"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.

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

The racist Louisiana court strikes against a black attorney. And a black judge participates in that racist decision. No surprises where a black judge can only get into a Louisiana state court through a federal lawsuit. And no surprises where black judges are disciplined for fighting racism in the court system.

I've just put in a blog about the outrageously unconstitutional, personally motivated, pre-judged and - yes, racist - decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court in denying rehearing in the disciplinary case of Christine Mire .

Attorney Mire's only "sin" was that she courageously made a motion to recuse in the face of criminal behavior (doctoring audio tape of a hearing regarding her own non-disclosure of conflicts of interest, a piece regarding disclosure was added to the tape) of a judge, Judge Phyllis Keaty who was since elevated to an appellate court.

Here is attorney Mire.

Attorney Mire DID NOT raise the issue of her race in her disciplinary proceedings, while racism - in my white woman's view - was screaming from the pages of the disciplinary decision against her.

She was trying to be professional.

She was trying not to be identified by the color of her skin, but by what she was doing as a professional, as an attorney.

Apparently, professionalism has nothing to do with how things are done in Louisiana court system - and across the country.

Here is Chief Judge of the court Bernette Johnson (who agreed with Judge Knoll to deny Christine Mire a rehearing without putting in her own opinion):

A wise decision, Judge Johnson.

Support a racist stance of one old white judge 

on behalf of her old white judge-friend 

against a young female black attorney 

- who is right while the judges are wrong (which is the worst sin for any attorney in this country - especially if he/she does not shut up and reports the issue).

After all, see what happened to a Kentucky black judge Olu Stevens when he fought against racism in the Kentucky court system?

Judge Johnson, of all people, must know how alive is racism in Louisiana and how racist the Louisiana court system is: after all, Judge Johnson got her position as Chief Judge, despite obvious seniority, only after a federal lawsuit.

And Judge Johnson must remember the stinging racist comments to articles regarding your election/appointment as the Chief Supreme Court judge made 4 years ago.

These ones:

There was only one voice of reason buried in those racist comments:

Judge "Theriot" is Judge Jeannette Theriot Knoll, obviously.

But, what commentators clearly pointed out is that - people of the state of Louisiana did not vote this black judge in.

She had to be appointed, because she wouldn't have won the elections.

Because she would have been filibustered at the polls by the racist white population of the State of Louisiana?

That's what it is?

And, it appears that, once Judge Johnson overcome racial discrimination against herself, she is now trying hard to retain her position and connections by PARTICIPATING in racial discrimination against attorney Mire, by participating in a completely unconstitutional decision where attorney Mire is right - and that is the whole danger about it.

Judge Johnson knew what race attorney Mire was.

Judge Johnson should have seen from the circumstances of the case how racist the disciplinary proceedings against attorney Mire were.

Even if attorney Mire, based on her professional pride, did not raise that issue, didn't Judge Johnson have to?

Well, she didn't.

Out of self-preservation, obviously.

After all, once again - remember what happened to the black judge Olu Stevens in Kentucky?

Appears that Judge Johnson remembers well.

No comments:

Post a Comment