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.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

No - don't acknowledge that the attorney was never suspended as a matter of law, my money depends on it!

There can be stupid.

 And there can be STUPID.

 And there can be VERY STUPID.

 The EXTRA VERY STUPID is what I saw today in the "legal" argument of attorney Woodruff Carroll, lover of teen chats, the one who "lacks a filter" (not my expression).

By the way, Carroll's enthrallment with sex got the better of him when he used a sexual term "quickie" in a Memorandum of Law - claiming that he has made a "quickie motion".


 I will repeat here Carroll's statements that I already posted earlier which prompted observers of his failed election campain for a City Council state that Carroll "lacks a filter" - and that's a huge understatement:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixcZhibObaH5-mF_qx6H86j39SVaDOrGcagM4P-i5b0swE3svsjHA6uKKiwLJzomW2T5t5a5pq9BzmEHfyTRWUASxvJJesKqH4UHyP3fB0dWtfhlJ1_2VRZLn8TSxjZUtG_1UphGDpMqI/s1600/rough+up.GIF
 

Carroll, together with former magistrate Peebles (whose term expired on May 16, 2016, but Peebles still continues as the Magistrate of the Northern District of New York) did employ that tactic - 

"scare 'em a little bit and get 'em motivated" 

with the indigent plaintiffs of the Argro case.

In fact, Carroll used that strategy beautifully where the Plaintiffs went to the hearing to finally kick Carroll out and ended up settling the case for "quick cheap money" (Carroll's words, not mine) 
after a "brilliant speech of Magistrate Peebles) (Carroll's words, not mine, repeated at least 3 times in his pleadings), and after Carroll told them that Peebles will be pissed off with them if they do not settle (Carroll's words, not mine).

To say that Carroll is exceptionally stupid, even for a privileged attorney, is an understatement of the century - he admits A LOT that a corrupt, but "prudent" attorney would prefer to conceal.

But, Carroll surpassed even his own record level of stupidity in his pleading when he claimed that my suspension should not be "reversed" (or deemed as "never happened" because there is no public order of suspension, as I argued) - because Carroll bet money on my suspension.

Carroll does not even try to call me by name, I am "she" and "her" in the majority of his sentences in the pleadings.

Here is Carroll's argument, in all its unadorned glory:

  Carroll argued the above on behalf of the person who provided to the court an affidavit that she wanted to hire me (with or without a license) and provided a written statement that she wanted to fire Carroll - which the court did not allow her to do, and forced her to accept Carroll's services anyway.

Carroll  states in his "affidavit" - without supporting affidavits of his coerced clients - that now the very people who told me that they are prejudiced by my suspension and want me back on the case, license or no license, actually do not want my suspension to be deemed what it is - a nullity - because they will be financially hurt then.

Just imagine that.

Do not apply the law, your Honor, it will hit me in the pocket.

Lacks a filter, indeed.



 



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)