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.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
John Muehl attempts to strike at the Neronis - stupidly so, but that's John Muehl...
I am sure John Muehl talked to Coccoma and was "inspired" by her in his little blunder of March 17, 2016:
Actually, I already asked John Muehl to provide to me his order of assignment for me to be sure if he is assigned to the case of burglary and attempted arson in our home that Delaware County authorities would not investigate since September of 2013.
Muehl provided an order of assignment which showed he was assigned to another case - of a burglary by the same individual, but at our neighbor's home, one year earlier, here is my blog about it.
The letter of March 17, 2016 is copied to the newly-minted Delaware County Judge Gary Rosa who, after pledges to voters of being fair, impartial and following the law, quickly became the 2nd (third?) Judge Becker.
Rosa recently signed a letter order denying my request to remove Muehl as special prosecutor from the burglary and attempted arson case in our Delhi home, as not being an impartial prosecutor and jeopardizing the investigation by his bias against me and my family, and employing Michael Getman, an attorney who my husband is suing since 2009 for fraud upon the court.
Obviously, Rosa signed that order "keeping" John Muehl on the case to which he was never assigned, obviously without reading the order of assignment of John Muehl that I received later
(I did not receive yet the order of assignment when I made the request to take Muehl off the case, so my request is moot - since Muehl was never assigned to my case, as the order of assignment showed, in the first place).
Recently, Rosa engaged as a presiding judge in yet another case where he had a disqualifying conflict - but stayed on the case, because it was financially beneficial for his law clerk's husband James Hartmann.
So, while duping the voters into voting for him, claiming during his election campaign that Rosa is not like Becker, Rosa is Becker's twin brother where misconduct and conflicts of interests are concerned.
And, it is to Rosa that Muehl, who was, once again, NOT assigned to our case, sends a copy of his "last call" letter of March 17, 2016.
"Cooperate" with Muehl or Muehl will close investigation that he was never authorized to handle.
By the way, Muehl tried to entrap me into unauthorized practice of law.
In the letter of March 17, 2016 published here Muehl mentioned that he sent something to "us" on December 11, 2015.
On December 11, 2015 my law license was suspended, and I could not represent anybody else other than myself.
Muehl sent his demands on December 11, 2015 only to me, not to my husband.
Had I given my husband those demands, the same Muehl would have charged me for unauthorized practice of law.
I am writing here about Muehl's shenanigans as a citizen journalist, notifying the public, including criminal defendants, attorneys representing them, as well as for witnesses who Muehl subpoenas or otherwise contacts in cases where he is ALLEGEDLY assigned as a "special" prosecutor - without checking Muehl's order of assignment, there is no assurance that Muehl is telling the truth and is really assigned to the case.
Because, as this case shows, Muehl may be lying, and that includes lying to the court.