"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, April 10, 2018

On the rule of law in the United States - the way the public sees it

The press relentlessly, for the second day, is discussing the supposed FBI raid based on the alleged search warrant allegedly signed by an unknown judge who allegedly allowed the search of the President's lawyer's office by the same agency that has been stonewalling the U.S. Congress for over a year as to the details of its investigation or (non-investigation) of the Clinton Foundation after Loretta Lynch met with Hillary Clinton's husband during that investigation.

Oh, well, nothing to worry there.

What makes me wonder - why wasn't still the judge's name published? 

If a judge signed the search warrant, it is the matter of public record, as well as the search warrant itself. 

Yet, despite a furious press campaign to gain public support for the raid, he actual document authorizing the raid, or the name of the person who authorized it, are kept hidden from some public - even though details are somehow leaked to Preet Bharara, who is a private citizen now, same as you and me, and who was fired by Trump (and has a basis for bias against him). 

So, hidden search warrants, hidden names of judges, politically-motivated raids on president's attorney while stonewalling release of documents regarding corrupt non-investigation of president's losing opponent in the election - what can be wrong?

And, by the way, this type of publicity is called prosecutorial misconduct - pre-trial publicity, leaks to the press - but, of course, not if the target is Trump (after Mueller said Trump is not the target - but, prosecutors have a right to lie to the public, right?).

And, of course, Trump has nothing to worry, he just has to "prove his innocence", as many illiterate commentators say, presumption of innocence be damned - for Trump only, of course.

And, let the attorney-client be damned, too. There are thousands of overnight legal experts commenting on press articles about the raid of a lawyer's office who
  • tout the "crime-fraud exception" to the attorney-client priviledge,
  • claim that if an UNKNOWN judge ALLEGEDLY signed on an ALLEGED document - it must be the law and it must be well-grounded;
  • approve of wholesale fishing expedition of the lawyer's files regarding his clients other than Trump in order to find "something criminal" there, and
  • proudly announce that they have nothing to hide, they would greet the FBI to their lawyer's office and will happily allow the FBI to search through their files - and so should everybody else.

This is the level of knowledge of the law, the Constitution and of their own rights by "We the People" in this country.

What people who are nearly dancing in the streets over the raid do not get is that this precedent is now applicable to them and their files at their lawyers' offices, too.

To hell with the law - if Trump is involved. 

And bash anybody who stands up to support the law - as a "Trumpanzee", because supporting the law that MAY benefit somebody they hate makes you a hated person and a Trump supporter.

This is not the rule of law, and not the rule of man either, this is the rule of the crowd that somebody with a lot of money (considering the press campaign) is diligently instigating. 

I did not vote for Trump, but I see that Trump - possibly - is the best thing that has happened to this country. 

At least, his election has become a litmus test clearly showing that we do not have in the United States anything close to a rule of law. 

The law is shaped, twisted and turned by the judiciary against Trump to mean what it wants it to mean, while the judiciary has absolutely no right to MAKE law - it belongs to the legislature alone, constitutional separation of powers 101.

Because of Trump, I have learned that we do not need standing to sue in federal court any more - if you are suing Trump.

We do not need any legal grounds for a preliminary injunction - and to spread it nationwide - if we are suing Trump.

We do not need to prosecute criminals, if they are not in the country legally - because that may get them deported. Hence, the number of filings in New York for felonies (a deportable crime) falls while the population (because of sanctuary city status) grows, and while those who are elected by the people to prosecute crimes choose not to do that - if they will hurt those who already broke the law by coming to the country illegally, making a joke of those who painstakingly waited, and followed the law to get admitted and to immigrate legally.

And, we have do no have a discretion in the federal government as to how to spend discretionary federal funds - that discretion can be forced, by judges, to support states who defy federal laws and harbor illegal aliens, which is a federal crime - and people are dancing in the streets and worshiping the judges.

And, we have state attorneys general who are asserting with straight faces, in lawsuits paid for by taxpayers, that the federal government may not even ask whether a person is in the country illegally, to shape boundaries of congressional districts - because asking a person whether he is in the country legally or not will somehow hurt the state's economy.

If anything, Trump's presidency has shown how easily can "the law" put on its head - and how easily people can be brainwashed to support any idea, no matter how crazy, as "the rule of law".

We can trump (pun intended) the President's discretion by replacing statutory law by judicial discretion - and that judge-made whim is called the new law that people dance in the street to support and wear T-shirts with images of judges who "DID IT" - trumped or tripped Trump.

We do not need clearance to know information regarding national security - we can replace it with a "judicial discretion" to ask Trump's lawyers, during a court hearing live-streamed on the Internet to the entire world, what are the national security concerns for the temporary travel ban from certain countries.

We do not need the right for impartial judicial review - because Trump criticized judges for bias, we can bash him, and everybody else along with him, for insisting on that right and who dares to criticize a judge.

And now, we do not need attorney-client privilege, the 4th Amendment or the right to privacy either. 

We have nothing to hide, we will gladly open our doors, our attorneys' confidential files, or bodies and our thoughts to the government - why not? We did not need those rights anyway.

And, the comments - overwhelmingly - approve of the idea that what a judge say IS the law, anything a judge says IS the law.

That is SOME rule of law, ladies and gentleman.

We arrived at a collective monarchy-by-judges, absolute, boundless, lawless, and well-supported by the subjects, no matter what the collective monarch chooses, on a whim, to do with us.


This is not about Trump. It is about all of us.

And, by the way - what is the name of that judge who allegedly signed the warrant?

I get only "hahas" from commentators who claim that it was signed by a judge - and, therefore, totally legal.

Whoever knows the name, please, drop me a line.