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, January 21, 2018

The succession of brain-dead judges in Chenango County, New York - the anti-Semitic Dowd is out, the racist Revoir is in.


He mentored and left behind a twin younger copy of his own self - Judge Frank B Revoir who claimed in 2014 that making constitutional argument is an equivalent of lying to the court.

I will not be surprised if Revoir will try to ascend to Dowd's thrown of the Supreme Court Justice by running for his seat this year.

Revoir already made a necessary step towards that coveted goal.

While I personally know that Revoir is frantic about his personal safety as a judge - in his chats at attorney conferences he boasted of the new courthouse in Chenango Courthouse with a separate entrance and elevator for judges, so that judges would not have to "mix" with the mere mortals - Revoir has just appeased the racist all-white local law enforcement community of Chenango and surrounding counties by acquitting a white correctional officer charged with a racially motivated attempted murder of all charges.

while the judge denied him a youth offender status simply because the judge was pissed with the boy's father who wrote to the judge asking him for mercy to his son.

The African-American boy was wounded in the arm.

Yet, in Chenango County, when an adult white corrections officer, spouting racial slurs, shoots an African-American point-blank with a Glock gun in the abdomen, a judge first dismisses the charges, and, after the prosecution appeals and three out of 6 charges are reinstated on appeal, punishes the prosecution and the People of Chenango County for appealing his decision by acquitting the perpetrator of a violent hate crime of all charges.

Here is how the Appellate Division 3rd Department described what happened in the case:





After the shooter, a white corrections officer, was - naturally - indicted by the grand jury, Revoir DISMISSED the hate crimes for - guess what? - "insufficient evidence"!  Just re-read the above portions of the appellate court's decision.  That evidence was insufficient for a white judge to charge a white corrections officer with a racially-based violent crime against an African-American who he intentionally shot calling him a "nigger", a "monkey", a "jungle bunny" and promising to kill him.  That's some judge!




Defense attorneys in New York routinely make motions to dismiss an indictment based on insufficient evidence before the grand jury, but obtaining such a dismissal is nearly impossible, and the reason is - by New York law, grand jury proceedings and transcripts are secret from the defense (but not the prosecution), only a judge may review grand jury transcripts, and does it without revealing them to the defense.

Therefore, judges routinely use that advantage to deny such motions off-handedly while claiming that they reviewed the transcripts (even if they didn't) and did not find anything lacking.

In this case, Revoir, the judge who considers human rights, constitutional rights as a form of "lying to the court", bent over backwards to find fault with the indictment - and dismissed hate-crime charges where not only no reasonable judge, but no decent human being could do that.

The prosecution appealed, the appellate court, the just-retired "honorable" Presiding judge Karen Peters, remanded - without changing the obviously biased judge, knowing what will happen next.

District Attorney McBride, knowing what happens to attorneys who file motions to recuse biased judges - even in criminal cases, even to prosecutors who are usually never disciplined - did not file a motion to recuse.

That allowed Revoir to do what he wanted to do anyway, punish prosecution for embarrassing him with an appeal, and put the last nail into the coffin of the criminal case.

The defendant predictably waived the jury trial that would never have acquitted under the circumstances and chose the biased judge.

The biased judge acquitted the racist shooter of all charges, and double jeopardy attached.

Congratulations, people of Chenango County.

You have a real ascending star, a gem of a judge on your throne.

He outdid even his anti-Semitic teacher, Kevin Dowd.

At least, Dowd did not let a violent racist shooter go free.




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)