"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, July 13, 2016

Surprise! Judges who give themselves impunity for violation of their oath of office, right to strip his own criminal prosecutors' livelihood and presumption of integrity, actually commit crimes. Who would predict that?

Judges in this country give a constitutional oath of office.

In other words, they pledge to be loyal to the U.S. Constitution as a condition of taking the bench and receiving their substantial salaries - some of them, for life.

At the same time, as soon as a judge takes that oath of office and gets on the bench to get that salary, the judge can break that oath of office, and a citizen may not sue the judge for violation of his oath of office and for hurting that citizen.


Because the judiciary gave itself "immunity" from lawsuits by private citizens for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench.

So, a judge who pledged loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, may violate that U.S. Constitution the moment he pronounces that pledge, and a private citizen has no direct recourse about it.

Of course, a private citizen can complain about a judge - and 99% or more of such complaints are tossed without investigations, while many complaints result in futher retaliation by the judge against the complainant.

Of course, a private citizen may try to sue on the theory that acts in breach of constitutional oath of office are not judicial acts and must not be covered by immunity - good luck with that, most likely, the lawsuit will be dismissed, often with sanctions and attorney fees of the perpetrator of the constitutional violation to be paid by the victim.

Of course, a private citizen may try to turn the judge in for criminal prosecution.  Unless there is a real media frenzy and a real public outrage displayed in the media, nothing will be done by prosecutors either - because judges have a firm grip upon prosecutor's own livelihood through attorney regulation.  See, for example, what happened in Pennsyvlania to the state Attorney General Kathleen Kane who dared to investigate judges - those same judges suspended her law license.

After giving themselves a gift of absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for malicious and corrupt acts, and a gift of regulating livelihood of their own prosecutors if they dare to commence a criminal investigation and prosecution, judges also gave themselves a gift of presumption of integrity.

Think about it.

At the same time:

1) immunity for malicious and CORRUPT acts in office - from civil lawsuits of victims;
2) ability to strip the livelihood of criminal prosecutors who would dare to investigate and prosecute the judges in criminal courts, where the immunity does not reach;
3) and, with all that, a presumption of honor.

If someone is given an absolute power to be corrupt, that someone, most likely, will be corrupt.

With that in mind, what is surprising is that judges are prosecuted at all.

For example, in Georgia, a former judge, #BryantCochran (who was allowed to resign) was convicted - surprise! - of conspiring to plant methamphetamine upon a woman who accused the judge for propositioning her in chambers, sex crimes and corruption, in federal court. 

Cochran was sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Why not in state court?

But you know the answer - because a state prosecutor will be deathly afraid to investigate and prosecute a judge, because the prosecutor's own law license and livelihood is in the hands of the state judiciary.  To prosecute a state judge for corruption?  No, only the feds can do that.

Dishonorable behavior by a judge who is allowed to engage in dishonorable behavior with impunity, take away the livelihood of those who seek to prosecute him as their jobs, and claim that he is presumed honorable?

Surprise!  People allowed to commit crimes with impunity, commit crimes.  Who would imagine such a thing?

As to the next surprise - how the other Georgia "presumed-honorable-but-immune-from-lawsuits-for-corrupt-conduct", the current Chief Judge of Appalachian Circuit Court Brenda Weaver conspired:

  • with other judges and county commissioners to use public money in order to fund a private counterclaim against a lawsuit seeking public court records;
  • with her own former law clerk, district attorney Alison Sosebee, to undermine a criminal investigation into her own, and her personnel's likely misconduct, how she tampered with witnesses and evidence of criminal investigation, in collusion with her law-clerk-turned-DA -

stay tuned.

I wonder whether the feds' assistance will be required again - like in Bryant Cochran's case to charge Judge Weaver and judges she conspired with to release $17,000 to fund a private lawsuit, County Commissioners who allowed that, the DA/law clerk of Judge Weaver who allowed Judge Weaver to tamper with criminal investigation and have those who seek public records thrown in jail and charged with felonies.

No comments:

Post a Comment