"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.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

On racism in America. Death by statistics.

A white man was convicted of committing murder.

The jury sentenced him to life in prison.

The judge (a white man) overrode the sentence claiming that he already sentenced three black people to death, it would look bad, the jury verdict notwithstanding, if he does not sentence to death a white guy - and he did sentence the white guy to death.

It took 3 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to uphold the judicial override and the death sentence based on race and statistics.

Here are these unsung "heroes" of racism in America:

Judge Dale Segrest

who overrode the jury recommendation of a life sentence and sentenced Bobby Wayne Waldrop to death.

His name was cowardly not mentioned in the decision of the federal appellate court, so I am making sure people know who did it in the first place.

Judge Dale Segrest is now retired and is practicing law with his son, advertising his experience as "reassuring":

The retired Judge Dale Segrest

does not advertise on his law firm's website that he considers race as a lawful basis for judicial decisions.

What Judge Dale Segrest does advertise is that he has chosen a building for his law practice "in a renovated historic structure built to quarter Confederate officers in charge of the Tallassee armory".

Judge Segrest then spends a lot of time lauding himself for his "community values", experience, academic work, "thought leadership" and "community service".

And, of course, the 11th Circuit did not have the heart to expose to public scrutiny and scorn the racist old geezer who sentenced a white man to death only to dilute the otherwise racist statistics of death penalty of his court.

I purchased Judge Segbert's book "Conscience and Command" trading on Amazon, but without any feedback, and will provide both the feedback and a review on my blog when the book arrives.

I already admire the book for the dire gall of its author to use the word "conscience" in its title.

On the federal appeals level the heroes who confirmed that a human being can be sacrificed in the United States of America in the 21st century in the very literal sense because his race was necessary to dilute the otherwise all-black statistics of the death penalty are:

And here are credentials of judges who believed that overriding a jury decision in a death penalty case in favor of the death penalty based on consideration of race is legitimate.

#JudgeBeverlyMartin, a career prosecutor of 26 years before coming to the bench (she "concurred in the judgment", with a separate opinion):

Judge Stanley Marcus, a career prosecutor and a law professor

I wonder how #JudgeStanleyMarcus will be explaining his decision to his law students in Brooklyn Law School and in St. Thomas University School of Law.  Or - probably, he will not explain it at all, expecting them to be afraid to ask for fear that he will ruin their entire career in law if they do.

Judge Adalberto Jordan, an immigrant from Cuba and a law clerk to a federal appellate judge and to the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

These amiable, smiling, educated, polished people sworn to protect and uphold the U.S. Constitution just sent to death a person who was sentenced to life in prison by the jury of his peers, but for whom a judge made an "exception", because the judge just sentenced to death three black people and did not want the statistics of his death sentencing to appear "too racist", so he just threw in another number to dilute that statistics - and crossed out a person's life.

And these three upheld that.

They first said this:

And then they said this:

The majority - judges Marcus and Jordan - simply ignored that the death sentence was CLEARLY, IN SO MANY WORDS, was based ONLY on the defendant's race, and in order to dilute the otherwise "all-black" death penalty statistics of a racist white judge in the racist state of Alabama.

Instead, they affirmed the death sentence based on their "precedent", after some legal gymnastics during which reason, common sense, justice and any reference to what Judge Dale Segrest did disappeared, and Judge Segrest's name never appeared in the first place.

That was the two-men majority of the 3-judge panel.  Let's see what the "minority", Judge Beverly Martin, wrote in her opinion - agreeing with the "boys" to put to death a person based entirely on black-and-white statistics of the death penalty:

Judge Martin then blabbers for some time that because the claim was "procedurally defaulted" (the defendant , or rather, his incompetent previous "free" attorneys, did not raise it earlier in the appellate process), and because the defendant was found guilty by the jury, it does not matter that he was sentenced to death for the sole reason that #JudgeDaleSegrest wanted to dilute with his body and blood the judge's racist statistics of the death penalty.

But, Judge Martin has already admitted, in plain language, that Judge Segrest, the author of the book having the word "conscience" in its title, did this:

And then she carefully claims that it is supposedly the defendant's position that his death sentence is based on race, implying the judge's actions and words can have any shades of meaning as to the judge's motivations in sentencing #BobbyWayneWaldrop to death.

Tell me, how ELSE can anybody else read the phrase, while overriding the jury life sentence recommendation and sentencing a person to death: "If I had not imposed the death sentence, I would have sentenced three black people to death and no white people"?

But, changing the decision of the jury from a life sentence to death based entirely on the man's race is racism, whichever race the  condemned man is.


I wonder whether the three appellate judges similarly ruled to affirm a death sentence because they affirmed so many death sentences for black people and needed to dilute the statistics somewhat - because these judges routinely review death penalty cases, and have done a lot of them, I am sure, in their careers.

So, be very afraid, people of the United States of America.

Now, a precedent has been created providing that judicial decisions may be made not on the merits, but on the basis of the race of parties for whom similar decisions were made.

Imagine - the judge took children away from three undeserving fathers of race A, and a deserving father of race B comes in front of him, and upon the merits, he should clearly get custody.  No, we cannot give a child to a father of race B, because it will create an appearance of racism, let us dilute the statistics a little bit and take the child from that father, too.

Or, on the opposite - we decided three breach of contract (defamation, personal injury, you name it) cases against parties with race N,  now a person with race M comes in front of us - let's dilute the statistics somewhat.

Just think what these four "judges" have done to this country.

No comments:

Post a Comment