"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, February 17, 2017

Arizona to attorneys for the condemned - bring your own drugs to kill your client

The death penalty in the U.S. is, likely, close to an end.

Many states already abolished the death penalty, many states that did not abolish it yet, suspended it given the amount of wrongful convictions, prosecutorial misconduct that caused such conviction - up to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Williams v Pennsylvania where the DA's office did not only obtain a death penalty by fraud, concealing Brady material and solicitation of perjury, but the DA who sought and obtained the death penalty by fraud used that conviction to get elected as a judge and blocked habeas corpus/appellate relief for the condemned prisoner 4 times.

Arizona invented an execution "protocol" which contains provisions so inhumane that you may wonder what was mentally wrong with people inventing it.

First, the protocol provides for a "contingency" - to revive the inmate, even with the help of defibrillators, if his heart stops (if he goes into a cardiac arrest) before the state has a chance to kill him.


Second, the "protocol" magnanimously "allowed", in fact, suggested, that attorneys for the condemned prisoners, PRODUCE the EXECUTION DRUGS to have their own clients EXECUTED.

No, I am not delirious.

Here are the relevant pieces of the protocol.


At the time when

the State of Arizona expects as a way out of this "problem" to get the execution drugs from the unlikeliest of source - the condemned prisoner's ATTORNEYS, CAPITAL DEFENDERS who have a DUTY to FIGHT FOR their client's LIFE to the last SECOND of his or her life, are offered an "opportunity" to bring drugs to cause his DEATH?

Is it a thinly veiled threat that their clients have two "choices" - to go "peacefully" and painlessly, on their own "consent", with drugs provided by themselves, wherever they might find them - or suffer torture in execution?

That's the hint?

Are Arizona Corrections officials nuts?

They surely left their moral compass someplace.

No comments:

Post a Comment