"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 9, 2016

Yale School of Law - the brave defender of oppressed Pakistani attorneys

In my previous blog I described how 21 judges (state and federal, trial-level and appellate-level), participated in punishing me for criticism of the judiciary, in the same way as was recently criticized as an example of political oppression in China.

One of the judges who participated in depriving me of my law license based on the "Chinese" retaliative political sanctions of a state judge, Ralph K. Winter of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, is on the faculty of Yale Law School, as an adjunct professor.

My quick search of the law school's website revealed that Ralph Winter is often "honored" by that law school with various programs, prizes and even  lecture program in his name, funded by his former law clerks.

Here is an interesting detail.

In 2007, Ralph K. Winter's employer, the Yale Law School has published the following:

The signature list is long, I do not provide it here in full, you can see the full signature list here.

The idea is - the Yale Law School faculty is protesting.

They are protesting against

(1) suspension of the Constitution;
(2) persecution of attorneys protesting against unlawful behavior of court and other branches of the government.

Yet, the same faculty is repeatedly "honoring" Ralph Winter, a judge who is routinely participating in similar suppression of Civl Rights in the U.S., and who repeatedly upholds the "right" of various public officials to violate their own constitutional oaths of office, with impunity, and thus, to suspend the U.S. Constitution that he is sworn to uphold.

Once again, it is easier to express such bravery towards civil rights violations when they are happening somewhere abroad.

Where such a protest can cause you to lose your bread-and-lobster, the "honorable" legal profession, including the law professors of one of the most elite law schools in the United States, prefers to "honor" the tyrant and oath-breaker rather than to show him the door and lead protests against judicial corruption and suspension of the U.S. Constitution.

No comments:

Post a Comment