"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.

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Is judicial candidate, Delaware County DA Richard Northrup, going to knowingly introduce false evidence at an upcoming criminal trial? Looks that way.

I have come into possession of documentary evidence supplied by Delaware County District Attorney's office in pretrial discovery in a criminal case.

I also have come into possession of another piece of documentary evidence that the other piece of documentary evidence was falsified to match the evidence to the elements of the crime charged.

There is no doubt in my mind, after comparing two pieces of documentary evidence, that Richard Northrup knows that the contents of the second-in-time documentary piece was falsified.

When a piece of evidence is provided in discovery, especially in a criminal case, more than likely it is going to be introduced at trial.

Moreover, without the falsified evidence, the trial in question cannot be won, as otherwise evidence is insufficient for conviction, and it is apparent that DA Northrup knew it from the very beginning, when he sought the indictment and when he vigorously prosecuted it.

I will be closely watching the course of the criminal trial in question.

As you know, evidence introduced during criminal trial constitutes public record.  Moreover, I already have a copy of that evidence in my possession, as released by DA Northrup in discovery, as well as proof that it was fabricated in order to secure a wrongful conviction.

In the event Richard Northrup introduces the fabricated evidence, I will petition state and federal authorities for his investigation and prosecution for a felony, as well as his immediate disbarment.

I will similarly petition state and federal authorities to investigate, prosecute, take off the bench and disbar the presiding judge if he allows introduction of the clearly falsified evidence in order to convict the criminal defendant that the judge has a clear bias against, but has so far failed to step down.

If Northrup wants the Duke LaCross prosecutor's fame, he'll get it.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment