"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.

Sunday, May 1, 2016

10 major points of testimony in the U.S. Congress

I am currently drafting my written testimony/request for oral testimony before several Committees of the U.S. Congress, including the Congressional-Executive Committee on China and the U.S. House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary on the issues related to access to justice, availability of effective legal remedies and political repressions against civil rights attorneys which hurt the entire population.

Here are the main points of the argument - I will publish the full testimony when I complete it.

I.                     ABA’s withdrawal of its book deal for a Chinese civil rights attorney is a continuation of ABA’s policy of non-support of politically oppressed civil rights attorneys in the United States.

II.                   The U.S. Constitution has become largely unenforceable through the Civil Rights Act because of the court-invented rules and doctrines.  The lack of effective legal remedies for violations of human rights is a major problem in the U.S. which ABA refuses to address – and that refusal is directly related to ABA’s position on rescinding its book offer to Dr. Teng Biao. Analysis of court-created rules, doctrines and practices and explanation why they undermine enforcement of constitutional violations is included.

III.                 Antitrust problems, conflicts of interest in regulation of the legal profession, including control by the ABA, and control by the government attorneys are contrary to the declared purpose of attorney regulation, protection of consumers of legal services.  Such problems are undermining access to justice of indigent population for enforcement of their constitutional rights against encroachment by the government.  Analysis of legal concepts involved, facts and links to documents in support is provided.

IV.                Control of a non-profit corporation ABA over governmental licensing through certification of legal education as a pre-condition of such licensing, and thus control by a corporation with foreign membership and financing over independence of court representatives and over access to court is a major problem.  Consumers of legal services must be given a right to choose their court representative themselves, and not out of a government-vetted pool, especially when the government is opponent in litigation.

V.                  Secret-membership organizations with participation of attorneys and judges providing opportunities for fixing cases through ex parte communications behind closed doors and providing attorney-sponsored benefits to judges (free meals, free trips, scholarships etc.).

VI.                Unavailability of strong whistle-blower protection for attorneys raising federal constitutional issues.

VII.               Use of court rules and sanctions as a means of political repression against attorneys raising constitutional issues on behalf of their clients in the United States, impact of such sanctions upon the independence of the bar and upon access to court and the rule of law for all Americans.

VIII.             Unavailability of discipline for judges and prosecutors as the majority pool of judicial candidates.  Analysis, facts and links to documents in support are provided.

IX.                 Unavailability of a legal remedy for violation of human rights outside of the country – through the U.N. Convention on Political and Civil Rights.

X.                   The needs for reforms, and proposed reforms.

I request feedback from my readers, if they would like me to cover any other points related to the above topics in my testimony.

I appreciate and will review all suggestions.

Thank you.

No comments:

Post a Comment