"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.

Monday, December 3, 2018

Is the ACLU stirring up a new civil war in the United States?

There were a lot of supporting comments to the decision of a judge blocking the Trump administration from the new rule denying asylum seeking the right to apply for asylum if they are in the United States illegally.

The media openly acknowledged that the ruling "opened doors to migrant caravan", since the ruling was made while several caravans were heading through Mexico towards the U.S. borders with the intention of crossing that border illegally.

The decision obviously encouraged illegal immigration and violence at the border - since all that is needed in order to apply for asylum is to cross the border, legally or illegally, by force and violence, does not matter.

The decision has brought about a crisis at the border, where

  • migrants overpowered the Mexican town of Tijuana, depleting its welfare resources, 
  • U.S. troops and border patrol are more-than-ever determined to not to allow illegal crossings of the border, to block mass asylum applications, and
  • migrants have already attempted two rushes (violent attempts to breach) the U.S. border, which resulted, on one occasion, in tear-gassing the rioters.

Yet, while the judicial decision, here it is, was celebrated as some kind of a victory of "the rule of law" over the Trump's administration, portrayed (as "anti-vaxxers" are) as the ultimate brainless villain, 

  1. Obama has used tear gas at the borders for the same reason at least 80 times; and
  2. the judicial decision was screamingly unlawful.

First of all, none of the plaintiffs had standing to sue - none of the plaintiffs were actual asylum-seekers, see the text of the complaint/lawsuit.

The attorneys who stirred the pot were several lawyers out of the state of New York who asked a federal district (lower) court sitting in Northern California for a "pro hac vice" (for this case only) admission, see their pro hac vice applications that I attached through links to their names and their attorney registrations:

These 5 graduates of the best law schools:

  • Columbia;
  • New York Law School;
  • Fordham
who definitely know how to read and do understand the law and what they are doing, filed a lawsuit knowing that their clients have no standing whatsoever to file those lawsuits - because NONE of their clients were asylum seekers.

Moreover, these graduates of 3 good law schools had to know that the basis of their application:

is frivolous not only because their clients did not have standing to sue, as they were not asylum-seekers, but that this particular law that they were invoking, 8 U.S.C. 1158, specifically, in its text, provided that there is NO RIGHT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW of Attorney General's regulations regarding asylum applications, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(7):

(7) No private right of action
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to create any substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.

The lawyers knew it, the judges knew it - that's possibly why the first magistrate judge recused, and only the second gave these 5 lawyers what they wanted, a country-wide Temporary Restraining order (TRO, in a case with no standing and no right of action.

Think about it.

A bunch of lawyers out of 
  • New York go to 
  • Northern California to help thousands of foreigners breach the U.S. borders illegally in 
  • Texas - 
  • with 
    • no standing, and 
    • no right of action - and

they do find a judge willing to give them what they want, notwithstanding that it is unlawful, and the unlawful decision is celebrated in the media and in comments by many members of the public as "the rule of law", while the majority of the commenting members of the public never read the complaint, or the motion, or the judge's decision, or the underlying statute, but are determined to yell down anybody who oppose the unlawful decision as a "troll", "bot" and "Trumptard".

ACLU has already contributed greatly to polarizing the country.

ACLU ascribes its support - in the U.S. Supreme Court, obtaining a precedent for the Nazis - the Nazi march through a village of Holocaust survivors - as supposedly its "unwavering support of free speech, on principle".

2 years after Ruth Ginsburg's employer, the ACLU, secured for the Nazis the "free speech right" to harass and torment Holocaust survivors, Ruth Ginsburg was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and is now celebrated as a defender of human rights.

Then, the ACLU supported - in court - a neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville in 2017.  

When it resulted in death of a woman, and caused a member of ACLU Virginia Board to resign in disgust:

the ACLU capitalized on the tragedy and solicited donations from people now in opposition to the same neo-Nazis whose march they secured, and pitted opponents against them.

Now the ACLU is stirring the pot once again, capitalizing once again on the tragedy.

It filed a frivolous lawsuit, had assigned a political activist judge who, despite lack of standing and lack of the right of judicial review of the ACLU's clients in that lawsuit, gave them a country-wide TRO - an impossible feat for any other civil rights lawsuit, I am telling you as a person who, as an attorney, have filed and prosecuted a number of civil rights lawsuits and know procedural pitfalls of such proceedings as an expert.

That lawsuit and that "temporary decision" has already caused violence at the border, caused people trying to rush the border in order to get to the other side by any means.

This is what you see first thing when you go to the ACLU's front page:

Everything is black, the "democracy" is in mourning, and the only thing that can help is money - your money, one-time, monthly, $35, $50, $75, $100, "other" - note that there are no buttons for puny $1, $5, $10, $20, $25 or even $30, the suggested "good" donation starts, in ACLU's view, from $35.

Yet, if you call the ACLU with, let's say, fabrication of a criminal case, or, fabrication of a CPS case against you - you now, separation of parents and children - they will turn you down.

Not the right kind of controversy, that kind of controversy may cost ACLU money, ACLU needs only controversies that MAKE money for the organization.

Why illegal immigration?

Consider that one topic has suddenly disappeared in the so-called main stream media in the United States - sweatshops.

At some point it was very fashionable for the so-called celebrities to boycott sweatshops, to the point that some human rights defenders claimed that boycotting sweatshops is "not the answer" - it actually makes people overseas, already suffering from poverty, unemployed and, possibly, starving.

With election of Trump and assault of ACLU (and "the resistance" well-funded by employers of illegal immigrants) on the government's right to control illegal immigration, the word "sweatshop" disappeared from the mainstream media.


Because illegal immigration helps create sweatshops within the U.S. 

There are a lot of people who benefit by the cheap goods produced by such sweatshops - from construction to child and adult care to landscaping to food crops to house servants for celebrities.

That is where the money is.  That is why stirring up this type of controversy is good for ACLU, while supporting parents whose children are taken away and adopted out on fabricated charges, in order for CPS to get federal funds (a Clinton era invention) - is not an attractive civil rights crisis for ACLU to step into and help.

What the ACLU is stirring - like in the Village of Skokie's case, like in Charlottseville - is violence, for its own profit.

Recall the infamous Dred Scott case of 1857.

An estimated 620,000 people have perished in a bloody civil war because of the GREED of the U.S. Supreme Court judges, many of them slave-owners, who refused to recognize that slavery is a violation of people's constitutional rights and to recognize black people as people equal to whites, with the same human rights.

In Russia, an absolute monarchy at that time, slavery was abolished in 1861, by a royal decree, without any bloodshed.

In the U.S., a constitutional democracy, because of the greed of the U.S. Supreme Court judges, slaveowners, slavery was abolished only as a result of a civil war, after the loss of 620,000, destruction and suffering visited upon half the country, by presidential proclamation in 1863, 2 years after Russia.

The Dred Scott case was presented at the time as "the rule of law" - and it incited violence.

Now, the ACLU is stirring the pot and inciting violence - for profit - based on its pushy support of illegal immigration.

Of course, U.S. judges, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, do not have the power to legislate, it is the exclusive power of the U.S. Congress under Article I.

And, the U.S. Congress already had its say - no right of judicial review to contest the supposed human rights violations of foreigners seeking asylum, no contest in court of the U.S. Attorney General's regulations regarding asylum-seeking, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(7).

Yet, the ACLU lawyers obtained a precedent which creates an incentive out of the illegal crossing of the U.S. border - by all means, including violence.

Violence is already erupting.

If it goes further and erupts into a full-blown civil war, you will know who to thank for that.

No comments:

Post a Comment