"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, June 1, 2016

A Michigan judge #LisaGorcyca is on trial for ordering three kids jailed for not wanting to see their father

A disciplinary trial has started against a Michigan family court judge Lisa Gorcyca (the last name means "mustard" in Russian, by the way).

Judge Gorcyca incarcerated three children, ages 14, 10 and 9 for defying her orders and disrespecting their father.

The only fault of the children was that they did not want to see their father after the judge ordered them to go have lunch with him because, as one of the children stated to Judge Gorcyca, he saw the father hit the mother.

Judge Gorcyca disregarded the statement and claimed the children were "brainwashed".  

Here is the video of the court proceedings that triggered the disciplinary trial.

The children spent 2 weeks in juvenile detention before the news media initially ran the story, but the "term" of incarceration, without a jury trial or proper contempt proceedings was, respectively:

  • 4 years for the 14 year-old;
  • 8 years for the 10-year-old; and
  • 9 years for the 9-year old.

Those kids were ordered to be held in the kiddie jail until they turn 18, or until they change their mind to have a relationship with their father.

Talking about mind control.

The kids were denied any childhood.

Denied a proper education.

Denied communication with friends or outside world.

Because they refused to go to lunch with the father who abused their mother.

Here is the smiling face of kid-jailing judge Lisa Gorcyca:

According to the news reports relying upon court transcripts of what transpired on June 24, 2016 in court, the judge was upset because, even though the judge previously ORDERED the kids "to have a healthy relationship with their father", the kids refused to see him or go to lunch with him.

Just be happy with your father, kids, will you? Even if he hit your mother in front of you.

And if you are not - the kiddie jail is the remedy for you.

Not to mention that the judge compared the children to Charles Manson and his cult.

Let's remember that custody proceedings are governed by the concept of the "best interest of the children".

Their best interests, apparently, are served by being locked up in a juvie prison for years.

The kids were reportedly separated from both parents, from each other, and their mother was not allowed to visit.

In July of 2015, after international protests and demonstrations, Judge Gorcyca, who previously denied a request to release the children, agreed to transfer them from the juvie prison - no, not back to their mother where they would at least start to heal - but to a "summer camp".

Then, in August of 2015, the judge expressed an intention to put the kids into intensive therapy for "healing" and "reunification" with their father.

Judge Gorcyca was allowed to preside over that case until December 23, 2015 when she, at the same time, denied a motion to disqualify/recuse, and disqualified "on her own" - after a disciplinary complaint was filed against her, and the disciplinary complained was, most likely, powered by international protests against lawlessness wielded by the judge against the kids.

Here is the formal complaint against Judge Gorcyca.

Judge Gorcyca apparently threatened jail time against the mother if relationship of kids with father did not improve, and made the mother to read from a pre-written script to her children, out loud, in court, that their father loves them and wants to spend his time with them.

After that did not work, and one of the boys told the judge that he apologizes to the court, but he does not want to apologize, because his father hit his mother and is violent, Judge Corcyca freaked out, held the boy in direct contempt and told him the following:

Now, how having to go to the bathroom in public served the best interests of that child and taught him to reunite with his father, is anybody's guess.

The judge clearly wanted to have the boy who "defied her direct order" "to have a healthy relationship with his father" to be humiliated for his defiance.

The judge, obviously, considered herself a mental health professional, telling the child that, because he said he does not want to communicate with his father because he abused his mother, he is "messed up", has no manners and should do research on Charlie Manson and his cult.

The judge put the keys from the child's prison into the abusive father's hands, like that:

And, the judge told the boy that the case will not be even reviewed again until he turns 18.

18 is the age of majority.

An 18 year old cannot be mandated by the court to have any communication with anybody, including his or her parents.

Nor can an 18-year-old stay in a juvenile facility.

But, the judge had to intimidate the boy by saying that, for his "bad manners", essentially, he will be locked up until further review (not release, but just review) until he is 18.

The younger, 10-year-old, boy read to Judge Gorcyca a pre-written apology.

That was not enough to save him from kiddie jail either.

The judge exercised her sadist self in full on the 9-year-old girl though.

Here is what she did with the girl:

The girl was obviously traumatized from witnessing what was done to her big brother, and was in no shape to defend herself, with the stakes of being separated from her mother and deprived of her liberty.

Did it matter to the judge?

Of course, not.  After all, the judge had the best interests of that girl in mind.  Here is how the judge made sure she took care of those best interests:

Now, how does instilling into a 9-year-old girl that a woman with authority can humiliate her in front of others, disregard her traumatized condition, put her down as stupid, mock her religion and ridicule her brother who is "defiant" and who is "living in jail" - how can that be in her best interests?

After Judge Gorcyca intimidated the two younger kids enough, she ordered them to go to lunch with their father and warned them that she will incarcerate them if "there is any hesitation at all" whether they want to do that.

The judge then hinted to the young children that she does not like their mother and asserted that she likes their father (who abused their mother):

Judge Gorcyca then repeated to the younger kids the threat she already made against their older brother - whether they want to go to the bathroom in front of other people. And added to that threat that the kids will spend their birthdays in prison.  That was supposed to be an incentive to "have a healthy relationship with the father", I understand.

When the younger boy displayed solidarity with his older brother and volunteered to go to jail with his brother rather than to bend to the judge's will, the judge punished the child for that and indicated that she will order the brothers separated:

When the little girl, despite her fear, also refused to go to lunch with the father, the judge called it ridiculous, claimed that "every single adult in the room thinks that kids are brainwashed", ordered the two kids, a 10-year-old and a 9-year-old into jail for contempt of court with no contact with the parents, and the kids were handcuffed and escorted out by the police.

Somehow, that display of intimidation was supposedly in the best interest of those children.

The judge obviously knew that what she was doing was wrong, because she later lied about it to disciplinary authorities, therefore Charge No. 2, for "misrepresentation":

Here is what the Commission found wrong in Judge Gorcyca's actions - as a preliminary matter, that's why the formal complaint was filed:

We will see what kind of discipline will be imposed upon the judge for all of that - where irrefutable proof is available that Judge Gorcyca should not be allowed anywhere near the bench or children, it is in transcripts of proceedings.

The mother made a statement when the kids were released from juvie prison that one cannot terrorize another person into loving anybody - and that is exactly true, and is especially true if one parent is abusive against the other.

Unfortunately, what judge Gorcyca was charged with - the "a to q" charges, can be filed against the majority of New York judges I appeared in front of, and I can recite about each one of them detailed descriptions fitting those charges, pertaining to specific cases.

The New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct is not interested - and never was.

Judge Gorcyca's case has proven what is very obvious - decisions of child custody may not be entrusted to be done unilaterally by one judge.

With time, judges deciding such cases start to consider themselves Gods who can do anything, law or no law, and their abuse of power causes irreversible traumas in adults and especially in children.

If such cases are to be tried, they need to be tried in front of juries, not judges.

Then, outcomes of custody cases will be much better, and parents will think twice before bringing the case in front of the jury, too, instead of agreeing on custody amicably.

And that is in the best interests of children.

I will continue to cover the disciplinary case of Judge Lisa Gorcyca.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment