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

Three judges of the 9th Circuit, each with a prosecutorial background, reinstated death penalty in California - as a matter of whim

In July of 2014 the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Cormac J. Carney, has declared post-conviction death penalty procedure in California unconstitutional as being in violation of the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

You can read the decision of Judge Carney here, and an 18-page supplement to the decision here.  The supplement shows the length of time the death row inmates are waiting for review of their cases. 30+ years is not an infrequent figure in the supplement.

Today, three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, as a matter of "discretion" (they had an option to agree with Judge Carney or not to agree) disagreed with Judge Carney, on procedural grounds only, and reversed his decision, thus reinstating the death penalty in California.

The names of these judges are:


Here is the biographical information of Judge Susan P. Graber (see also this link for fuller information):


Judge Graber is 66 years old, graduated from two privileged schools, Wellesley College in 1969 and Yale Law School in 1972 and has a prosecutorial background.

Judge Graber is a white female.




Biographical information of Judge Johnie B. Rawlinson (see also fuller information at this link):



Judge Rawlinson is 63 and has a prosecutorial background.

Judge Rawlinson is an African American female.





Biographical information of Judge Paul J. Watford (see fuller information here):



Judge Watford was a law clerk to the "movies-with-booze-in-the-federal courthouse" Judge Kozinski, and also has a prosecutorial background.

Judge Watford is a Hispanic/African American (looking) male.




I wrote today about election by fraud of an African American judge Christina Ryba in New York.

I wrote on this blog about election of a female judge Lisa Fisher (Greene County Supreme Court, NY) and of a female homosexual judge Elizabeth Garry (Appellate Division 3rd Department), in the same State of New York.

Those elections were heralded as proclaiming "diversity on the bench".

We have diversity here.

And, this diverse panel uniformly refused to do its duty and review a federal constitutional claim presented to them by the death inmate.

This diverse panel refused to even look whether the State of California is, indeed, violating constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment in how it handles post-conviction death penalty procedures (that same "exhaustion of state remedies" that Judge Watford cited as a reason of his rejection of a federal constitutional claim that he was sworn to review).

The summary of the decision (you can read the full text of the decision here) where three judges refused to consider "novel" constitutional issues raised on an appeal from a death penalty habeas corpus petition, is contained in three short paragraphs:





Note in the first paragraph that judges had "discretion" (option) to deny the claim on procedural grounds.  So, it was really a matter of judge's choice whether to let death penalty in a huge state to be reinstated or not.

In my legal opinion, judges should not be given discretion to decide issues of such a momentous impact upon people's life or death.

The "choice" of two judges to refuse to reach the merits of the constitutional claim and reverse it without review of the merits was based on a case Teague v Lane, "imposing" a bar invented by the U.S. Supreme Court, and not contained in the statute, meaning, an unconstitutional bar.

I already wrote on this blog many times that Article VI Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the so-called Supremacy Clause, does not include U.S. Supreme Court decisions, so Teague v Lane was not "discretionary", it was an unconstitutional bar to a constitutional review on the merits.

Article VI paragraph 2 puts the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land, and thus there cannot be any "procedural bars", especially discretionary bars, for violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Yet, two judges decided that the death penalty inmate, and all other death row inmates in the State of California, are not entitled to a review of cruel and inhuman punishment issue - because of the "Teague v Lane" bar allegedly giving federal courts an option to deny review of "novel constitutional issues" in a habeas corpus petition from a death penalty case, and because the death penalty inmate allegedly did not exhaust all state remedies in the state that wants to use a cruel and unusual system of punishment in order to kill him - because of these reasons that are completely irrelevant to the issue that any federal court had an obligation to review, constitutionality of state law and of state government's action.

So, on procedural grounds and because of the choice or whim of three people in power, the death penalty in the huge State of California was, as of today, re-established.

And that decision alone should show that the death penalty as a mode of punishment should go where it belongs, into the garbage.

