"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, January 31, 2017

Previously concealed cases against President Trump appeared on Pacer, but pleadings are still sealed

I wrote yesterday in a blog, here, that the alleged TROs against President Trump were illegal and unenforceable because they were made in secret court cases which do not even appear on the official federal court register,

Today, the cases in question, and other habeas petitions and lawsuits challenging President Trump's Executive Order on immigration, appeared on,

this is in New York

in Illinois

In Massachusetts

compare with yesterday's screenshot of the same case No. 1:2017-cv-10154

the Virginia case 1:17-cv-116 yesterday:

and today - showing that it was filed on January 28, 2017, even though it was not visible yesterday, on January 30, 2017:

In New York yesterday ("nysdce" means U.S. District court for the Southern District of New York)

and today ("nyedce" means U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York), case filed on January 28, 2017, even though it did not show yesterday, on January 30, 2017:

Yet, all
  • habeas petitions, all
  • applications for temporary restraining orders, and all
  • motions to intervene by states, including
    • supporting declarations,
    • memorandums of law, and even
    • notices of motion,
are sealed.

I fail to see how a notice of motion or memorandum of law, the legal basis for a public court order, can be made secret.

And, I also fail to see how it suddenly happened that Ex Parte (without notice) applications for temporary restraining orders which are disfavored in federal litigation (which means, practically never granted), are suddenly given left and right, like candy, without legal grounds stated and based on secret pleadings.

Here is some evidence that review of what was actually argued in the petitions as a basis of ex parte TROs is blocked on Pacer:


Access to petition for habeas corpus denied:
 Access to application for Temporary Restraining Order denied:


Habeas petition:

Application for a temporary restraining order:


Access to Petition for Habeas corpus denied:

Notice of Motion to intervene by the State of Massachusetts (the Commonwealth) - access denied:

Supporting Memorandum of Law for the Notice of motion - access denied:

REDACTED transcript of the hearing to grant the temporary restraining order is offered for sale:

So, since the TROs' grounds are not stated, and the legal issues resolved by TROs are not revealed, the TROs are still of questionable legality.

Moreover, of questionable legality are secret (sealed) applications of the States of Virginia and Massachusetts to federal courts on behalf of non-citizens who did not enter the U.S. yet.

And, any self-respecting honest reporter with minimal knowledge of the law (which should be a requirement when reporting about such cases) should have picked it up and reflected these interesting "irregularities" instead of turning their "mainstream media" sources into yellow press and presuming that anything filed against Donald Trump as a defendant (even if it is in his official capacity, and thus the American taxpayers are sued), must be good.

For shame.

No comments:

Post a Comment