"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

When a criminal investigation and prosecution pays for itself - the "Resistance" press glorifies civil forfeiture, timing its attacks with filings against the forfeiture in the U.S. Supreme Court, and taints the jury pool for all Americans

In the God-blessed times of the Spanish Inquisition, there was one major incentive to investigate and prosecute heretics - Muslims and Jews: their property.

Their property was sequestered and given either to the church or (a portion) to the reporters of the heresy.

Thus, such prosecutions "paid for themselves".

Fast-forward, in Stalin's Russia people reported one another for such purposes also - after all, the reward was the opportunity to steal from the apartments of those taken away in the so-called "black ravens" (KGB cars), and to get the apartments for themselves.

In the United States, by the U.S. Constitution, a criminal defendant is entitled to a neutral and impartial investigator and prosecutor.

That is a due process requirement (5th - in federal court and 14th Amendment).

This is what the U.S. Supreme Court has said 83 years ago, in 1935, about the right of a criminal defendant to an impartial prosecutor:

"The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."

Yet, my yesterday's comment that invited a lot of bashing against me personally on FB highlighted several large problems to the modern-day criminal defendants in America: the so-called Resistance, in attempting to malign anything-Trump or around Trump, has brainwashed the American public (the jury pool in criminal proceedings) to believe that, for a prosecutor, trying to do the same, having the prosecution "pay for itself" is actually proper, laudable and commendable.

Here is the entire discussion of the topic.

And here are comments specifically addressing my comment that Mueller's investigation is a waste of taxpayer money.

12 likes, no opposition, universal approval.

3 likes, the haha is mine.  I am stupid, yes, to believe that a criminal investigation should never "pay for itself", otherwise the prosecutor will be targeting not to prosecute crimes, but to seize people's property.

8 likes, 1 love, no opposition, to the first one. The numbers differ though, but the idea is the same.

So, 4 members of the public, 4 potential jurors, have expressed an opinion so far that Mueller, by seizing 20, 40 or 46 million, or "when the people involved are charged and their asset are seized", note the point when Jennifer Stewart considers it is proper to seize people's assets - at the time they are only charged and presumed innocent (with 3 likes to that from other people) - think that it is absolutely proper for a prosecutor to charge people with crimes with a view of "paying off" for his criminal investigation out of the defendants' property.

Now, apply this to yourself.  Because, once started on one person, this tendency will be applied to everybody else, this is how the law works.

And, because these brainwashed people will sit on everybody else's jury trials.

So, who brainwashed them to think that a criminal investigation MAY "pay for itself"?

Let's look.

September 14, 2018, before the midterm elections - Washington Post.

Right there, in the headline.  And more in the text.

So, when these people called me, just because I am an ethnic Russian (American citizen) a "commie" and directed me to "go back to Russia, comrade", they, through their ignorance and lack of knowledge of world history, failed to realize that communist Russia is actually here, and the "commies" and "comrades" are themselves - those who, same as the Spanish Inquisition, same as the Soviet KGB, grabbed people because they needed to grab their property.

Now, because of "the Resistance" and the media glorifying anything "anti-Trump", no matter how illegal it is, all Americans have a gift - a thoroughly tainted jury pool where potential jurors believe that it is proper for criminal investigations to "pay for themselves" out of criminal defendants' property, and proper to seize criminal defendants' property right at the time they are charged (and presumed innocent by law).

Same date - Inquisitr.  Again, right in the headline - because many people nowadays do not read past the headline, so there.

November 29, 2018 - another one, by MSNBC (they did not put "paid for itself" in the headline, just that Trump's "little tantrum" about the cost of Mueller investigation is not justified - because, guess what, Mueller investigation forced Paul Manafort to forfeit millions of dollars worth of property - after Manafort was convicted because a juror disregarded a clear instruction from the judge about presumption of innocence and convicted because Manafort did not testify (go to about 6 minutes 35 seconds in the tape, it starts there), and because after that juror publicly admitted to that misconduct, Manafort lawyers, instead of making a motion to vacate the conviction, agreed for their client to accept a guilty plea with forfeiture of assets - which was heralded as "Mueller prosecution paid for itself" by Mueller and by "the Resistance" press.

And, on the same November 29, 2018, another one, from Intelligencer:

CNBC went even further than the other "Resistance" press guys, it publicly announced that the Mueller investigation may not only "pay for itself", but may "turn a profit".

The public, absorbing what the "Resistance" press says like it is Gospel, enthusiastically accepted that a criminal investigation is allegedly paying for itself and may even turn a profit for the American taxpayers.

Completely lost upon people glorifying that attitude is that, because of this irresponsible brainwashing - by the Mueller team and by the "Resistance" press, prosecutors' seeking targets for criminal investigation to justify bringing those charges financially, because seizure of property of such criminal defendants will pay for the investigation and "turn a profit", which is gross prosecutorial misconduct, is becoming a norm in the minds of the American public.

So, with the jury pool as thoroughly tainted, do not expect fairness of the criminal justice system when YOU are charged because a local prosecutor (of a caliber lower than Mueller) will covet your property, not a multi-million dollar property, but, say, yours and your family's only home - to justify his performance the way Mueller is justifying his to the American public.

While millions of Americans are fighting unconstitutional forfeitures of their properties,

 while the case is under review of the U.S. Supreme Court RIGHT NOW

here is the petition presented to the U.S. Supreme Court on this subject, 

here is the link to the docket of the case in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case seeks the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that civil forfeiture is unconstitutional.

Note the "coincidences" in time with the docket.

Remember that the "paying for itself" articles about the Mueller probe in the "Resistance" press appeared on September 14, 2018 and on November 29, 2018 (see above)?

Compare with the docket of Timbs v Indiana in the U.S. Supreme Court.

From September 5 to September 11, 2018, just before the first "wave" of "forfeitures pay for criminal investigations" in the "Resistance" press, on September 14, 2018, a large number of amicus briefs in support of the petitioner, and against civil forfeitures, was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.

- including a brief by the ACLU, much loved by the "Resistance" press.
Guess when this case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court?

On November 28, 2018, 1 day before the second wave of "Mueller's probe pays for itself through forfeitures" hit the "Resistance" press.

So, the "Resistance" press, pretending that it is "fighting Trump" on behalf of the American people, is subverting constitutional rights of American people, "coincidentally" timing its attacks on constitutional rights of Americans to be free of the government seizing their assets as a motive of criminal proceedings - with filing amicus briefs in support of canceling "civil" forfeitures at all, and with arguments of the case in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The "Resistance" press is doing a great disservice to all the American people by putting the idea into the minds of potential jurors that forfeiture is, instead of unconstitutional (as multiple, multiple legal scholars argued in their amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court), is actually good and proper, because, due to the forfeitures, criminal investigations and prosecutions are "paying for themselves" - which is, what, good?

Despite this?

Just because of the hate of one man, Trump.

Is flaring such hate worth causing to lose constitutional rights in criminal justice proceedings for all Americans?

And, is the "Resistance" press trying to influence the U.S. Supreme Court by telling it that civil forfeiture, notwithstanding what legal scholars say, is actually "good for you" - because it helps pay criminal prosecutions against Trump (and everybody else)?

No comments:

Post a Comment