The life or death of the tens of people should not be decided as a matter of "discretion", choice, option or, let's face it, whim of three people in power.

Look at these three smiling faces.  

These are the faces of the cruel and unusual punishment.

These are the faces of horrible and cruel death.

There is a ray of hope though for the death penalty claimant here.

Discretion that the three-judge panel cited belongs to the TRIAL court, not to the appellate court.

The trial court, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney, already exercised his discretion, reviewed the case on the merits and declared California post-conviction death penalty procedures unconstitutional as violative of the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The ONLY standard of review that the 3-judge appellate panel could use was "abuse of discretion" by Judge Carney.

You will not find these words in the decision of the 9th Circuit.  The mandatory appellate review standard was not used.

Instead, the 3 judges, all with prosecutorial backgrounds, decided to USURP Judge Carney's discretion in reinstating the death penalty in the State of California on their whims, without following the required standard of review on appeal.

For that reason alone, the U.S. Supreme Court should take this case - and reverse it again, reinstating the discretionary decision of Judge Carney.

Once again, the discretion was already exercised - by Judge Carney.  
No more discretion is allowed on appellate review.

This is Judge Cormac J. Carney - the face of life. 



3 comments:

  1. it seems to me the 3 rd division of the appelete court of NY WELL INFORMED JURIST BUT WHERE Y GOI THERE IS ALWAYS POLITICS IN NEW YIRKERS THINKING IS A BULL SHIT IN STATE COURTS IT IS BETTER TIO SEE BETTER BULKL SHUTTER JUDGE KHANM THEOLD FEEBLE MINDED JUDGE INTHE U S DISTRICT COURT THERE IS NI JUSTICE YIU GET HERE IN THE NY COURTS

    ReplyDelete
  2. THERE IS NOI JUSTICE TIO BE ATTAINED IN NY BRAINSLESS JUDGES NIT EVEN IN DISTRICT COURT THERE IS RUK IF THE DFENDANTS BRING OERJURED AFFIDAVUTS THE JUDGE HAS TO RULE BASED WHAT HE SESS IN THE AFFIDAVUTS WETHER THEY ARE PERRY IN THEIR EXECUTION OR FALSE THE JUDGES INTE DISTRICT COURT IOF ALBANAY ARE ONLY GOOD IN CRUIMINAL CASES WHERE THEY RAIL ROAD THE CRIMINAL SO DO NIT EXCEPOET MUSCH IN U S DOIOSTRICT COUIRT THE ONKIY WAY Y WILL GET CONSTITUTIONAL RULING IS GOITIO THE SECIND CIRCUIR AND THEN TRY THE U S SUOREME WHUCH THEY CAN REFUSE SO THE BEST IS ONKY GIWHERE Y CAN EXPOSE THEDEFENDANST IN SOCIL MEDIA

    ReplyDelete
  3. IT IT BULL SHIT WHERE Y GO EVEN IN THE MEDICAL BUSINESS THERE IS ALWAYS WAY THAT THE DIOCTIRS CAN RIPP OFF AND STEAL FROM MEDICARE TILLTHE UNUTED STATE DISTRICT CIURT ATTORNEY THREATENETED TAKING THESE CRIMINAL DOCTORS TO COURT THEN THEY OPAY WHAT THEY HAVE RIOOED MEDICARE WITH SO LOOK FOR THESE CROOCKS PAIN CLINIC THEY THEONE ARE responsible for yiur addiction pafter thepian dictior injure yiu back by the stroid epidural then he. she give the oxycodone and that is resold to become ilega; whne was legal dispensing to theback pain sufferer
    the is yiung doictoir is going though the turmoil for aan error he in busting and par;yzing my friend back and the office of proff disciple is considering his disciple his name is ryan mccinn aka as themcconnengi and he might as history to his liceses he will go one probabations for 6 moinths for paralyzing the mans in his 8 o I guess he intened ti kill him so there y gho with corrupotion

    ReplyDelete