"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.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Courts as criminal enterprises as a matter of law

It is very difficult to prove participation of courts in a criminal activity.

Yet, at this time New York courts are in violation of FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS - yet nobody is trying to stop their operation as criminal enterprises, and I wonder why.

Judges in all courts but New York village courts are lawyers, members of the "regulated profession".

Judges' law licenses are pre-requisites for them to hold their positions, without the law license they may not sit on the bench - that's how lawyer-dominated Legislatures structures the applicable laws.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that regulating any profession or occupation through super-majorities of market players and without active oversight by the state by neutral bodies with modification and veto power is a violation of federal antitrust law.

A former federal antitrust prosecutor recently authored a letter to all Attorneys General of all states in the United States pointing out that disciplinary committees, because of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission are in violation of not only civil, but also of criminal antitrust laws.  In other words, the disciplinary committees are committing felonies when they are engaged - as they are daily - in antitrust activities in "regulating" the legal profession.

Four intermediate appellate courts in New York State created supermajorities of market players without any oversight over attorney disciplinary committees.

Courts DID NOT HALT attorney disciplinary proceedings pending as of the time when the U.S. Supreme Court decision was made, but continued full speed.

Many attorneys were disciplined and lost their livelihoods and licenses since the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

On the other hand, many complaints filed with the disciplinary committees by consumers of legal services, were tossed by the private cartels of lawyers sitting on the committees without the state oversight.

Both eliminating competition from the market by prosecuting attorneys whose services are necessary to the public, and refusing to prosecute meritorious complaints against high-standing lawyers whose favor the private attorney members of the disciplinary committees want to get, are antitrust activities, in other words, crimes.  And those crimes are ongoing.

Judges whose law licenses may be lost to consumer panel investigations and prosecutions simply WOULD NOT acknowledge existence of the U.S. Supreme Court precedent and WOULD NOT abide by it - and this is happening in all states, throughout the country.

By filibustering the U.S. Supreme Court decision that directly affects the legal profession, and judges as licensed attorneys, courts that establish disciplinary schemes that knowingly violate federal trust laws, may be considered criminals.

By the way, state immunity always existed from CIVIL prosecution.  There is no immunity in this country, on state or federal level, from CRIMINAL prosecution, and yet, nobody attempted to pursue members of disciplinary committees - or judges who are complicit in establishing disciplinary regimes that violate federal antitrust laws.

And I wonder, why.

Who will be the first brave prosecutor who will prosecute a disciplinary prosecutor and judges who established disciplinary committees and allow them to function in vilation of antitrust laws?

I will hold my breath.

The amusing part is that - in Kentucky the county clerk who at this time continues to defy the U.S. Supreme Court, at least cites God as authority to deny gay couples marriage licenses.

For courts who defy the U.S. Supreme Court decision indicating that the way attorney disciplinary committees operate in the entire country, violates federal antitrust law, has only one god to pray to - money.  

Their own livelihood is at stake, and when that happens, the dishonorable Honorables prefer to commit federal crimes (in the expectation of entitlement, that nobody will ever charge them for it) and defy whatever laws there are, because to comply will mean to lose too much power, and too much money that comes with that power.


No comments:

Post a Comment