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 27, 2016

The fired-up firemen and the fireman's wife in trouble

According to reports from Delhi, NY, today, here is the status of police/fire incident report as to the fire at Barbara O'Sullivan's house:


  • no report still;
  • no promised call from Tim Buckley still, as was promised to Barbara O'Sullivan, along with the report, yesterday (probably, the lawyers are talking to the insurance company and the insurance company does not allow the law enforcement to tell the truth in the report, see my previous blog here);
  • members of the Delhi Fire Department are expressing displeasure to employees of Barbara's brother (of all people) about them not being paid for their firefighting "jobs", and being upset at being "put down like that";
  • the firefighter's wife Sharon Reichert-Morgan is in some kind of trouble because of my blogs posting her messages to me.


The rank-and-file members of the Delhi Fire Department can discuss the fire to their heart's desire - but the report is not there from their bosses, and that is very damaging.

Yet, they blame not their bosses, and certainly not themselves, for not doing their jobs properly (because that admission may be prohibited by insurance).

They blame my blogs, the mirror of their conduct.

By the way, the report was supposed to be made immediately, according to my prior conversation - couple of years ago - with a firefighter who was my client.

And - an interesting development.

The firefighter's wife Sharon Reichert-Morgan who claims she does not use her work time for personal business, sent me a message on Messenger (I wonder if it was on her county-issued cell phone or County computer) begging me for a telephone conversation.



This was my first reply.


Sharon Reichert-Morgan insisted that:



I asked what I asked for yesterday when Sharon Reichert-Morgan was promising a smear campaign, to hide her firefighter husband's key if my own husband is burning (hint, hint), calling me, my husband, the victims and their families various bad names.

Just a video hangout, livestreamed, videotaped, with Sharon Reichert-Morgan and her husband participating


I did not hear back from Sharon Reichert-Morgan yet as to that counter-offer.

Saying that she was only trying to "persuade me" - I will let my readers be judges of the sincerity of those particulars methods of "persuasion", see messages of Sharon Reichert-Morgan published here and here.

Sharon Reichert-Morgan was very cavalier yesterday on Facebook claiming that I am crazy.

Now she is begging for a phone conversation with a crazy person?

Interesting - what could have happened to sober her up so quickly?

Very likely, Sharon Reichert-Morgan had a good conversation with attorneys Amy Merklen, or Porter Kirkwood, and/or her boss or bosses, who, probably, explained to her that, even though my license is temporarily suspended, my brains and training as a trial lawyer are not, only I am using these skills for journalism now.

I am still skilled to exact information from people, especially from social services and law enforcement, and I did extract information that I needed from Sharon Reichert-Morgan's statements and statements of her friends and commentators which was exposing untruths and potential misconduct of Sharon Reichert-Morgan, her husband, her husband's employer the Delhi Fire Department and her own employer the Delaware County Department of Social Services.

Sharon Reichert-Morgan also must have forgotten that she gets her money funded by my taxes and subject to my scrutiny through FOIL requests, and for that reason, insulting me, at the very least, was not advisable.

Sharon Reichert-Morgan also must have forgotten that nobody prevents me, license or no license, from making FOIL requests, obtaining documents and reporting on documents and stories reported to me from Delaware County.

In fact, now I have more free time to do that.

That's called journalism, for which this country did not invent licenses yet.

Sharon Reichert-Morgan implied in her today's messages to me that I incorrectly got "her" children (two children and one stepchild) "involved in this", and that she would never involve mine.

Yet, it is not me who got "her" children involved in this discussion, it was Sharon Riechert-Morgan herself, in her messages to me, which I simply verified against certain sources from the area, and commented on her truthfulness and her potential abuse of power in regards of the child or children, as a social services department employee.

Knowing that 


  • other social services employees use their influence to affect custody proceedings and even adoption proceedings (I have names of particular social workers in mind, and the Department of Social Services knows who and in what cases), and knowing 
  • behavior of local judges in relation to all social workers, and especially female young social workers, and 
  • taking into consideration the semi-nude picture Sharon Reichert-Morgan has sent me with a request to publish it, 
I could reasonably conclude that it was not beyond Sharon Reichert-Morgan to abuse the power of her government employment, as well as her feminine charms (you do not need much charms for an ageing judge) to get custody of her husband's child with a little help.

Now apparently Sharon Reichert-Morgan is in trouble, and is begging me for an opportunity to entrap me with a phone conversation into a charge of unauthorized practice of law.

As I showed above, I counter-offered what I offered from the very beginning - a videotaped and livestreamed chat on Google Hangouts, with Reichert, her husband firefighter, and with other members of the firefighting team and law enforcement who participated in 



  1. the alleged extinguishing of the fire and 
  2. who hovered around Barbara O'Sullivan's property in police uniform pretending they are on government business.


No answer so far.


Well, I am patient and I can wait.


I will report any developments of this story.


Stay tuned.

 





3 comments:

  1. Really!!!! As with others you have taken things said and completely twisted them around for your own satisfaction. You assume things. You are OK with saying things and posting them in your blog as true. Except as you have stated to everyone else...that it can't be used because no one else was there. Well... Were you? Were you there? So the only opinion who matters to you is your own. You have taken this beyond even what she said. She...hmm...I'll let you assume.

    Do you read the shit you write??? A woman in a wedding dress now equals half naked? Shoulders are now a sex symbol? Because someone works a lot of jobs makes the other members of the family lazy? You have to be blood to be family? Were you trying to say something about women with two children by two different dads? That seems like an attack on a lot of women in a lot of different circumstances...pretty crappy move considering things you have stated in your blog.

    There are to many questions to each that you write to return them with a question.

    This isn't about a fire anymore all it seems to be is you twisting anything you can to make it seem like everyone is out to get everyone. You are an Internet troll who has absolutely nothing better to do than sit on your computer and write this nonsense. Find something more helpful to spend every waking moment of your life with what you think are your trouble making "skills". Go volunteer at a homeless shelter, senior housing or write some letters to our troops.

    My questions were/are rhetorical. I'm done with this and you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Really!!!! As with others you have taken things said and completely twisted them around for your own satisfaction. You assume things. You are OK with saying things and posting them in your blog as true. Except as you have stated to everyone else...that it can't be used because no one else was there. Well... Were you? Were you there? So the only opinion who matters to you is your own. You have taken this beyond even what she said. She...hmm...I'll let you assume.

    Do you read the shit you write??? A woman in a wedding dress now equals half naked? Shoulders are now a sex symbol? Because someone works a lot of jobs makes the other members of the family lazy? You have to be blood to be family? Were you trying to say something about women with two children by two different dads? That seems like an attack on a lot of women in a lot of different circumstances...pretty crappy move considering things you have stated in your blog.

    There are to many questions to each that you write to return them with a question.

    This isn't about a fire anymore all it seems to be is you twisting anything you can to make it seem like everyone is out to get everyone. You are an Internet troll who has absolutely nothing better to do than sit on your computer and write this nonsense. Find something more helpful to spend every waking moment of your life with what you think are your trouble making "skills". Go volunteer at a homeless shelter, senior housing or write some letters to our troops.

    My questions were/are rhetorical. I'm done with this and you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have no intention or desire to attack "a lot of women in a lot of different circumstances". I only questioned credibility of one woman who works for the government and is in my pay as a taxpayer, based on what I know about her and how her agency operates.

    ReplyDelete