When such a sales ad comes from a pretty female judicial candidate panhandling to you her gender and her children
- female voters were swayed to the point that Lisa Fisher won the judicial seat with (she claims) 18,000 votes over her "competition" (her words, not mine).
In the upcoming judicial elections - and I mainly mean it for voters in Delaware County where the mid-term judicial elections are going to happen this coming November, please, do your own research and do not vote with your own and everybody else's tax dollars based on a sales ad.
Do not count on attorneys to publicly inform you (as they should, as citizens) about qualifications or lack thereof of judicial candidates they know - because the judiciary that "regulates", or rather, controls the licenses and livelihoods of attorneys, invented a self-serving "gag" rule preventing attorneys from discussing judicial candidates at the threat of disciplinary penalty.
I am one of attorneys who spoke against misrepresentations of a bad judge, Carl F. Becker in his upcoming re-election campaign of 2012.
The only other attorney who spoke in the judicial campaign of Carl Becker was praising him. That attorney was not disciplined, even though, in my opinion, he was making false statements to the public about a judicial candidate's qualifications (that he was qualified). I, on the other hand, was immediately turned into the disciplinary committee for my comments which were (a) based on personal experience and documents, facts in public record and (b) constituted an opinion on a matter of public concern.
The judge was "eked out" an election victory (with the help of fraudulent testimonials from buddies who appeared in front of the judge while being his personal friends and who got favors from him), but now ran from office claiming "early retirement" - coincidentally when lawsuits, complaints and audit of Delaware County and Becker's friends, likely, started to make him look too bad for even the New York State Judicial system to keep him on the bench.
Becker, same as Fisher admits in her interview, presented to the public a lot of "testimonials" from various "opinion leaders" - including his buddies in the Delaware Counties, including buddies who appeared in front of him in cases as parties.
Becker was well known to have no shame on issues of self-dealing and dealing for his friends through his public office, conflicts of interest, concealing such conflicts of interest and retaliating against challengers of his misconduct.
I know it is difficult to judge for yourself about a judicial candidate and his or her integrity record, especially when people with knowledge of such record, attorneys who may be in daily contact with such judicial candidate and know him or her through and through, are intentionally gagged by attorney disciplinary rules from revealing qualification flaws of such candidates to the voting public.
Yet, electing a qualified judge should not be a matter of inferior priority for people, no matter whether they have court cases pending or not. They can have such court cases in the future, and it is critical that people who judge such cases are (1) qualified and (2) fair and impartial.
For that reason, I appeal to future voters in judicial elections, in this country and in the State of New York - do you research, do you legwork, ask the candidates "sensitive" questions about their connections, about what they are going to do if in their case a high-ranking attorney, a friend or relative of another judge, or an attorney or party working for the government, commits misconduct.
Watch their reaction. Record their answer on audio or video tape. Videotaping of judicial candidates is permitted by the Open Meetings Law. Keep that record after elections. Make such pledges public. Post your videos to YouTube. Be a truly informed voter and inform others.
Don't be duped by marketing campaigns of judicial candidates who want a nice salary, unlimited power over people, enhanced connections, good career for their children and a taxpayer-backed high pension. They do not want to serve you. They want to serve themselves and their families.
Vote not to put self-serving "entrepreneurs" on the bench.
Post a Comment