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.

Sunday, May 1, 2016

ABA has a policy of non-support of civil rights attorneys suspended for criticism of the government

In preparation of my testimony for Congress as to Dr. Teng Biao's case, I just checked out whether ABA has a policy of non-support for attorneys suspended or disbarred for criticizing the government - just like NYSBA does.

 And I mean - any attorneys, from any country, and those who are criticizing any government.

 It does have such a policy - actually, it has TWO such policies, both for the attorneys within the United States and outside of the United States.

 When you go to the website of ABA, here, first, you see only 5 categories of who can join the association.

 The top right category is "Associates" - "individuals interested in the legal profession but not U.S.-licensed attorneys or students".




Ok, I am not a "U.S.-licensed attorney or student".  I am suspended for criticism of the government.

 So, I am a non-lawyer, for purposes of joining the ABA, and a member of the public "interested in the law".

 And, ABA indicates in answer to the Frequently Asked Questions this:


Non-lawyers (paralegals, law librarians, economists AND OTHERS interested in the ABA) may join.

 I am "others".  

 I may join the ABA, because I am interested in the ABA.

 Right?

 Wrong.

 When you press the "join" button, the following screen pops up:


I am "none of the above", and I pressed on "See More Details".

 The "more details" is actually the policy that the ABA refused to admit they had - of not supporting attorneys who suffered any oppression for criticizing the government.

 Here it is.


Actually, you may not join the ABA as a member of the public if you are a suspended or disbarred attorney.

 The language pretends at neutrality, but it is not neutral, because the ABA does not CARE what are the reasons for suspension or disbarment.

 It PRESUMES that the suspension or disbarment is constitutional, even if it is not so, even if the suspension or disbarment was a sanction for criticism of the government - and I am sure that ABA has enough resources to learn about that tendency in the United States.

Here is the salary of its executive director and some officers for the year 2013.



Here is ABA's top "contractor" expenses for the same year - taken out of their IRS form.

 $1,009,746 a year's salary of the Executive Director.

 $2,910,000 a year spent on shipping.

 $1,706,475 a year spent on telemarketing.



Surely such an organization has resources to figure out about corruption and oppressions against civil rights attorneys trying to defend clients which are not wealthy enough to be members of the American Bar Association?

 Those clients whose interests - as consumers of legal services - ABA claims it is promoting, as well as the interests of its paying members, including judges and foreign LICENSED attorneys.

 Now, in connection with Dr. Teng Biao's case, the question arises - is Dr. Teng Biao "licensed" in China?

 And, if not, why not?

 Because he criticized the government too much?

 Then he MAY NOT join the ABA.

 And, consequently, ABA WILL NOT support Dr. Teng Biao's book - as well as it will not support any American attorney suspended for criticizing the government while doing his or her job for a client.

 I understand, under the same policy ABA will admit an attorney "licensed" by a horribly corrupt or tyrannical regime, but will not admit an attorney who is ostracized or cast out of the profession and stripped of his/her attorney status as a political repression in retaliation for the attorney's criticism of the government, as part of the attorney's political or professional activity.

 That's the ABA's true policy.

 And that's the ABA's true face.

 Money talks.

 Even if it is foreign money.

 And you know what?

 And, the ABA has the audacity to earn money on advertising articles about the so-called "legal rebels", those within and without the profession who are "rebelling" within the boundaries of the taboo on criticizing the government, of course.

 And ABA is advertising those "legal rebels" while snubbing the real people, who are engaged in a real civil rights struggle and are defending real human rights of real people while necessarily criticizing the U.S. and state governments and the international governments. 

 Support of such "legal rebels" is too dangerous for the ABA's bottom line.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)