Yesterday, it was reported by many leading media sources that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor "urged" that licensed attorneys in the United States should be subjected to "mandatory pro bono service".
That is a judge who has been sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution that contains a 13th Amendment that prohibits involuntary servitude.
And that judge urges to impose the involuntary servitude requirement upon lawyers.
Of course, rules of involuntary servitude were already created by courts that do not allow attorneys to leave cases for non-payment unless the non-paying client consents or a court allows the attorney to leave.
So, the best way for a client to stiff a lawyer is to pay a down payment, then, after the down-payment is exhausted, refuse to pay more for ongoing services, refuse to consent to release the lawyer - and the court will mandate the attorney to work for you for free.
That's how it works in New York - I was subjected to that particular involuntary servitude several times.
I wrote on this blog, three times, here, here and here, about rules and practices existing in the State of New York that authorize slavery in the legal profession, in violation of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Now, why would a judge of the court that repeatedly caters for the rich, predominantly rejects petitions from pro se (poor) litigants and creates unreasonable rules for petitions that require thousands of dollars in additional costs to even get a petition in front of the court, suddenly urge mandatory service of attorneys, for free, in helping the poor?
Sonya Sotomayor reportedly claimed: "“I believe in forced labor when it comes to improving access to justice for the poor".
In other words, a judge of the highest court claims "I believe in violation of the U.S. Constitution when...".
Yet, there is no "ifs" or "whens".
There is Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, which NOBODY - even a justice of the Highest Court - is allowed to violate.
Under any conditions.
The judge also recognized criticism of forced labor from at least the quality point of view - slave labor is ineffective.
To that, the judge said, astonishingly, that "ethics require" good representation in forced pro bono service cases. What kind of "ethics" do or may require to perform a good service by a slave when slavery is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution?
So, Justice Sotomayor sees forced pro bono service by attorneys as a means to provide access to courts for the poor.
Yet, Justice Sotomayor herself participates in creating the situation where the poor is not properly served.
Justice Sotomayor is part of a licensing agency for attorneys where consumers of legal services have no say in regulation, which is an anti-trust violation.
Justice Sotomayor rejects petitions of pro se litigants, poor litigants and disciplined attorneys, including the mostly targeted defense attorneys, family court attorneys, civil rights attorneys suspended or disbarred for criticism of the judiciary, and thus removed from providing services for the poor.
Justice Sotomayor, by not opposing Rule 33 of her court that I wrote in my previous blog about, perpetuates discrimination against litigants who plainly cannot afford the extra costs of printing, typesetting and formatting required by Rule 33, and that would include not only poor lay litigants, but also civil rights, criminal defense and family court attorneys targeted by unconstitutional discipline and stripped of their livelihoods.
Moreover, when claiming that lawyers must be subjected to mandatory pro bono service rule, Justice Sotomayor did not offer to cut her own salary, or salaries of judges in federal or state courts, as a way to reduce financial burden on taxpayers, including those taxpayers who are unable to hire a lawyer, or pay extra costs to access the U.S. Supreme Court.
Such salaries only grow.
Apparently, Judge Sotomayor statements - though clearly demonstrating the judge's unfitness for the bench since she advocates violation of the U.S. Constitution - is a populist lip service as to "protection of the poor", while Judge Sotomayor creates and perpetuates the problem of the "justice gap" by her own conduct.
While hypocrisy of judges is not anything new to me, hypocrisy of this level, trying to justify continued existence of the legal profession and its monopoly by urging mandatory pro bono (not necessarily competent) service is completely disgusting.
And, since Judge Sotomayor apparently fights to preserve laywer monopoly, it is completely understandable why her court recently rejected certiorari petitions of attorneys who fight against lawyer monopoly.
Apparently, filing certiorari petitions with such courts by advocates of positions that judges personally oppose (and I am opposing attorney regulation and urge to deregulate and release court representatives from dependence upon the government for their livelihood) is not only a waste of money, but a waste of effort and time.
Access to court?
Forget about it.
Even with mandatory pro bono service.
No comments:
Post a Comment