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.
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Yet another sexual predator in a black robe - now in Arkansas was allowed to run amok because attorneys were too afraid to report his crimes
The judge ordered defendants to do "community service" - at his home.
By first paddling their butts, having sex with them and taking nude photos of them.
Over 4,500 nude photos, to be exact.
Since the judge resigned and was not taken off the bench, most likely, he will preserve his pension.
There is an indication that the judge may be charged for involuntary sexual conduct with defendants - but not "inconvenienced in any way", even when he skipped his court date.
And, the sexual predator remains a licensed attorney with no record of public discipline.
It took not one day and, most likely, not one year to acquire over 4,500 nude pictures of defendants.
There are other people always present in the courtroom - prosecutors, defense attorneys, guards, stenographers, clerks.
They must have seen - many times - that the judge is handing written notes with his telephone number to defendants.
When a judge instructs a defendant "to strip naked and bend over, handcuffed, inside an Arkansas courtroom while he snapped photographs, up close", many people must have seen that - plus, there are security cameras in the court buildings.
Why as this judge allowed to snap not one, not two, but 4,500 nude pictures of young men and coerce them into sex in exchange for lenient sentences?
Nobody was interested to report the judge - in years?
Or, people were deadly afraid to report, for fear of losing their livelihoods?
What kind of country have we become?
Now, since attorney Otto Joseph Boeckmann is still licensed, take your child to him for his representation and protection.
Or write to local prosecutors to have him locked him up.
Whichever you deem more appropriate.