"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.

Friday, May 13, 2016

Uncontrolled judicial misconduct: Judge Real, on the footsteps of Judges Free and Best

I wrote on this blog earlier about misconduct of judges Free and Best.  

Now comes another judge with a telling name involved in gross, systematic misconduct for decades - Judge Real.  Judge Manuel T. Real of the U.S. District Court for the District of California, to be exact.  Date of birth January 27, 1924.  Yes, Judge Real is 92 years of age.

What Judge Real was doing during his judicial career was absolutely unreal, what is also unreal is the fact that he is still allowed to be on the bench, and not behind bars.

In August of 2016, there was a blog indicating that Judge Manuel T. Real of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, at the age of 92, is "still abusing his power" - listing such "achievements" by the judge as:

1) interfering with defense's cross-examination in a criminal case, for which he was reversed, and conviction vacated;
2) being removed from cases by the appellate court at least 11 times for lack of objectivity - and that is, as of 2009, he was removed from a case at least one other time, yesterday;
3) having a reversal rate of 10 times "the average" for a federal judge, having been reversed completely 87 times plus 47 partial reversals - as of August 2016, and plus at least one more reversal yesterday;
4) having gone through an impeachment inquiry in the U.S. Conduct in 2006 for misconduct.

In 2015, according to calculations of Reuters reporter Alison Frankel, the then-91-year-old Judge Real was reversed 12 times out of 32 appeals, a rate of reversal of 37.5%, more than 1/3.

Since many cases do not get appealed for various reasons, not the least one of them being lack of funds for a filing fee and/or lawyer, nobody knows how many more cases Judge Real botched up that never came before the appellate court.

The question asked by a defense attorney Victor Sherman who was reportedly hounded by Judge Real for 40 years was whether it was in public interest "for Judge Real to preside over cases only to be reversed so often on appeal" and that it is a waste of public money.

Yet, justice, or lack thereof, does not measure in money only, and this is a judge presiding in a court handling death penalty cases, as well as civil rights cases.

To allow a judge on the bench who lacks competence, integrity and elementary civility because he is unreachable by discipline through immunity, because the Judicial Disability Act does not apply to misconduct during court proceedings, and because the U.S. Congress finally decided that all of the above did not rise to misconduct of "constitutional proportions" is despicable.

Now, Judge Real was removed from yet another case, the one he was stalling, to the detriment of plaintiffs, for 8 years.


No comments:

Post a Comment