THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"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.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
When will Louisiana prosecutor Leon Cannizzaro be prosecuted, criminally and as an attorney disciplinary matter, for issuing fake subpoenas?
But, apparently, prosecutors forget that.
For example, a Louisiana prosecutor, Leon Cannizarro, this nice, smiling and handsome young man,
wanted some information from certain alleged witnesses so much that he has sent them fake "subpoenas", compelling them to come and talk to the prosecutor.
Of course, there is no such thing as a "prosecutor's subpoena", a subpoena can only be issued by the grand jury, or later, after the indictment, by the prosecutor, so that the witness would testify in court, but not to give information to the prosecutor BEFORE the grand jury and BEFORE that trial.
And, of course, if a witness refuses to testify and invokes his or her right against self-incrimination, he must be given immunity if he is compelled to testify.
And the prosecutor, of course, did not want to give any immunity. Only to pretend that he may give such immunity while knowing that when a person just comes to talk to investigators, not in front of a grand jury or a court in a criminal trial, such immunity is unavailable.
But, prosecutors can lie, can't they?
Police investigators are allowed to lie by courts.
Apparently, prosecutors acting in investigating capacity believed they can do that, too.
But, the lying gets a little bit too far when fake court documents are used to get people to talk.
What I am wondering about though is - where is the Lousiana Supreme Court and its attorney disciplinary committee in all of this?
Why aren't they prosecuting DA Leon Cannizzaro for fraud upon the court since he already admitted that his office had such a "practice", obviously, sending not just one fake subpoena, but many?
That's not enough for discipline?
Louisiana only has resources and motivation to prosecute attorneys who criticize judges for confirmed misconduct?
And, why isn't DA Cannizzaro prosecuted criminally for issuing fake court documents that he had no authority to issue?