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.
Saturday, January 2, 2016
Sexual abuse of chlidren by the government, sex-offender-loving 2nd Circuit and Porter Kirkwood's voyeuristic exercises on captive children
Thus, treatment of children who have never been convicted of a sex offense is illegal experimentation on human subjects.
Moreover, I wrote about the use of plethysmography by Kirkwood's chosen "expert" in the field of "sex offender treatment", the now-late Dr. Richard Hamill, see blogposts here, here, here and here.
I have an experience where a person (my husband's client) who was not convicted of a sex offense, was sent to jail for 4 years by the now Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael Coccoma, the rescuer of pretty-face corrupt judges or judicial candidates.
When I was admitted to the bar and while that person was still in jail, he was held in child neglect (around 2010) for failure to comply with Dr. Hamill requirements for a sex offender evaluation (illegal, because the person was not a convicted sex offender) that included plethysmography (a "penile lie detector"), at the price tag of $600 - which our indigent client, obviously, did not have.
I recently found a legal blog describing a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, a court, which has a policy to rubber-stamp dismissals of civil rights appeals by summary orders, but dedicated a full-blown opinion to a father who engaged in making pictures of his nude daughter "for her modeling career", convicted of a sex offense, convicted of failure to register as a sex offender, and sentenced, as part of post-release supervision, to sex offender treatment that included plethysmography evaluation.
The blog is well-written and funny (even though constitutional violations involved are definitely not funny).
By the way, I found the blog because I was researching background of the 2nd Circuit federal appellate judge, B.D. Parker, who refused to provide a full appellate review (required by law) of my husband's civil rights appeal. A judge held a soft spot in his heart for sex offenders, giving a sex offender a full opinion on appeal while denying civil rights appeals the right to full statutory appellate review.
According to sex offender-sympathizing 2nd Circuit, subjecting individuals to plethysmography, even when they are convicted sex offenders, is a violation of their substantive due process.
Yet, New York continues to use the technique, and Porter Kirkwood happily announced to the public that the user of that technique was invited to "design" a program of "sex offender treatment" to non-sex offender captive children in foster care in Delaware County, as described in the blogs interlinked above.
If the use of plethysmography is unconstitutional with convicted sex offenders, holding a non-sex offender in child neglect for refusing to submit to that stuff, and sending a person to jail for 4 years for refusing to submit to that stuff, is definitely unconstitutional.
As is submitting children to this voyeuristic procedure that involves criminal sexual abuse of children.
Since Kirkwood was so proud of the program as recently as in November of 2015, most likely, the "program" of sexual child abuse by Delaware County of children in foster care continues at this time.
At taxpayers' expense.
And, Kirkwood is not the only one who is engaged, at taxpayers' expense, in sex abuse of children, in subjecting children to what the court has ruled is an unconstitutional practice even with convicted adult sex offenders.
Look at the "research" done on 132 "adolescent sex offenders" (children!) pre-"treatment" and post-"treatment".
Here are some portions from the decision of the 2nd Circuit.
Good for sex offenders that three male judges took to heart the sex offenders' humiliation in "having the size and rigidity of their penis measured". Senior-age and senior-status male judges like the ones who decided the case could clearly identify with such a humiliation.
To the point of thinking that the use of plethysmography is more important an issue to dedicate more time to it in a full-opinion appellate decision than civil rights appeals affirmed left and right by the same judges through "summary orders", without any review of facts or law.
Apparently, judges in the 2nd Circuit choose cases for full opinions for their entertaining qualities?
And - two years after the 2nd Circuit has declared the practice unconstitutional, it is still used for adult sex offenders, and for sexual abuse by the government of captive children.
Post a Comment