"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, February 25, 2016

I suggest an offer of a collective gift from the U.S. taxpayers to the Malaysian government - our judges

As reported by The New York Times yesterday, a Malaysian judge upheld the ban of the government on using the word "Clean" on yellow T-Shirts.

The ban was imposed by the Malaysian prime minister who was publicly accused of corruption (people were protesting against corruption of the Prime Minister in creating a $700 mln "trust fund" funded from an undisclosed source where the Prime Minister is a board member - and where $620 million were hastily "returned" because that money was allegedly "not used", $80 mln obviously was used).

I have been writing on this blog for 2 years about corruption in the government of this country, and especially in its judiciary, the subject that mass media avoids at all costs.

I also wrote on this blog that New York state government attempted to silence me for my blogs exposing judicial and prosecutorial corruption by bringing criminal charges against me (since dismissed) for publishing evidence of such corruption in this blog.

I am not the only one victim of judicial retaliation in this country.

Far from it.

I recently published a list of attorneys who I know about who were disciplined for criticizing the government/judiciary.

Social media (but not mass media) is full of accounts of judicial retaliation.

It is futile to sue, because federal judges (all of them attorneys licensed by state governments and thus dependent for their continued judgeships on the good graces of such governments) gutted civil rights litigation against state governments by inventing numerous "abstentions", "deferences", "immunities", "comities" as bars to civil rights litigation, and by increasingly imposing sanctions upon civil rights attorneys and plaintiffs for bringing civil rights lawsuits against state governments.

I wrote about that tendency on this blog numerous times, and, once again, I refer readers to a law review article on the subject of such sanctions as a chill on civil rights litigation.

I also wrote recently about tricks used by all three branches of the New York State government, as a fine example of collusion instead of "checks and balances", where the Legislature created, the district attorneys are called to enforce and the judiciary to adjudicate two crimes:

(1) to publish a "false and grossly inaccurate report of a court proceeding", and
2) to create a very accurate report of a court proceeding through videotaping.

To have both of these crimes on the books is, in effect, to create a monopoly for the court and court reporters for creation of "accurate reports of court proceedings", and, when such reports are cooked, as I have shown by posting audio recordings of a court conference which clearly did not coincide with the transcript of the same conference, the challenger will be criminally charged.  I was.

In my case, I at least had an audio recording as proof of misconduct, and the "only" thing the government could do to me is attempt to put me in jail (they tried) or take my law license (they succeeded in that).

When it is your word against the word of court personnel, you know you are doomed, because court personnel, for purposes of job security, did not report even sexual assaults of various judges on court personnel, or the use by a judge of a penis pump during court proceedings for years - during trials.  I wrote about it on this blog.

By the way, I have on my blogroll on the right a blog by LegalSchnauzer.  

One of the authors of that blog, Roger Shuler, did jail time, 5 months in jail to be exact, in the State of Alabama for blog posts on issues of public concern protected by the 1st Amendment.

Now, a federal judge indicated that an arrest of a person who is trying to preserve evidence of a police misconduct by videotaping it (this is the only way to help the police accountable, because otherwise they will mount a "blue wall of silence" and lie on the stand about one another) - is not in violation of the 1st Amendment.

The decision was made by a judge of the U.S. District Court by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the judge is an attorney licensed by the state of Pennsylvania, and you know what the state of Pennsylvania does to attorneys, even public officials, who dare to go against the flow of the establishment.  

Recall the Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane whose law license was suspended, and she was criminally charged, after she exposed prosecutorial and judicial corruption in the state, an ongoing "porngate".

Recall that very recently, a federal judge Matthew Brann, with a law license from the State of Pennsylvania, slapped a Pennsylvania civil rights attorney Donald Ross with nearly $116,000 in sanctions, thus putting a further chill on civil rights litigation and preparing the grounds for a possible disciplinary action against such a civil rights attorney, a real help by Pennsylvania state licensee Matthew Brann to the State of Pennsylvania, which can be reasonably reviewed as a corrupt act by Judge Brann to help the government that holds Judge Brann's own livelihood in their collective hands.

Recall that before that, that same federal judge who slapped civil rights attorney Donald Ross with sanctions, denied admission to practice in federal court to yet another civil rights attorney (and recent candidate for Congress) Andy Ostrowski - for criticism of the judiciary.  

In 2014, after civil rights attorney publicly criticized Judge Brann on the Internet,   Judge Brann retaliated and conditioned Andy Ostrowski's admission in state court by his admission by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court (the one that suspended the law license of Pennsylvania State Attorney General Kathleen Kane for doing her job in investigating judicial and prosecutorial misconduct).  There is no statutory requirement in federal law to condition admission in federal court by a state law license, as there is no requirement for state approval of any other federal employment or business.  Yet, Judge Brann did what the state court that holds in its hands Judge Brann's own law license, judgeship and livelihood, wanted.

And, finally, recall that Pennsylvania is the proud home of the "Kids for Cash" scandal, where attorneys were afraid to speak up about criminal conduct of judges because (1) they were not allowed to videotape, obviously, and (2) they were afraid of retaliation and sanctioned for such reporting into silence.

So, in the state where videotaping of public officials should be super-protected in view of all the misconduct of the government and retaliation against reporters is a subject of very public scandals, ongoing for years, a federal judge Mark Kearney, with a law license from the State of Pennsylvania, protects the Pennsylvania police by allowing it to arrest those who videotape their misconduct to create the only record that can prevent the police from lying under oath as to what occurred.

Welcome to Malaysia, ladies and gentlemen.

Or, on the other hand, maybe there is a simple solution of the problem.

We might consider giving a generous gift of our wonderfully trained judiciary to the Malaysian government.  To help the Malaysian government further chase yellow T-shirts in a blessedly warm climate.  As far away from us as possible.

No comments:

Post a Comment