"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.

Friday, December 7, 2018

Korematsu v United States, revisited. How "The Resistance" is inciting hatred to ethnic Russians (including American citizens)

In December 1944, towards the end of World War II, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued one of its most shameful decisions in its entire history:  Korematsu v United States.

This is what it held:

This case is taught in law schools as the only case of the U.S. Supreme Court where the U.S. Supreme Court has found its highest "scrutiny test" for constitutionality applicable and passable in regards to discrimination based on ethnic (not even national) origin - because those detained were American CITIZENS, and the only basis for detention was what they could not control, their ethnicity, they were BORN with it.

Right now we have had a media campaign against President Trump because he attributed criminality to Mexicans and Latinos generally coming to the country illegally.

The U.S. Supreme attributed criminality to American citizens because they were ethnic Japanese - and blessed their detention within concentration camps ("assembly centers") on the territory of the United States, based only on their ethnic origin.

Now a claim is being made that Korematsu is this country's shameful past.

Well, not so much.

First, Korematsu remains on the books and has never been overruled.

Second, the public is now primed by "The Resistance" media and politicians the same way it was in the Korematsu times, but in two different directions:

  • to presume good faith in illegal immigrants of Latino (Mexican, Honduran, Guatemalan) origin, and
  • to presume bad faith in ethnic Russians.
How does it work?

Here is an illustration - my yesterday's discussion on Facebook.

ALL that I have said was that the Mueller investigation so far produced no evidence of Russian interference into the 2016 election - what he was assigned to investigate and prosecute, specifically.

That's all.

What followed was that the majority of those who answered to that comment (there were 132 comments, a small part of them mine and by my three friends who came to see what is going on and comment on the situation), without answering on the merits of the comment:

  • went to my FB profile, and, after putting together my first name Tatiana (Russian name, yes, but Tatiana is a popular name amongst African Americans, and JFK's granddaughter is Tatiana) and that my first two university degrees are from Russian universities, the public started to
  • call me a Russian troll;
  • a crazy Russian troll;
  • a fucking Russian troll;
  • a "commie";
  • a "comrade";
  • address to me expletives in English and in Russian, including "сумасшедшая сука" (a crazy bitch);
  • claiming that I am a disservice to my law school because of how stupid and incompetent I am;
  • that low IQ runs in my family etc.

ALL because an ethnic Russian (American citizen) expressed an opinion that "The Resistance" public did not like, because "The Resistance" public nowadays expects that nobody should dare pronounce an opinion of their own that may benefit Trump, even if it is an opinion about the law that they have no clue about.

"Thankfully", there were several statements in that discussion which may be considered as being borderline on the merits - people were trying to oppose my statement of "no evidence" and of waste of taxpayer money by the Mueller investigation, among other things, with statements that:

  • Mueller's criminal investigation is "turning a profit" with seizures of assets;
  • there is plenty of evidence that Mueller investigation has dug up so far, specifically:
    • indictments;
    • charges, 
    • plea bargains and
    • testimony bought by plea bargains.
I will address the "merits" comments in separate articles.

In this article I would like to simply publish, raw, the "public discourse" in answer to my single short comment - that the Mueller investigation:

  1. produced no evidence in 2 years and
  2. is a waste of taxpayer money.
In that discourse, by the way, at the very beginning, there was a suggestion to put a vodka bottle "up my arse" - in retaliation to that short comment of mine regarding, once again,

1. lack of evidence, and;
2. waste of taxpayer money by the Mueller investigation.

I am sure that, had I pronounced this same thing in a physical crowd of "resistance" folks, I would be lynched, physically assaulted and destroyed.

THIS is the result of hysteria about "those Russians" in the "Resistance" media.

The crowd bashing a criminal defense expert and glorifying prosecutorial misconduct - meaning that the jury pools in the entire United States, for all Americans, are thoroughly tainted, I will detail each aspect of the taint in articles that will follow, with examples.  All to direct "the Resistance" against one man.

So, do not ask how the shameful Korematsu case came about - the American public is incited at this time to bless repetition of Korematsu.

If detention of all ethnic Russians is declared tomorrow, there American public will only bless it.

The wagers of the Resistance war should be proud.


No comments:

Post a Comment