"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, May 18, 2016

A petition was made to the U.S. Congress, Judiciary Committee, for legislation ensuring access to court and prohibiting retaliation for making constitutional arguments in court and administrative proceedings. Please, sign it. It is for everybody's benefit.

Here is the petition.

Here is the text of the petition:

Courts in the U.S., including the U.S. Supreme Court, created unreasonable rules restricting or barring access to court.
Those rules (1) condition e-filing on attorney status, (2) restrict page limit in constitutional arguments, (3) impose printing and booklet, typesetting and multiple copy requirements for filings (U.S. Supreme Court) that cost litigants additionally thousands of dollars in costs and make appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court impossible for the majority of litigants in the United States, (4) relegate civil rights appeals to not-so diligent "summary", "non-precedential" review, (5) punish litigants and their attorneys for constitutional arguments, (6) suspend and disbar civil rights attorneys for raising constitutional arguments that judges do not like, and that especially concerns criticism of the judiciary.
This petition requests the U.S. Congress to introduce legislation, Civil Rights Protection Act that would eliminate all such rules unreasonably burdening access to courts.  Since courts adamantly refuse to abide by their constitutional oath of office and punish litigants and their attorneys for constitutional arguments in court, federal legislation is desperately needed to (1) lift judicial immunity for such retaliative actions and to (2) prohibit any and all sanctions by state or federal government officials imposed in response to constitutional arguments raised in court or administrative proceedings.
I encourage my readers to sign the petition.
All I am asking is to establish firm laws prohibiting judges from retalilation against litigants and their attorneys for raising constitutional arguments in court, to remove judicial immunity for such retaliation, as a mechanism of enforcement of such laws, and to eliminate all rules that bar or restrict access to court unreasonably, or provide unequal access to court on the basis of attorney or pro se status.
Such a federal legislation will benefit all Americans and is greatly overdue.
Thank you.

The sketch on the petition is courtesy of artist Alexander Kolganov, of Moscow, Russia.  Thank you, Alexander!

An update as of may 19, 2016:  I added to the petition a letter that will be forwarded to the U.S. Congress Judiciary Committees (in Senate and House) detailing and outlining discrimination and restriction of access to court to pro se parties and civil rights litigants.

Please, sign the petition.

No comments:

Post a Comment