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, November 12, 2015
GOP wants an ethical probe of Christine Ryba who was elected as judge one day after she was terminated from an appellate court for unethical behavior
"If the presiding justice does not believe Ms. Ryba should continue as a court employee and ordered her to be fired from the state court system, then how is it appropriate for Ms. Ryba to now serve as state Supreme Court judge?" Rensselaer County Republican Committee Chairman John Rustin said in a statement.
The ethical inquiry will also need to be made into the behavior of 3rd Department's Chief Judge Karen Peters who terminated Ryba one day before the elections, even though her behavior was ongoing since as early as September of 2015, without disclosing termination before the election and thus preventing the voters from getting full information about the candidate for judgeship.
First, it shows that the judge is not in control of the court's computers and does not have an effective system in place to prevent abuse of the court's position for personal gain.
Second, it shows that the judge may be in cahoots with Ryba, after all. Booted her for show, but in a way that did not prevent her election. Ryba will be without a salary for 2 months before starting to get - what - $167,000 a year? It is called "thank you for your generous (even if corrupt) gift, Karen Peters".
I would also contest validity of Ryba's judgeship based on such fraud.
My concern is that it is only Ryba's not appearing at work on November 2, 2015 that garnered her a termination, otherwise Karen Peters was going to allow her to peacefully resign, thus concealing the issues behind her misconduct.
As Peters allowed attorney Steven Zayas from the disciplinary committee to resign in 2013, after he was implicated in falsifying time sheets (a prosecutor of attorney misconduct committing fraud upon taxpayers!!!).
Steven Zayas and attorneys booted together with him, are still not disciplined, 2 years down the road.
I wonder if GOP's push for inquiry will end up the same way - nowhere.