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.

Friday, October 28, 2016

#IStandWithAttorneyMarcusMumford. Attorney Mumford, beaten up, tasered and arrested for making a legal argument for his clients, and #USDistrictJudgeAnnaBrown - the new face of judicial misconduct

I recently wrote about the Nevada public defender, attorney Zohra Bakhtary who was handcuffed in court for making legal arguments on behalf of her client.

 We have another case like that - and worse than that, if it was even possible.

 A jury acquitted defendants in the famous Bundy case in federal court, in the State of Oregon.

And by law, when a jury acquits the defendant, the defendant is free to go.

And that is exactly what attorney Marcus Mumford



was arguing to U.S. District Judge Anna Brown, a judge with 35 years of experience as a lawyer and 24 years of experience as a judge - who knew exactly what she was doing.


 But, Judge Brown claimed that the defendants were, allegedly, "wanted" on another federal indictment, in Nevada - and that's why she was detaining them in Oregon.

 Attorney Mumford asked the judge to show the document she used as a basis of continued detention of his clients.

 The judge did not have the document and, thus, did not have jurisdiction to detain the defendants after acquittal.

 So, attorney Mumford, faithful to his oath of office and to his duty to his clients, insisted on his clients' release.

 The judge refused to release them - obviously, unlawfully, since she was unable to produce the order of detention.

 The attorney continued to insist on his clients' release.

 The U.S. Marshals continued to grab his clients leading them into custody.

 The attorney demanded documents from the U.S. Marshals that they used as a basis of taking attorney Mumford's client into custody.

 As a result, attorney Mumford was reportedly:
All for asking, first, for documents used as a basis of his clients' continued detention after acquittal by jury, and for asking for documents justifying his arrest.

And, of course, for his good work in persuading the jury to acquit his clients.

 The judge was supposed to maintain order and LAW in her courtroom.

 The judge was supposed to PREVENT unlawful detention of defendants, she had the power to do that.

 But, apparently, the judge was pissed off by the acquittal.

 And she took it out on the "culprit" - the defense attorney.

 And, the judge did not protect the attorney, instead she charged her for disobeying a court order.

 A month ago Judge Brown already tried, hard, to prevent attorney Mumford from presenting to the jury evidence of governmental misconduct.  She threatened him with contempt and with high monetary fines.  She tried hard to help the prosecutors get a conviction.  The contempt was threatened against Mumford because the judge restricted Mumford's cross-examination of prosecution's witnesses (in violation of the 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause).

 In February of 2016, another federal judge, in another federal criminal case, also threatened attorney Mumford with contempt for allegedly violating court orders restricting his cross examination - also in violation of the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause.

 So, the stubborn attorney Mumford who fearlessly does his job for his clients, has been in the cross-hairs of federal judges for a while.

 In the Bundy case, the judge's efforts to restrict his constitutional right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses have failed.  The jury acquitted anyway.

 So, attorney Mumford ended up physically tackled by 9 people, tased, arrested (without charges), handcuffed, and put into a holding cell - so Judge Brown finally had her dream come true, Attorney Mumford was punished for doing his job.

 And, lo and behold, the punished attorney is a criminal defense attorney, as it nearly always is for targets of government rage, not the weasels who destroyed evidence for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The country that arrests, tasers, beats up and criminally charges its criminal defense attorneys in punishment for effective criminal work, and for effectively arguing for their release from unlawful detention, the country that continues to punish attorneys for doing their jobs and for criticism of unlawful actions of judges - has no right to claim it is governed by the rule of law.

 Taze the attorney for winning!

 That's a new rule.

 But definitely not of law.



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)