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 22, 2016
On the goodness of pre-lawsuit "attorney inquiry" (as proposed to the Russian Duma) and "intra-lawsuit" inquiry after judges are assigned and opponents in litigation appear - any takers in the U.S.?
Here is another point - and I know that American lawyers, and many of their clients who know what it is all about, will be salivating over this one.
There is a legislative bill submitted to the Russian Parliament ("Duma") to introduce what is called "an attorney's inquiry".
An attorney's inquiry is proposed as a formal tool used by an attorney to secure from government and non-governmental organizations, custodians of certain information necessary for the attorney to provide effective legal help to the attorney's client, to actually provide such information".
I apologize, the interlinked source is in Russian, I did not find it translated anywhere, so, I request you to trust my native knowledge of the Russian language to render it for you.
Let's collectively think about this one.
Let's think about the amount of federal civil rights lawsuit dismissed BEFORE DISCOVERY and before even the answer, because, according to the governmental defendants and federal judges supporting such defendants, the civil complaint was not "properly pled" and does not include the necessary amount of "factual pleadings".
Well, the statutory law says we have a claim pleading system, not a factual pleading system, in federal courts, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 8 and FRCP 9.
Think of all the sanctions for "frivolous conduct" arbitrarily imposed by state and federal courts, some with anti-filing injunctions blocking access to court because the plaintiffs did not have enough information BEFORE they brought a lawsuit, BEFORE the discovery in that lawsuit started - while such information was in exclusive possession of somebody else.
Had this information was discoverable BEFORE the filing of the lawsuit, (as well as after the filing - when the judge is assigned and the opposing counsel appears, so that their conflicts of interest may be verified through separate discovery), such sanctions, dismissals and anti-filing injunctions would not have been possible.
So, where now people, both pro se litigants and attorneys, are punished for not knowing something they cannot know because the information is held from them by exclusive custodians of that information, if such an "attorney inquiry" (or a pre-lawsuit and intra-lawsuit inquiry by any prospective pro se litigant, a "Pro Se Attorney inquiry", that would be even better) were to become reality, think about information about conflict of interest of judges, connected law firms, would have to be disclosed!
Such an easy solution.
An attorney inquiry.
Such a revolution in cleaning up court corruption would be possible with that solution.
Any takers in state legislatures and in the U.S. Senate?