"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.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Bashing attorneys for the poor as a norm in American Courts? #MaleChauvinistPig Galore: handcuffing public defenders, episodes 1 through 3 - and still no disciplinary proceedings for Nevada Judge Conrad Hafen

I wrote two days ago about the outrageous incident where a judge in Nevada, white elderly male (ugly - it's the truth) Christian judge handcuffed a young female beautiful immigrant darker-skin attorney, a public defender, for allegedly "talking over him" when he was "making a ruling",  because she was following her duty and trying to put in additional argument and make the record for appeal against incarceration of her poor client BEFORE the judge made his ruling.

As of today, I did not find any information that any disciplinary proceedings were started against Judge Conrad Hafen.

Yet, there was a report indicating that Judge Hafen never criticized her before he had her handcuffed (while lying that he had problems with her in the previous 6 months), and that Judge Hafen was, in fact, "very complimentary" about attorney Zohra Bakhtary in his conversations with other attorneys.

Reports Judge Hafen's secret compliments to Ms. Bakhtary only confirm my suspicion that having her handcuffed had nothing to do with what she did in court, and had everything to do with her youth, beauty and sex appeal to the aging (and ugly) judge.

Yet, there appeared an article where the author agreed with me that what occurred appeared to be an intentional discrimination against women - and against public defenders - and that the court system thus demonstrated its contempt for the poor through its contempt for those who represent the poor.

The article cites to two other episodes - in D.C. in 2007 and in California in 2015 where the same was done to - "coincidentally" - female public defenders for constitutional arguments in court on behalf of the poor.

Here are the parties in D.C. and California cases.


The judge - John B. Bayly, Jr. 

Judge Bayly is white.

Judge Bayly is Catholic - judging by the Catholic wedding ceremony of her daughter in 2009.

By the way, Judge Bayly was sued, by a dark-skinned man, Henok Araya, for religious discrimination - and the lawsuit dismissed only o contrived judicially created grounds - because in a child custody proceedings he awarded custody to the parent of his own religion, Catholic, specifically allowed questioning about the opposing parent's religion and made his determination of custody, apparently, because he personally preferred children to be raised in his own faith.

Judge John B. Bayly, Jr. is reportedly a member of the American Inn of Court, a secret organization, funded by legal elite, providing free perks to judges.

In 2015 Judge Bayly requested a reappointment as a Senior Superior Court Judge of D.C. Court.

Apparently, Judge Bayly was reppointed - to a misdemeanor court, where he "serves" until present time.

In regards to the case of handcuffing, unlawful detention and strip-search of female public defender Liyah K. Brown, Judge Bayly was only "reprimanded" for that - just reprimanded, for "intemperate conduct".

Judge Bayly's reasons for the order were exactly the same as Judge Hafen's:

So, a public defender was "oppositional and defiant" in arguing about this:

Here is the full order of reprimand of judge John H. Bayly, Jr.  It mentions an "intrusive patdown search", but does not mention that Ms. Brown was actually strip-searched, as her lawsuit against the guard says.  And, even though the guard was less liable than the judge who ordered Ms. Brown's ordeal, the judge escaped with a slap on the wrist and continues to be a judge.

Don't be a bad boy, judge, the order of reprimand for "intemperate conduct" said, don't have those naughty female public defenders handcuffed, detained and strip-searched in the presence of a male deputy marshall.  I wonder whether the creep watched the court security video of the strip-search, too, he certainly had access to it as a judge.  There is no indication that the Judicial Conduct Commission checked into judge's being a potential sexual predator in the courtroom.  Judges who are sexual predators are routinely protected from discipline and are allowed to continue to "serve".

The public defender who "talked over" judge Bayly in making a constitutional argument for her poor and homeless client was Liyah K. Brown, an '04 law school graduate, just 3 years out of law school at the time, reportedly a Soros Criminal Justice Fellow, a young, bright and dedicated public defender.

Her dedication to her homeless client, apparently, earned her a handcuffing, a detention and a strip-search.

I will give credit to her colleagues, attorneys who reportedly started to wear red armbands to the courthouse, in solidarity with Ms. Brown.

Ms. Brown filed a lawsuit against the security guard for strip search and unlawful detention, but the guard died mid-litigation - and, of course, the main culprit, the judge, was unreachable by lawsuit because the judiciary gave itself a gift of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench.

It is obvious that the main reason for handcuffing, detaining and strip-searching Ms. Brown, a young woman, in front of men was to humiliate and embarrass her - and, possibly, for the judge to have an opportunity to see her naked body on the court security cameras.


In California, no judge was involved (at least no involvement by a judge was disclosed), but a female public defender Jami Tillotson was arrested by male police officers when she objected to interrogation of her client in protection of her client's 5th Amendment rights.

All of the three attorneys share the same traits:

  • they were female;
  • they were public defenders;
  • they protected constitutional rights of the poor.

Even President Obama has recently succumbed to bashing of public defenders and did not nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court a judge who was a public defender, based on false accusations against her in the press which were easily verifiable as false.

And, in view of what happened to female public defenders Liyah K. Brown, Jami Tillotson, Zohra Bahtary, the recent claim of "Justice" Sonya Sotomayor for the need to mandate pro bono representation of the poor appears as even more of a hypocrisy.  

"Justice" Sonya Sotomayor maintains self-given judicial immunity for herself and for other judges for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench, and at the same time wants to mandate representation of the poor by all lawyers, while knowing the degree of contempt, disrespect and attorney-bashing of criminal defense and civil rights attorneys who already represent the poor, and while regularly tossing appeals of such attorneys when they are punished for criticizing such judges and punished for raising constitutional arguments on behalf of the poor in court.

Such behavior by Judge Sotomayor is an act of ultimate hypocrisy.  

What is happening to public defenders, especially female public defenders who are trying to do their jobs for the poor properly - even while being underfunded and overworked - is sending a message that lawyers representing the poor can and likely will be subjected to any kind of embarrassment and humiliation by the courts for doing their jobs properly - and that judges will be "immune" from punishment and protected by the system.

That is not exactly encouraging for attorneys to provide quality representation for the poor.

It is encouraging such attorneys to do the opposite - sell their clients out.  After all, they cannot sue them for malpractice, being the poor.  In New York the poor cannot sue their criminal defense attorney (mainly assigned) unless they overturn the conviction, even if the conviction is obtained through poor representation.  Quite an incentive to sell out poor clients...

At this background, "Justice" Sonya Sotomayor claims that she believes that slave lawyers will still be providing good representation to the poor "out of professional pride", seems like an even bigger hypocrisy.

Try exercising you professional pride and providing proper representation for the poor, for payment or especially for free, knowing that, if you are a female, and especially if you are a young and pretty female, you may be spotted by some old white pig judge, ordered handcuffed, put into a cell, your breasts will be bared in front of men there, and the judge and his whole entourage will be watching your naked body over security cameras.

And, very likely, your law license may be stripped if you persist in your "frivolous" constitutional arguments on behalf of the poor, you will be blackballed from any decent employment for life, as it happens to many attorneys suspended or disbarred for criticizing the judiciary - and any other licensing in the increasingly licensed labor market of this country will be denied to you, too.

And, if your license is stripped,  "Justice" Sotomayor will make it prohibitively expensive and burdensome for you to appeal to her court, even if you are pursued by a creepy judge like judges Hafen and Bayly, and will toss your petition without an explanation, preferring instead to review cases that will get her sensational reviews and gratitude from wealthy parties. 

Knowing all that, I wonder, how much of "professional pride" will motivate you then to properly represent the poor.

No comments:

Post a Comment