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.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Say "no" to Porter Kirkwood, the new candidate for case-fixing in Delaware County Family Court after the previous case-fixer Becker ran off the bench
Imagine Family Court proceedings brought by social services where the presiding judge and fact-finder does not have out of court knowledge about every single person in the courtroom, witnesses, attorneys and parties, through his prior representation of social services.
Imagine Family Court where the presiding judge does not consistently rule in favor of his former client of a lifetime, the Department of Social Services.
That court will be Judge Gary Rosa's court.
And that is exactly the reason why Porter Kirkwood is running for judgeship - that is, apart from the salary increase and power grabbing, of course.
Delaware County Social Services has lost an case-fixing judge when Becker announced his early retirement in May of 2015 and ran from the bench in July of 2015, just 2.5 years into his new term that he fought tooth and claw to win and years before his mandatory retirement age.
Delaware County Social Services could not tolerate NOT having a case-fixing judge.
That department is too used having a case-fixing judge since 2002 when its own attorney of 27 years, Becker, took the bench.
So, now they want to put Kirkwood instead of Becker on the throne.
And they are using the voters as a vehicle to promote that corrupt purpose.
Do not buy into Kirkwood's fraudulent claims that he has "served" the county for 20 years.
He only served himself and his department and split numerous local families for no reason other than social services' need to justify its ballooning budget, and the budget of the associated non-profits preying upon Delaware County taxpayers.
Say no to the new case-fixing judge.
Vote for Gary Rosa on November 3, 2015.