"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.

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Tonight on Andy Ostrowski's "Justice Served" radio show: Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal, the advocate against torture of advocates against judicial misconduct

Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal

is a passionate national and international advocate against torture by the legal system in the United States.

Yes, torture by the legal system, that follows a pattern described in Mrs. Crenshaw-Logal's articles and on the websites of her organizations - OPT-IN USA and

In 2009, Mrs. Crenshaw-Logal contacted the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of the United Nations with this letter stating that the U.S. is politically persecuting whistleblowers of judicial misconduct and is denying them effective legal remedies.

In 2015, Mrs. Crenshaw-Logal, a trained civil rights attorney and an experienced advocate for human rights, has filed a class-action complaint against the United States of America in with the United Nations Human Rights Committee claiming that the U.S. is denying its citizens, us average Americans, effective remedies to protect us from retaliation if we raise our voices against misconduct of the government, and especially misconduct within the judicial system.

I encourage my readers to read Mrs. Crenshaw-Logal's complaint to the United Nations.

It not only lists violations of articles of international treaties that the U.S. is part of - and which are part of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (even if the Treaties are ratified only with the so-called RUDs, "reservations, understandings and declarations", and without giving Americans a right to sue the U.S. in the United Nations, as other member countries allowed their members to do).

The complaint also cites to interesting precedents, for example, to:

  • Morton Nesses v Randall T. Shepard, et al., 68 F.3d 1003 at 1005-1006 (7th Cir., 1995) (providing that a litigant cannot prevail in the legal system he or she contends is corrupt if that contention is true); and
  • Ward v Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 at 61-2 (1972) ("Nor, in any event, may the State's trial court procedure be deemed constitutionally acceptable simply because the State eventually offers a defendant an impartial adjudication. Petitioner is entitled to a neutral and detached judge in the first instance.")
In her complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, attorney Crenshaw-Logal lists the following goals of TTD/The Third Degree (torture of whistleblowers of judicial misconduct), and I quote from attorney Crenshaw-Logal complaint to the UN:

  1. "disparage and discredit targets through legal process;
  2. intimidate and perhaps terminate witnesses and/or targets;
  3. neutralize and eventually preempt the target's acces to courts;
  4. impoverish the targets; and, perhaps...
  5. incarcerate the targets".

In her complaint to the United Nations, attorney Crenshaw-Logal lists the ways of how those goals are achieved by the judicial system bent on revenge, and I quote from her complaint to the UN:

  1. "Procedural irregularities (particularly hearing requests denials, ultimately notice, and/or evidence tampering/destruction);
  2. one or more questionable departures from well-established precedent;
  3. undisclosed grounds for adverse credibility determinations;
  4. personal character disparagement;
  5. total or substantial denial of relief through Judicial Activism, i.e., an arguable usurpation of legislative powers;
  6. judicial proscriptions that are functional, civil equivalent of ex post facto law; and/or
  7. Total or substantial denial of relief pursuant to some form of Judicial Engineering".

In the conclusion of the complaint, attorney Crenshaw-Logal states that the petitioners/complainants "hail from a class of Americans who are not only unsuccessful litigants; we suffer life-altering, unnecessarily devastating U.S. court decisions that essentially punish our championing of public interests (in the course of trying to protect our personal rights) and reward the historically shunned if not outright condemned conduct of our opponents".

I have been documenting just what attorney Crenshaw-Logal described in her complaint to the U.N. over 2.5 years in this blog and through my practice as Family Law, criminal law, defense of foreclosure, defense in consumer debt cases, and in civil rights litigation - that is, until the Third Degree was applied to me and my law license was taken in November of 2015 for making motions to recuse a judge.

So, I was punished - and the judge I sought to recuse, as well as his supporters were rewarded - exactly following the pattern described in attorney Crenshaw-Logal's complaint.

And that is happening not only to me.  That is happening to people who are not attorneys and whose only "fault" is that they want an impartial judge to decide their court cases. 

Such people cannot find attorneys who would make a motion to recuse - because the judiciary holds attorneys, through attorney licensing, in deadly grip and suffocates their independence in advocacy and their ability to provide proper services for their clients and protect their rights in court.

Attorney Crenshaw-Logal is doing an important work for all of us.

She is on Andy Ostrowski's radio show tonight at 6:00 pm discussing her advocacy.

Thank you for your work, attorney Zena Crenshaw-Logal.

No comments:

Post a Comment