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.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
On 9/11, let's mourn all the victims
I also mourn 182,000 of civilian deaths in the war that the U.S. unleashed against Iraq falsely claiming Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
I also mourn 31,000 deaths in Afghanistan caused by the war the U.S. unleashed there, also falsely claiming that Afghanistan was somehow responsible for 9/11.
I mourn the injured, the loss of families, the devastation in Iraq and Afghanistan, caused by the unlawful U.S. invasion.
I mourn the deaths and injuries of young men and women in the American Arms Forces who had no business going to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill and maim and be killed and maimed.
In 2001, I lived in the U.S. and was attending an online law school in the U.S.
That online law school was attended by working professionals, older students, some with adult children, some with adult children in the military.
I still remember how many of my co-students, adult men and women, U.S. citizens, sent e-mails to the law school discussion board collecting signatures to "inspire" their adult children in the military to rain bombs upon Iraq and Afghanistan with "Remember 9/11" plus "[The Name of the School], Class of the [Year of Graduation]" painted on those bombs.
And I still remember how viciously I was attacked through e-mails by the future lawyers of America when I wrote four words in response: "NOT IN MY NAME".
When I see today the reports of mourning in America of only those who died on 9/11, I believe, it is wrong.
We must mourn all the innocent victims of 9/11.
But, we must also mourn, at the same time, those who died, were maimed or whose livelihood was destroyed by us as a result of our government inflaming us into allowing the government to use our collective resources to unleash wars in two countries on another continent that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Our money was used to kill and maim civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our money was used to send thousands of our young men and women in the military to kill and maim in two countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.
We must mourn all victims, and make sure that we and our resources are not again used by our government as a tool of hatred against innocent people.
Not in our names.