"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.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Quo vadis, Carl Becker - 2: nobody wants to employ a retired rogue judge?

I wrote on this blog that I will be monitoring compliance of the retired judge Carl Becker with attorney registration laws.

Becker retired on July 31, 2015, and was required by court rules to re-register for his new office and location by August 30, 2015.

Here is Becker's new registration information as of today:

Of course, the "no public discipline" part is a joke - Carl Becker's misconduct was legendary and was subject of several lawsuits against him, all dismissed because of absolute judicial immunity, even for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench.

Yet, multiple lawsuits filed against Becker over the years state all of Becker's shenanigans that plaintiffs at least know about - and that is the tip of a huge and ugly iceberg.  

It was a little more than a year from the time I first started exposing Becker in March of 2014 to the time of his "early retirement" announced on May 5, 2015 claiming the sudden need to spend time with his 10-year-old granddaughter (all the previous 10 years Becker, apparently, did not feel that need).

Which tells me that exposure and shaming of judicial misconduct works - when nothing else does.

Our "most humble" monster ran from the bench when his monstrosities were regularly aired on the blog.

It is a shame that the monster still draws retirement benefits, after committing egregious misconduct on the bench and unlawfully ruining many lives.

Yet, those who Becker has hurt may find some mode of relief in his new registration information showing that nobody hired him and he does not practice law - at least at this time, which raises questions: 

  • With such a beautiful record of lawsuits, nobody wants him as an attorney?

  • Too much of a taint on the reputation of the law firm who would hire him?

  • He alienated too many people and do not dare to practice law?  

  • He hopes he will get some perk assignments for presiding as a judicial hearing officer from his buddies?

I will be monitoring change of Carl Becker and will be reporting it on the blog.

And I will be monitoring Carl Becker's assignments as a judicial officer and will report them to the public on this blog, too.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment