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.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
The difference between pocketing criminal fines and not exonerating bail - it is "judicial discretion", baby
In New York, judges, if caught in such a thing, are never criminally prosecuted, because - ask John Hubbard who is currently running for the position of Delaware County District Attorney and who did not disclose, in 15 years of prosecuting cases in front of a judge, Carl Becker, that he is Carl Becker's former associate, and then law partner.
Hubbard and his boss Northrup refused to prosecute Becker for the commission, with two accomplices, of an apparent E-felony and grand larceny from the State of New York taxpayers.
Because his boss wanted to become a judge.
And Hubbard wanted to take his boss's place.
And one of the accomplices was the Republican Commissioner of the Board of Elections.
One does not bite a hand that may at some point in the future feed you and promote you.
Ok, so that was about a North Texas judge pocketing fines.
What about a New York judge who does not exonerate bail?
Out of a felony case that was dismissed - and sealed - nearly 2 months ago?
A $10,000 bail?
That's Judge John F. Lambert who is, according to the court clerks, as I am told, is extremely busy and cannot get his hands on issuing such an order.
I guess, that is not theft.
That is - what do they call it - "judicial discretion"?
Or, rather a not-so-subtle attempt to continue to punish Barbara, and the extended family who bailed her out of jail where she was put on an illegal warrant of Judge Gumo who, Judge Lambert himself said, was "either confused or disingenious" in his testimony - in other words, he lied under oath, and that's a crime of perjury.
And John Hubbard - remember - does not prosecute judges.
For public good.
So Hubbard does not prosecute Gumo for public corruption.
And he will never prosecute Lambert for public corruption - because he appears in front of him and hopes to get favorable dispositions from that judge.
"#PublicServants", all of them.
Becomes a swear word, doesn't it?
And another question - since the charges were illegal, and incarceration was illegal, maybe, the bail was illegal, too - and maybe, the Delaware County Treasurer should not charge a percentage on that bail, but release it whole, with accrued interest that the State of New York requires for money judgments - 9% a year?
It would be what - $10,000 put in by Barbara's family, $10,900 to be returned - and $900 to be obtained from Gumo, as compensation for his criminal conduct?
What will be the input of the ardent public servant John Hubbard on this one?
Post a Comment