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.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Lies about deceased government-employed "loving family men"
A police officer used his government-issued gun to kill his wife and 10-year old child, set the house on fire (with the family dog trapped in the house) and shot himself.
The obituary of Israel J. Roman reportedly calls him a "decorated police officer" and a "loving family man".
The "loving family man" had a wife and two sons, a 10-year old and a 15-year old.
And a family dog.
The only person who survived the killing spree of the "loving family man" is the 15-year old.
Because he was not at home or because the father did not plan to kill the 15-year old, only a 10-year old? At least, it is reported that evidence was found that the police officer planned the killings, packed his 15-year-old belongings neatly in a car in a separate garage unaffected by fire, and killed the rest of the family while the 15-year-old was at a basketball game.
The wife and son were shot from the government-assigned pistol, by the officer who was out in the street, armed by us and at our expense, in order for him to protect us.
"Police said after shooting his wife and son, Roman wrapped them in blankets and carried them to the master bedroom upstairs, where he then shot himself with his police-issued handgun. As a result of the intense fire, the bodies had to be identified through dental records."
A loving family man.
Apparently, the "loving family man" harbored a hope that the evidence of his murders will be obliterated by the fire and his face will be saved in death, and, since all three corpses will be obliterated by an "intense fire", it will be impossible to find out what happened. Honest even in the afterlife.
Apparently, the "loving family man" did not care whether the fire of his burning house would spread to other homes and that other people would also die.
Apparently, not only he did not care about taking the lives of his wife and 10-year-old child, he did not care that his animal will die in that fire either - and the family dog did die in that fire.
Reportedly, the fire was already visible outside in the street 37 minutes after his 10-year old got off the school bus. The wife worked as an elementary school teacher, so likely she and the 10-year-old son came home at about the same time. To the loving family man, who was already waiting for them, having prepared not only the means to murder them, but also to stage those murders to appear as if all three of them fell victims of accidental house fire.
A childhood friend of the murdered wife of the "family man" Deborah Roman, reported that 5 years ago (!) Deborah Roman told her about the "oppressive life that she had at the hands of her husband". 5 years ago.
Nothing was done since then to protect Deborah Roman or her children, and, apparently, she was afraid to come forward because of who her husband was. And for a good reason, it now appears.
The obituary is trying to save the officer's face - but lying about a murderer of an entire family for the sake of proprieties only hurts his victims. And it hurts us.
We need to know the truth as to how our police officers are trained and screened.
We need to repeal the shameful Civil Rights Law 50-a that prevents disclosure of history of police misconduct.
Because the obituary may be lying more than we know when it says he was a "decorated police officer".
Maybe, he had a disciplinary record before - but it is concealed from the public by the law that is, mockingly, called a "civil rights law" when it is designed to violate our civil rights.
Lies that "dearly deceased" government officers and/or employees were in fact monsters do not help anybody, and especially because such deceased were public officials.
And the question remains about the living police officers - how many more monsters are out there, armed by us, funded by us, roaming the streets trigger-happy? With the Civil Rights Law 50-a continuing to guard their dirty pasts - until they murder somebody and do not stage the murders as accidents well enough?
And, if Officer Roman attempted to stage the evidence of his own crimes, how many crime scenes did he fabricate against other people?
Will there be any meaningful investigation of that?
We will see.