"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 5, 2017

The Pennsylvania saga on removing elected public officials through the backdoor dealings of attorney discipline continues

Now, I do not condone public corruption, especially by prosecutors.  At all.

But, what is happening in Pennsylvania is completely bizarre.

While Pennsylvania is suspending, disbarring and denying reinstatement of attorneys left and right for the biggest sin of all - criticizing the judiciary - it is really lenient (usually) on attorneys working for the state and committing misconduct.

For example, Pennsylvania, having no statute of limitations on attorney discipline, still did not disbar attorney Ronald Castille, former Philadelphia DA whose misconduct, and misconduct of his staff (of which he had to be aware) was described in detail in the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case Williams v Pennsylvania:

  • obtaining death penalty by fraud, withholding Brady material and suborning perjury from a prosecution witness;
  • getting elected to the bench on the basis of that fraudulent death penalty sentence, and then
  • blocking habeas corpus relief for the condemned prisoner as a judge in the same case where Ronald Castille was a prosecutor, and blasting the condemned prisoner's attorneys for trying to defend him.

And, Pennsylvania was not in any hurry to disbar Judge Marc Ciavarella for selling kids, for million-dollar bribes into kiddie prisons.

It only suspended his law license "on agreement" when he was federally indicted for corruption - but remained in office, like Pennsylvania former AG Kathleen Kane did, making a second precedent of a lawyer with a suspended license running a law office.

Yet, Seth Williams is a public official, and the only way he can be ousted is through impeachment.

So, the Pennsylvania saga of playing with law licenses of public officials continues.

Let's see what the court ruling will be on the lawsuit.

I will continue to monitor this bizarre case.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment