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 6, 2016
Yet another New York judge of a justice court bounced off the bench? When will the Commission for Judicial Conduct go after bigger fish?
Yet, the NYS Commission of Judicial Conduct did not reflect a decision against Judge Alan Simon as of this morning.
I will publish a post once the official decision will become available.
As of now, all I can say is that the Commission chooses to go after judges of the justice courts, carefully avoiding to touch with discipline judges of higher courts.
There is a good reason for it.
In New York, the infamous "rule of frivolous conduct" (that was used to suspend my law license for criticizing a judge in motions to recuse) do not operate in justice courts, so attorneys and litigants who turn in judges of justice courts do not run into a situation I faced - where the judge who you complained about gets assigned (or assigns himself) to all of your cases and starts to meticulously destroy your life by imposing sanctions for "frivolous conduct" left and right, no matter whether he is right or wrong - and the appellate courts no less meticulously affirm those sanctions, also, no matter whether there are facts in the record and laws in your support (like the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, for example) - simply to teach you and all other attorneys, through you, a lesson not to criticize higher-level judges.
Attorney licenses in New York are regulated by judges.
If you criticize a higher-ranking judge, the whole judiciary comes against you, and uses the rule of "frivolous conduct", at their "discretion", against you - and then take your license and livelihood away.
The majority of members, employees and referees of the NYS Commission of Judicial Conduct are licensed attorneys, themselves, or their close friends and/or relatives.
Thus, there is a strong incentive to go only against those judges who cannot hurt you or yours back - like the judiciary hurt me.
A lesson taught well.