"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.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

A federal judge and son-of-a-judge #MichaelMosman does not want the criminal defense attorney Marcus Mumford to practice in federal courts in Ohio - probably because he does too good of a job for his clients

I wrote on this blog about criminal defense attorney Marcus Mumford who was tasered by U.S. Marshalls for opposing an illegal seizure of his client after he was acquitted by the jury.

I also wrote about criminal charges later trumped up by the U.S. Attorney's office against attorney Mumford based on his doing his duty for his client, obviously in retaliation for his victory in the trial.

Criminal charges were later dumped, but attorney Mumford is now under assault from another direction - a federal judge seeks to revoke attorney Mumford's pro hac vice (for this case only) admission in Oregon federal courts, and to turn him into licensing authorities - specifically for doing his job for his client, and for being tasered for that, and for "talking back" to the judge and for doing what he was supposed to do in a criminal trial - defend his client.

Here is the order:

Attorney Mumford is accused of insubordination when he is arguing his client's constitutional rights, a "character flaw" considered the worst in civil rights and criminal defense attorneys

We have had a number of judges who went so far as held criminal defense attorneys in contempt, by
  1. Judge Jeffrey Weill in Mississipi,
  2. Judge Conrad Hafen in Nevada,
  3. Judge John Baily Jr in D.C., and
  4. Judge Christopher Dupuy in California, and Judge Conrad Hafen even had a public defender handcuffed for "insubordination". 

Out of these 4 judges, only Judge Christopher Dupuy was criminally charged.

Attorney Mumford was not only handcuffed, but also tasered.  Since he still proceeds doing criminal defense for his clients, the only way to eliminate him is to take his license.

And taking his license may start from small things.

Like removing his pro hac vice admission and turning him into licensing authorities, because when a judge does it, it is just like an order to "get" that particular attorney.

And here is the author of the order, The Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, a Neil Gorsuch look-alike, compare:

Mosman is on the left                         and Gorsuch is on the right.

Look totally like brothers.

Judge Michael W. Mosman also appears to be an arrogant son of a bitch with a huge sense of entitlement, and it is apparent where that sense of entitlement comes from.

It comes:
  1. because of the judge's pedigree - he is a son of a judge, and children of judges are, as is well-known, allowed to do anything with impunity;
  2. a former U.S. Supreme Court justice's court clerk (clerked for Justice Powell) - where he would hardly have been accepted as a law clerk without his pedigree, being a son of a judge, and judge Mosman is
  3. a former career federal prosecutor who worked in the same U.S. Attorney's office which now appears in front of him.

So, it is very apparent that the judge's move to disable a capable criminal defense attorney with a not-so-subtle threat to turn him into licensing authorities for further action, is clearly meant to help the prosecution, the judge's own former employer, the U.S. Attorney's office.

Government officials, and especially judges, after all, are one big happy family helping out one another to get rid of those pesky criminal defense and civil rights lawyers.

While remaining at all times honorable - even making it part of their job title.

So, it is the (dis-)Honorable Michael Mosman who made this order.

Well, at least he is not threatening to taser attorney Mumford - only to facilitate stripping him of his law license.

An honorable man.

No comments:

Post a Comment