"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, April 26, 2016

Coyotes Wait with Archers in the bushes

Periodically, I get comments on my blog.

Very rarely (happened only twice over 2+ years of existence of this blog) I get negative comments.

Both sets of negative comments were given by anonymous commentators - which says a lot about veracity of those commentators.

Both anonymous commentators made negative comments from Google+ accounts that were especially created to make the comment - because they had no profile views at the time comments were made.

Both anonymous commentators chose threatening nicknames.

The first named himself "Coyote Waits", the second - an "Archer".

My policy is not to delete negative comments, but to comment on them and to blog about them, see my blogs about "Coyote Waits"' comments here and here.

Which is what I do with the "Archer"'s comments.

Here is Archer's comments made today on this blog:

With my replies:

Here is Archer's profile views as of today - the 1 view registered is mine. 

 It is good - and interesting - that somebody from Delhi FD even engaging in conversations and comments about the fire.

Because that fire, unlike other fires that Delhi FD extinguished, is not reported ANYWHERE.

And, when the victim asked for an official fire report today, in order to present it where she needed to present it, she was told today, 3 days after the fire, that Tim Buckley of Delaware County Sheriff's Department is still preparing the report.

She called the EMS to speak to the EMS guy who talked to her at the site of the fire, and the EMS told her that the report will not come until 2 to 3 weeks later.

They are comparing notes and trying to concoct a plausible story of an "accidental" fire.

While there are many witnesses stating that the fire department did not take the water hoses out, and did not even go up the long driveway until the house was "fully gone".

And, the house as not even "fully gone" when one of the victims saw it - already without a fire.

When she saw it the next time, there was less of a house, apparently, either somebody gutted it thoroughly, or somebody additionally burnt it, while both victims were kept away by FD.

And, up to today, there is no report in the local press, police blotter, FD blotter about the fire, nobody appears to know anything about anything - but Archer, of course.

He knows everything and shoots at me from the bushes, conveniently covering himself with anonymity.

FD did not take the water hose out.

FD did not even call the dog warden to take away the corpse of the dog that remained on site - which is what a person from the local Humane Society claimed FD are immediately doing in such cases.  She was outraged at this neglect.

Nobody talked to the victims.

Nobody took their written statements.

No efforts to save the house.

No efforts to report the fire.

No efforts to even issue an incident report.

No efforts to report the fire in the local news.

Had I not reported it, the local government would have pretended it did not happen at all.

The victim was promised to be called by Tim Buckley today, with the report.

Tim Buckley did not call.

So - if Tim Buckley issues a report dated today or earlier, know that it is backdated or otherwise forged.

It did not exist today.

What the victims received was this letter from Delhi EMS services:


It is obvious that EMS did not even get the name of Barbara's daughter - who was present on site when FD boys were still there.

And - as Barbara was told - the EMS "report" will come only in 2-3 weeks.  

The letter does not say much at all.  It says that the house was "completely destroyed by fire".  That much we already know.

It says nothing about anybody's efforts to extinguish the fire, whether anybody was hurt or if any efforts were undertaken to investigate causes of the fire.

FD boys actually told one of the victims that the fire as intense as melted two vehicles and instantly burned a house started because (1) an electrical problem or (2) the sewer got up in flames.

While one of the victims heard a distinctive sound of window breaking before she went into that room and saw a mattress on fire with something burning on top of it - something that nobody wants to investigate.

I will continue reporting on this case, especially that, according to some experts consulted about the case, there is an indication that it is an arson through explosion and that a certain explosive device was used against the victim's house, and especially that the local press and government  does not believe this fire, especially under the circumstances of the case, is newsworthy.

And, Archer is welcome to make comments - but I ask him to make them under his own name.  

I even invite him to a video conference call on Hangouts that can be streamed to my readers here.

I wonder if the brave Archer will agree to come out of the bushes and participate in a conference - with victims and with experts - sharing his knowledge about the case.

I am sure that his supervisors will tell him to shut up and not speak another word though. 

Or, maybe, Archer actually is a supervisor of the Fire Department.

Who got pissed that his brave men got caught.

I am not sure if these brave men will be brave enough to show their real faces on a video chat recorded by a journalist and streamed live to the public.

It does not require courage to deny protection to a woman, or to forge documents, or even to say nasty things anonymously.

It does require courage - the courage they do not have - to engage in public debate, in real time, on video, live.

The brave Coyote Wait didn't come out of the bushes either, but who knows?

Let's wait if Archer surfaces again and agrees to do a live-streamed video-chat.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment