"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.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Yet another update on #ThiefJudgeBrendaWeaver - a federal grand jury investigation of the case is under way

I wrote previously in several blog posts, here, here, here, here and here, about the outrageous story coming from the State of Georgia, Fannin County, where a group of judges and prosecutors targeted a publisher, Mark Thomason and his attorney, Russell Stookey, for seeking through public records and through a lawsuit, a verification whether:

1) court transcripts were altered, as compared with audio tapes of a court proceedings, to take out of the transcript mentioning of an "N-word" by the judge, #JudgeRogerBradley - who since resigned; and
2) whether judges in question - the racist judge Roger Bradley and the Chief Circuit Judge Brenda Weaver, who is also the Chairperson of the State Judicial Qualifications Commission - authorized payment of $17,000 out of the taxpayer-funded court operated account to a private law firm representing a private individual seeking to quash the lawsuit that sought access to that audio tape.

I wrote that publisher Mark Thomason and his attorney Russel Stookey were arrested, charged with felonies, and thrown in jail for making a public records request about copies of documents from the court operating accounts showing the illegal checks.

I wrote that the charges against Mark Thomason and attorney Russel Stookey were dropped "at this time", but that the local establishment continues to dig under Mark Thomason and is trying to concoct yet another set of criminal charges for him - all because he "pushed the cart all the way with the N-word", by the claim of the local pro-establishment journalist Brian Pritchard.

It is interesting to mention that the local state prosecutors did not seem to be interested in either Judge Roger Bradley committing grand larceny, a felony, by signing checks for thousands of dollars out of the court operating account to private law firms from the court operating accounts, or in Judge Brenda Weaver openly approving, in writing, such a grand theft.

Apparently, the local state prosecutors were too busy bending over backwards to accommodate Judge Weaver's request to charge Mark Thomason and attorney Stookey with felonies, and to allow Judge Weaver to tamper with witnesses ahead of the official criminal investigation and coach the prosecutor, her own former law clerk and her husband's former employee, as to how to prosecute Mark Thomason and attorney Stookey better.

Well, since the local prosecutors are too busy - and too timid - to do their jobs when judges are committing crimes on their watch, a federal grand jury is reportedly doing their job for them now.

Reportedly, Judge Weaver's puppet, the Appalachin District Attorney Alison Sosebee, was served with a federal grand jury subpoena to turn over her "investigative file" of the whole mess to the grand jury.

It is interesting whether Judge Weaver will be served with a similar subpoena of her own investigation that she reported in her letter to Alison Sosebee where she requested to drop charges against Mark Thomason and Russel Stookey "at this time".

A poetic detail about the whole mess is that Judge Weaver was given a 1st Amendment award in 2014 - of all things.

Here is the happy recipient of the award.

I wonder if the "trophy", the 1st Amendment award, screamed from Judge Weaver's wall when Judge Weaver was ordering her former law clerk to lock up Mark Thomason and attorney Russell Stookey and charge them with felonies for making an access to public records request.

I will continue to cover this story.

Stay tuned.

1 comment: