"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

More on Kim Davis as a front shield for judges breaking the same law

The circus with the "born-again-Christian" thrice-divorced and 4-times-married Kentucky clerk with children born out of wedlock, who, on Christian God's authority, refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay couple in her secular job continues in full rage.

Now the jailed clerk, through her attorney, sent the world a message that marriage licenses issued during her incarceration by her deputies, against her will, are legally void - in her opinion.

The clerk's "Godly" position as a secular public official is well illustrated by this picture circulating on Facebook:

It is apparent that, be the Kentucky clerk a wiccan (witch), a voodoo, a shaman, or any other more mainstream religion other than Christian, such as Muslim, Judaism, Centrism, Buddhism or anything else - and if such a clerk would be requiring people to abide his or her religious beliefs as a condition of her doing her job as a public official, that clerk would have been impeached and thrown out of office without pension in a wink's moment.   

Legislatures would be holding special sessions to impeach her.

Government-backed organizations will be spreading hate messages against her - in other words, the overall reaction of mainstream political players would be diametrically opposite to what we are seeing today with Kim Davis.

Even though she has been jailed for contempt of court - and stubbornly refuses to release herself from jail by abiding by the court order - and many people ask, why wasn't she fired yet, she cannot be fired, because she is an elected public official.  Moreover, she is a dynastically elected public official, a local royalty whose mother occupied the same position before her for 27 years, while Kim Davis was her mother's assistant and was elected in her mother's stead once her mother retired.

The commentators note that the impeachment of Kim Davis - for breaching her Constitutional oath of office no less - is unlikely because of "conservative" legislatures who basically take her side in breaching the law.

Yet, Kim Davis, a local royalty that she is, is a small fish, as compared to more powerful members of state governments who similarly refuse to abide by the law - judges.  

Let's name the "heroes".

The oathbreaching judge’s name
Name of Court
What did the judge do
Were disciplinary or other enforcement proceedings started against judge

Hamilton County Court
Refused to grant divorce to a straight couple, after a full trial

No public announcements
Marion County Circuit Court

Announced his decision not to perform same-sex marriages (he did not perform them since 2011), even though on May 19, 2014 the gay marriage was legalized by a federal court order

Pike County probate court

Closed bureau in his court that issued gay marriage licenses

Geneva County probate court

Same as Wes Allen above.

Tuscaloosa Probate Court

Henry County Probate Court

Chief Judge
State of Alabama

The list is incomplete, as not all names of all defying judges were reported yet.

Yet, what I also did not find reported is disciplinary proceedings against judges for defying a court order of the highest court of the country - with the exception of Vance Day of Oregon.

And I did not find a single report of criminal investigations or prosecutions of such court-order-defying judges by the feds.

It would be an interesting question to federal prosecutors as to why they are not bringing these judges in for criminal contempt of court and are to asking to jail them.   

The answer to the question is quite simple - federal prosecutors operating in a certain state must be licensed attorneys in that state, and licensing is within exclusive control of judges.  

So, federal prosecutors' job performance is controlled and conditioned by the very same people they are supposed, in this situation, to investigate a prosecute.

A nice conflict of interest, isn't it?  That's conflict of interest # 1 where state judges are breaking the law.

Conflict of interest # 2 is that federal judges themselves are required to be state-licensed attorneys.  Revocation of their state law licenses will instantly result in their removal from office.  How quickly that can be done is demonstrated by what is being done now to a State elected official, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, who was turned into a disciplinary proceeding immediately as she started to make headway in court in a case claiming misconduct and corruption of the "ol' boys' club" - the entrenched prosecutors she was pursuing as part of her job.

A suggestion came from an Alabama Senator to resolve the situation of judicial defiance.

You know what the suggestion was?

Not to jail judges who are breaching the law - as those same judges would have done to any ordinary person in contempt of court, like, for example, parents who cannot pay their child support.

TO CHANGE THE LAW that judges announced they will not abide by - to take marriage licensing out of the hands of public officials, so that no public official will be faced with an allegedly existing dilemma: to violate the U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment (that every one of them is sworn to abide by and uphold) - the language prohibiting them from establishing religion under the color of state law.

The bill to cancel licensing of marriage first passed Alabama State Senate in May of 2015, before the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, but after Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore publicly announced his own defiance of the prospect of legalizing the gay marriage - and encouraged his subordinates, other state judges, to do the same.

Now the proposed legislation is listed as "pending" in the Alabama House Judiciary Committee.

The idea to take entering into (and dissolution) of marriage, in itself, is not bad because if marriage is likened (in legal theory) to an economic partnership, it should be a contractual relationship not regulated by the state.

But, the proposal is, first, one-sided, it concerns only entering into a marriage and not marriage dissolution, and the legislation was proposed not to advance the right of people to be free in their private family lives from the horrible multi-billion divorce industry that holds them in the death grip and sucks out their livelihood, but to protect from jail lawbreaking judges (see "Divorce Corp" on Netflix).

Yet, we must understand, as one nation, that until judges, the ultimate authority in this country, stop behaving as if they do not have to abide by the laws that everybody else has to abide by, we cannot consider that we are a nation governed by the rule of law.

We are governed by the rule of lawbreaking judges, and we need to change that, soon, before people took to the streets (like they do to protest police misconduct) and chaos erupts, because there are no effective remedies to control lawbreaking PUBLIC OFFICIALS - our (public) servants, ladies and gentlemen.

Until judges are held in this country to the same standard as the judged - there is no rule of law.

And that has to be changed.  Soon.

I encourage citizens of states where judges defy gay marriage court order, to pressure federal authorities to conduct criminal investigations and prosecutions of such judges, making sure that judges are held to the same laws for contempt of court as everybody else in this country.

Judges DO NOT have immunity from criminal prosecution.

Nobody is entitled to violate the U.S. Constitution - especially where judges take their office through an oath swearing to uphold and protect it.

This is the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that the oathbreaking judges listed above have sworn to protect, AS A CONDITION of becoming judges:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That text equally applies to state governmental officials, including judges.

They may not establish religion, which will always be one in discrimination of others, or of no religion at all - and for that reason, all efforts of public officials to establish SOME religion, are constitutionally prohibited.

Which judges who defy the U.S. Supreme Court decision, made on constitutional grounds, seem to forget, pounding, as Fred Hamic did, on his religious beliefs first - and his constitutional oath of office second.

An idea that has been very strongly expressed by public opinion in social media is - you want to put your religious beliefs above your oath of office to those who elected you, let your religion feed you.

I wholeheartedly agree.

And let me conclude with what I started - the poster that, more than anything else, explains why what the judges are doing has nothing to do with their "sincere beliefs" in "religious equality", and has everything to do with their religious zealotry and fighting to establish domination of one single religion (their own) as a rule of law in the country.

No comments:

Post a Comment