"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.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Do attorney regulations apply to Hillary Clinton, lawyers working her and lawyers working to protect her, like Loretta Lynch and James Comey?

According to attorney Ty Clevenger (attorney who forced resignation of the sexual predator, federal judge Walter Smith, at the cost of exposing himself to retaliation by the D.C. bar), the D.C. bar refused to even investigate the disciplinary complaint against Hillary Clinton and her legal team for destruction of e-mails in violation of a court order.

South Carolina Rep. Tedd Gowdy publicly announced that Clinton's lawyers not only deleted several thousand e-mails from Hillary Clinton's server, but did that using software that prevents recovery, so the destruction of evidence was complete and deliberate.

Ty Clevenger also reported that disciplinary complaints were also filed against attorneys James Comey, director of the FBI, and Loretta Lynch, the U.S. Attorney General, and the complains were reportedly filed in New York State, where Comey and Lynch are licensed.

Of course, I wouldn't hold much hope that New York disciplinary authorities will be less corrupt than those of the D.C. bar - and especially because Hillary Clinton lives in New York State.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how the complaints against Comey and Lynch will go through in New York, where, according to the new rules of attorney discipline, the complainant is now entitled to at least some form of appeal if the complaint is not investigated or dismissed.

The D.C. bar is followed, in its corruptness, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that dismissed Ty Clevenger's disciplinary complaint against David Kendall, one of Hillary Clinton's attorneys, and threatened Ty Clevenger with contempt of court proceedings if he discloses the dismissal to anyone.

Well, Ty Clevenger disclosed that dismissal to the whole wide world by publishing an announcement about it on his blog, insisting, correctly, that it is a 1st Amendment issue and that the government may not order him into silence on this matter of public concern.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit is, in fact, very corrupt - and continues to hide the extent of how corrupt it is, by refusing to answer my Freedom of Information Act request for records of behind-the-scene meetings between state judges (defendants in civil rights actions before that court and federal district courts below) and federal judges deciding the state judges' cases.

There are claims that if Trump gets elected, it will be a disaster.

Will it not be a disaster if Hillary Clinton is elected and grants permission to all who protects her from criminal prosecution to be above the law?

If it is already happening now, imagine what kind of boons will be given out by Hillary Clinton to her "faithful" (to her, not to the law) supporters if she is elected.

Please, vote wisely.

No comments:

Post a Comment