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.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Porter Kirkwood's additional conflict of interest triggered a question - why do we need courts at all when most important issues are already being decided out of court?

I indicated in the previous blog that a Porter Kirkwood's supporter has claimed, no doubt as a public "service", Porter Kirkwood's participation in the so-called "surrogate decision-making committee".

Here is some more information on these "committees".

Here is their composition:


Consider it:

for some reason, you temporarily cannot make an informed consent medical or end of life decision for yourself.

Instead of going to court to have a legal guardian appointed for you by the court and have issues of medical treatment and end of life decided in court, a "panel" is appointed consisting of:

  • a physician who may be connected to the organ-donation industry;
  • an attorney who may be connected to your heirs;
  • your heirs who may be interested in your quick departure over the rainbow; and
  • an "advocate for persons with mental disabilities" - who also can have his or her own conflicts
These individuals will decide your fate - from surgery to end of life.  Without court.  Without law guardians.  Just like that - a panel of four people, not elected by the people to be a judge, not meeting requirements of the New York State Constitution to become a judge.

And Porter Kirkwood is already a part of this unconstitutional arrangement with a clear potential for eugenics.






There is no reason whatsoever - NONE - why courts should not or cannot be involved.  Major medical treatment and especially end of life decisions should not be handled without consent of either the person him- or herself or his legally appointed (through courts) guardian who is sworn to protect the person's best interests.

Moreover, persons with interest in the patient's demise (such as family members) may not be involved in decision-making - as it happens in these "panels".



Here is some more information provided by the Committee itself.  This is what Porter Kirkwood is ALREADY doing.



So, SDMC recognizes that it is an "alternative approach to the court system", and, since a deprivation of life and liberty is involved, it simply cannot be done through out-of-court panels consisting of people with conflicts of interest and a direct interest in the patient's demise.

Courts can hold emergency sessions if treatment is needed immediately, so the problem is not with time.  There is simply no constitutional justification for these death panels.


When people are unable to provide informed consent, a court-appointed representative should be able to do it, but the keywords are - "court-appointed".  And when people have "no surrogate to provide consent on their behalf", there is a procedure under Mental Hygiene Law to have such a person court-appointed.



Whatever authority is claimed under the statute, the statute itself is blatantly unconstitutional.  No other state allows such an out-of-court procedure, and for a good reason.



Facilities who are interested in providing medical care and being paid (involuntarily) out of property of the person incapable of giving consent, are now eligible for a "consideration", out of court, to MAKE you, if you cannot make a medical decision for yourself, undergo their costly treatment - for which you will then be made to pay.  Isn't that a perfect setup for corruption?

For Kirkwood, who already ok'd award of millions of dollars bypassing public bidding - participation in this committee is a perfect fit.


One more reason to flee from New York until your former client or a disgruntled family member puts you to death, through the use of such a "panel".

And - isn't it a sad irony that the issue as to WHY WE NEED THE COURTS if issues of life and death can be decided informally, out of court - would pop up as a result of a JUDICIAL ELECTION campaign?

Because the question is very clear.

Why are we talking about Gary Rosa's judicial experience in Family court matters?

Why are we talking about Porter Kirkwood's experience in Family Court matters?

Why do we need to talk about experience in court at all?

Why do we need to elect judges at all?

Why do we need courts at all?

Why wouldn't we have "appointed" some "panel of volunteers", and they will decide all issues in our life for us - without the costly court system.

Why?

















Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)