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, August 27, 2016

The first piece of silver in exchange for testimony that brought about criminal conviction of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane was given to Bruce Beemer. Who is next in line for awards?

I already wrote on this blog that Attorney General, in Pennsylvania, was suspended from the practice of law - using that same scheme that violated federal antitrust laws, and then convicted of felonies (that will lead to her automatic disbarment and final removal from her elected office) on testimony of interested witness Bruce Beemer.

Here is Beemer's reported involvement and interest to lie against Kane (in addition to promotion prospects after removal of his boss):

 2014
2015

 Eakin participates in suspension of Kane's law license, and then resigns.

  2016

 Here is the reported involvement of Kane's powerful enemies Frank Fina and Mark Costanzo, who were taken under the wing of Philadelphia DA Seth Williams (longtime friend of PA Senator Williams) and who is now involved in his own misconduct scandal investigated by the FBI (see here and here):

Here is Seth Williams' employee Frank Fina's interest to take Kane down:

 2012








2015





Mark Costanzo's interest in taking Kane down:




So, people who either testified against Kathleen Kane or held and continue to hold powerful positions (and that does not count judges who she outed and forced to resign):

 1) were her subordinates wanting her job (Beemer);
2) were involved in exchange of pornographic emails she outed (Fina and Costanzo), while Fina was "one of the most highly respected Pennsylvania prosecutors" and in neglect to prosecute a high-profile case for political reasons she outed (Fina), and who also had a "security interest" in not being fired from a DA's job, likely in exchange for their testimony against Kane (Fina and Costanzo) and who sued Kathleen Kane for outing their misconduct (Fina and Costanzo).

 A brilliant group of disinterested witnesses, what can I say.


And, here is a first news report for a the reward for one of those interested witnesses for their testimony against Kane, Bruce Beemer, a clear indication that their testimony was bought - without disclosure to Kane, as is the usual way of Pennsylvania prosecutors.

 In June of 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a death penalty decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court because of participation of Judge Donald Castille who was the District Attorney prosecuting that same death penalty case.  Donald Castille was involved in the Porngate scandal, retired and then had the audacity to challenge constitutionality of "age discrimination" in mandatory retirement of judges in Pennsylvania.  He has to be happy that he was allowed to retire while keeping his state pension and his law license, instead of dragged away in shackled, as he should have been.

 The case was also reversed because Don Castille's subordinate in the DA's office - surprise! - failed to disclose an offer of leniency to the interested witness and knowingly elicited perjurous testimony from the interested witness on two occasions, it's all described in Williams v Pennsylvania interlinked above.

 The conviction conveniently removed Kane from office after she refused to do so even despite her illegal suspension, and after she outed local high-ranking judges and prosecutors in a Porngate scandal, causing two judges to resign, but not before one of them, Michael Eakin, participated in suspending her law license.

 But, now that the feds are zeroing in on Philadelphia DA Seth Williams (who harbored the two Porngate scandal perverts Fina and Costanzo - likely in exchange for their testimony against Kane that convicted Kane), who knows what other garbage can surface.

 Let's note that all of the participants are members of the presumptively honorable class of judges and prosecutors.

 Oh, well.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)