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.
Saturday, April 2, 2016
New York Senate does have a (no longer secret) contact e-mail address for Freedom of Information Requests!
I also analyzed, in detail, the illegality of certain restrictions or demands by New York State Senate as a condition to file a FOIL request with the Senate.
Also, I blogged about my own attempts to file a FOIL request with New York Senate - the lack of confirmation e-mail, my attempts to secure that confirmation through NYS Senate's Facebook page etc.
Yesterday - lo and behold - I received a response from NYS Senate to my FOIL request.
And, I am happily informing my readers that they now have an e-mail to use to file their FOIL requests, instead of the Senate's run-around "fill-in" page that provides you no means of confirmation and improperly restricts you in how you can file your FOIL requests, what kind of information you "must" provide about yourself as a condition of filing such FOIL request, and what you can ask.
Here is the FOIL e-mail of the NYS Senate: email@example.com.
Here is the full response by the NYS Senate to my FOIL request - which I am going to appeal, of course.
I will fully analyze the response in a separate blog, but the key preliminary points are that the NYS Senate:
1) claimed a fee from me when I asked to provide to me the records I requested in digital format, or, if the request is denied, an inventory of the Senate's scanning equipment - the Senate provided no inventory, but denied provision of records in digital format and attempted to charge me a fee;
2) denied me records that I clearly identified - financial disclosures of NYS Senators and enactment/amendment history of several statutes, and
3) asked me practically for the purpose of my FOIL request - by requesting to narrow down my request from ALL records of enactment/amendment history to SOME records that I am looking for.
In any event, you now have the e-mail address to file your FOIL requests, instead of the Senate's imposed online "form".
Once again, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Enjoy and use!