"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, April 26, 2017

American taxpayers were ordered by a fundraising-for-Obama federal judge to finance illegal aliens residing throughtout the U.S.

Imagine that you are a parent of an adult child.

You have been giving that adult child money, once in a while, to help the child out.

Then, at some point, you drew a line and said - enough.

The adult child then sued you and claimed to the court that, since you've been giving the adult child money all along, you should be made to continue doing it.

Imagine what an independent court would say, based on the law.

If that is an unbiased judge who would follow the law, the judge will say:  it was your parent's discretion to give or not to give you money.  It does not matter that you got used to handouts, it is still your own obligation to support your own needs.  So, lawsuit dismissed - likely, with costs and attorney fees against the adult child for the parent, for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

But, here comes Donald Trump.

Donald Trump's presidency has highlighted a lot of problems in this country, one of them - runaway courts which consider themselves independent from the law and entitled to move as their political sponsors want or in accordance with personal beliefs or whims of judges.

And that's how federal judge William Orrick ruled, here is his preliminary injunction - after, reportedly, raising $200,000 for President Obama.

The combined lawsuit of the City of San Francisco and Santa Clara County in California to block the federal government from stopping the federal funding of the City of San Francisco and Santa Clara County because these entities refuse to abide by federal immigration law highlights a lot of issues and reveals how, in reality, many businesses are financed - because the numerous amicus curiae filed in court, very obviously, do not give a flying duck about the fate of the poor, as they ardently claim, or about the fate of the U.S. Constitution.

Both the City of SF and Santa Clara County are themselves being sued for constitutional violations, and vigorously defend against such lawsuits.

They are, thus, cannot at the same time claim they are somehow advocates for the same people whose civil rights lawsuit they are vigorously opposing.

Moreover, the City of SF and Santa Clara County assert their rights under the 10th Amendment to be free from federal coercion, while at the same time forgetting that under the very same 10th Amendment states not only have a RIGHT to decide about how to provide for safety and health of their residents, but also the OBLIGATION to do that - and to finance that obligation out of their own means.

Yet, in the same way as an adult child suing the parent, the City of San Francisco and Santa Clara County (as well as public schools, police chiefs, cities and counties from other states, technology companies, non-profit corporations) claim that the federal government somehow must fund their endeavors to protect safety and health of their resident and boost economic development of states - which is totally both the right and obligation, including financial obligation, of the states.

And another thing in those strings of arguments completely falls through the cracks.  Who are they suing.

When President Trump is being sued in his official capacity - that means, every single one of American citizens, voters and taxpayers, are sued. 

Those who live in the State of California and those who don't.

Those who support sanctuary cities in California or anywhere else, and those who don't.

All of us just paid our taxes by April 15.

Judge Orrick ordered those taxes to be used for illegal aliens residing in this country, whether we want that or not, when this country's President has undertaken to put an end to that waste of funds.

Of course, a judge out of one district court has no authority to impose injunction across the country, including jurisdictions where he has no authority to act.

So, let's remember who this lawsuit is against.

It is against all of us.

To San-Francisco, Santa Clara and all other entites and businesses claiming they will suffer "irreparable harm" if federal taxpayers are not shaken up for money in their favor:  grow up.

You are not entitled to federal money.  You must generate money to fund your own programs.

Use your brains.

Attract businesses, and not with forced federal funding, but by attractive policies.


Provide incentives to businesses.

Do something other than aggressively demanding funds that are discretionary and that you are not entitled to.

Judge Orrick should be impeached for:

  1. not recusing from a case despite his political fundraising, in violation of his status as a judge, in favor of Obama; and for
  2. making handouts to parties simply because he shares their political standpoint, even though his decision has nothing to do with the law;
  3. imposing countrywide injunctions in gross excess of his jurisdiction;
  4. causing abominable waste of taxpayer funds, against the will of taxpayers and against the existing law.

I am going through the mass of amicus briefs and arguments and will post a full analysis of arguments raised later on.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment