"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, November 15, 2016

No terrorist threat when a poor man, physically injured and robbed (literally) by a judicial decision claims judges who refuse to do their duties will be shot or will be hung in federal court from the highest tree - that is contempt of court in New York, but not terrorism

New York Penal Law 490.20 makes it a D felony, punishable by 7 years in state prison, to make a terroristic threat, here is the full text of the penal statute:


S 490.20 Making a terroristic threat.
  1. A person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when with intent
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a
unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of
a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping, he or she
threatens to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense and
thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent
commission of such offense.
  2. It shall be no defense to a prosecution pursuant to this section
that the defendant did not have the intent or capability of committing
the specified offense or that the threat was not made to a person who
was a subject thereof.
  Making a terroristic threat is a class D felony.


A man in Bronx, New York City, was charged with that crime under the following circumstances.

A young man, with two young children and a pregnant wife, was injured and received a workers compensation that was put into a joint account with the wife.

A housing court made a judgement against the wife and ordered automatic payment out of her account, which tapped into the workers compensation.

The young man came, with the pregnant wife and young children, to court to ask a judge to change the decision and return his workers' compensation money.

It was obvious that, when people are dealing with workers compensation, and housing court, and have two young kids and a child on the way, they are on the brink of a disaster.

It was in November of 2015, a cold month in New York City, so having no money and nowhere to go with young children and a pregnant wife is an awful thing at any time, but especially in the bitter cold of New York chilly fall and winter.

By the time Charles Adams went to court to ask to return his workers compensation money, multiple things went wrong.

  1. He was injured.
  2. His workers compensation attorney - if he had one - did not advise him that it was a bad idea to put his workers compensation money into a joint account with his wife, thus exposing the money to garnishing if his wife has any judgments against her, which is exactly what happened.
  3. His family landed in housing court - so obviously, he was not able to pay rent.
  4. A housing court made a judgment garnishing the young father's joint account with his wife - and thus his workers compensation money.
Faced with all of this stress, together with his pregnant wife and two young children, the man went to court to ask a judge to restore justice and to return the money to him.

The first judge he went to was judge Robin Sheares.

That was already bad luck, because judge Robin Sheares was transferred from another court for unethical behavior, bias, improper tirades from the bench and, reportedly, for jailing a mother for not allowing her son to go visit a serial rapist father in Arizona state prison, as Judge Sheares ordered her to do.

Judge Sheares jailed the mother, reportedly, after an ex parte communication with the father's family, without the mother's presence - a big no-no for a judge.  Judge Sheares was then disapproved for service as a judge by a judicial screening panel - but still remained on the bench, and was allowed to ruin more lives.

Judge Sheares is not a newcomer to the court system who lacks experience.  Instead, she has been an insider of the court system, as a law clerk/ court attorney, since 1986, according to her biography that she published herself during her election campaign in 2007.

When Charles Adams, the young injured father, appeared in front of Judge Sheares and asked her to return to him his workers compensation money garnished out of his and his wife's joint account by the housing court decision, Judge Sheares asked for evidence.

Charles Adams then claimed that he was a "sovereign citizen" and does not answer to Judge Sheares authority.

Judge Sheares, instead of telling Charles Adams to go, consult with an attorney and then return to the court again, simply denied his application.

So, Charles Adams went to another judge, Judge Theresa Ciccotto, who reportedly asked voters in non-Jewish communities, but not in Jewish communities, to vote for "one of us" (Theresa Ciccotto is not Jewish), which many people, naturally, perceived as anti-Semitic.  Theresa Ciccotto was at that point running against a Jewish judicial candidate Shlomo Mostofsky.

The "one of us" judge Theresa Ciccotto did not help Charles Adams and his family either - she simply refused to vacate another judge (Judge Sheares') order denying them relief - even though she knew that workers compensation money is not garnishable.

Just like that - Judge Sheares denied it, go to Judge Sheares for any other relief.

That's when the desperate young father lost it.

He recalled Article 2 of the New York Constitution - dealing with judicial misconduct and Commission for Judicial Conduct.

He told Judge Ciccotto that she and Judge Sheares will hang from the highest tree for treason IN FEDERAL COURT (not in the yard, at his hand).  And, he pointed A FINGER at the judge and said "pop".

After that, Charles Adams was overpowered, shackled, arrested and indicted with a D felony under Penal Law 490.20, making a terrorist threat against a judge, and for a 2nd degree criminal contempt of court, a misdemeanor.

It is very likely that Charles Adams was charged with an act of terrorism because of the theories of "sovereign citizen" that he expressed to Judge Sheares - since the FBI, that same FBI that refused to prosecute Hillary Clinton for exposing high-clearance national security secrets to the whole wide world through a private e-mail server, consider civil rights movements of those relying upon
as a form of domestic terrorism.  The irony that the FBI is now targeting African Americans for claiming to be sovereign citizens while the U.S. Supreme Court, nearly 200 years ago, asserted that people are the sovereign - but refused to recognize African Americans as part of that sovereign... 

But, claiming "sovereign citizenship" is a no-no in the present court system.  Judges even have a "guidebook" advising them how to oppose "sovereign citizen" claims.

So, when Charles Adams refused to provide further information to Judge Sheares (rightly or wrongly) claiming he is a sovereign citizen - that, I believe, was a big part as to why he was charged as a terrorist.

Because, nowadays, quoting the Declaration of Independence, the principles upon which the U.S. democracy is founded - as Judge Andrew Napolitano encourages people to do - is considered an act of terrorism.

Fortunately for Charles Adams, reason prevailed in the judge who reviewed his assigned lawyers' motion to dismiss the charge that Charles Adams allegedly made a terrorist threat, ruling that while Charles Adams' behavior under obvious stress did not help things - and even constituted criminal contempt of court - it was definitely not an act of terrorism.

Yet, with the criminal contempt charge remaining pending, what will prosecution do now - call Judge Theresa Ciccotto as a witness, and she will testify that Charles Adams came to her for help, she refused help, and she now wants him to have a criminal record because of his emotional response for that?

Shouldn't a "one of us" judge be a little bit more compassionate than that?

The case of Charles Adams demonstrates how a poor, and injured person, a father of 2, soon to be three children, is horribly wronged by the system, at 4 different levels -

  1. at the worker's comp level where nobody explained to Charles Adams not to put his workers' comp money into a joint account with his wife;
  2. at the housing court which garnished the worker's comp money of another person, and no lawyer protected that money from garnishment;
  3. at Judge Sheares' court where the judge denied a motion to restore justice and return the workman comp money to an injured man to be able to take care of himself and his family, just because he raised the "sovereign citizen" claim;
  4. at Judge Ciccotto court where Judge Ciccotto grossly over-reacted to the father's emotional distress and, instead of understanding what he was going through, preferred to simply have him shackled, in front of his pregnant wife and young children, and carted away to jail, and charging him with a D felony that would have kept him away for 7 long years.
To put a poor - and injured - man in jail on $100,000 bond that the court was sure the man could not possibly post, just because he said that a federal court will hang a judge for treason...

An injured father who was robbed by a court of his workers compensation money, so that he was unable to feed his two children and a pregnant wife is a truly dangerous man.

And, it is a very good and reasonable allocation of taxpayer money to spend more on jailing him - and feeding and clothing him in that jail - than helping him out and granting his request to return HIS OWN WORKERS' COMP money.  He did not even ask the government to give him a subsidy.

He only asked to return his own money, wrongfully taken by the government.

And all that the government could give him in return is jail, on a terrorist threat.

For shame.

No comments:

Post a Comment