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.

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

How politically connected judges, former prosecutors, and NYS Attorney General block a legal remedy for a black wrongfully convicted prisoner. And how New York voters have been duped in elections of NYS Attorney General. Again.

Reportedly, the civil rights fighter Barbara Underwood, the NYS Acting Attorney General "won" in appellate court against 2 people who were exonerated after having been wrongfully convicted for murder and spending 23 years in prison.

The victory over victims of a wrongful conviction was that NYS AG obtained a court order proclaiming that a person who was wrongfully convicted may not sue the state for the wrongful conviction if he was also charged with something else in the same indictment - and that conviction was not overturned.

There is, of course, no logic in it.

If you committed ANOTHER crime, you have no right of access to court to sue for wrongful conviction for something else.  Even if it is proven that the conviction was wrongful, and even if you have been exonerated.

That's the logic of these 5 judges:
  • former criminal prosecutor, working hand-in-hand with Mulvey on political cases, judge Phillip Rumsey



 NONE of the judges have a criminal defense attorney background.

 4 out of 5 are former criminal prosecutors, and the remaining one (the presiding judge) never worked in criminal law or in private practice.

5 white judges prevented a remedy of black victims of the racist New York criminal "justice" system which disproportionately investigates and convicts people of color, including wrongful convictions.

And, mind, these judges also regulate licenses of attorneys and, through that, access of all New Yorkers to court.

No logic.  No integrity.  No competency needed.

Just blunt force to "save money" for the state of New York by quashing the rights of victims of wrongful convictions.

You have just voted for a new Attorney General, New Yorkers.

In that election campaign, candidates for that position clamored to you how they will be protecting your civil rights.

 Civil rights are protected only and exclusively against the government.

 So, note, dear New Yorkers, which side of a civil rights lawsuit the New York State Attorney General is on.  

 Definitely not the victim's side.

 Defending the wrongdoers' side.

 Weren't you all duped?

 Again?
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)