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.

Friday, January 25, 2019

More on presumption of innocence, public knowledge of the law and quality of legal representation - now in New Jersey. #TheDogBiteLawyerDavidJCowheyIsABigotAndMisogynist

I wrote on this blog, many times, unfortunately, about the American public's rejection of the concept of presumption of innocence, and about personal attacks on those who point out that filing of criminal charges/indictments is not evidence of guilt.

I wrote how about the anti-Russian bigotry, too, about vicious attacks on me personally because I happened to invoke constitutional rights of criminal defendants in the United States:

  • by the "general public" incited by the so-called "liberal press" that is embedding into the "general public"'s mind that indictments and arrests ARE evidence of guilt - if indictments and arrests are of somebody you hate, like Trump's associates, while the public does not realize that by such brainwashing their own right to an untainted and impartial jury pool is being irreversibly destroyed; some of the members of the public was so incited by my comment indicating that some evidence needs to be produced before claiming that the accused is already guilty went so far as suggesting that I should "shove a bottle of vodka up my lying ass", the scan is in the inerlinked blog article.




  • from court personnel from New York - I was told by Dennis Quirk, the President of New York State Court Officers Association, that, if I do not like the statute, Civil Rights Law 50-a that was created to deliberately violate defendants' right to effective cross-examination by blocking access to records of police misconduct, I can just as well go to Moscow.


It is, of late, impermissible to be a Russian (even an American citizen, like I am) in America - and dare to express an opinion, being Russian.

 And, here are yet two other examples.

 No, when you are a massage salon owner, 


and you put a "haha" on a presumption of innocence comment,


it may be understandable.

 Not all massage therapy salon owners may know about presumption of innocence, especially those who have enough time to surf Facebook during a business day - meaning, not good even in arranging a good busy massage business, right?

 Well, no wonder:

But, when you are a lawyer, and a lawyer of 35 years, you are expected to have those interesting things called "attorney ethics" that would prevent you from calling females in general, and females you don't know even more - "commie hogs".

 Not to mention - a minimal degree of competence that would prevent you to call people names for mentioning presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal proceeding.

The next guy, of course, blocked me on Facebook after I pointed out the incompetence, bigotry and cowardice of his statement, but not before I saved the scan and then looked him up, see information about him below.


If a lawyer does not know what presumption of innocence is, that indictments and arrests are not evidence of guilt, and is triggered by mentioning these simple constitutional maxims to the point of insulting the unknown woman who happened to point them out as a "commie hog" - that says a lot about the quality of legal representation in the United States, doesn't it.

So, here was the original post.


Here is my post and the reply of one David J. Cowhey:


See that I tagged the guy, but the tag went black from blue-interlinked, meaning that the guy has blocked me.

And here is evidence that he is an actual lawyer.



Not only David J. Cowhey - the one who reacts to the mentioning of presumption of innocence of a criminal defendant and of the contents of standard court instructions to the criminal jury that criminal charges (indictments) and arrests may not be considered as evidence of crimes - an attorney.

He is an attorney practicing for 35 YEARS!!!!  - according to public information on the New Jersey Court's website.



Here is how he advertises his services:




That one is on Facebook, obviously, he also has a Twitter account - @thesouthjerseydogbitelawyer - probably, an old one, did not find it on Twitter.

And, TADA, the main website:




I understand that, possibly, for a "dog bite lawyer" - even one practicing for 35 years, it is not necessary to know such petty stuff as presumption of innocence and that criminal charges and arrests do not constitute evidence of a crime in a criminal proceeding - even though the law license that this attorney, David J. Cowhey, sports for 35 years, is broad and allows him to practice, among other things, criminal defense law - so, potential customers, beware of the competence.

As well as potential defense attorneys and judges in a criminal case, if this guy, God forbid, gets on a criminal jury.

 Attorney David J. Cowhey is not only a "dog bite" lawyer.

 He is also an accomplished "New Jersey Motorcycle Lawyer", see?  With his wife Victoria working for him as an office manager and his son David Jr. working for him as a legal assistant:





Why is he placing his legal assistant son on his picture as if he is part of a legal team though - I do not know.

 And, why he does not put "attorney advertising" on his website describing his skills - as required by ethical rules - I do not know either.

But, what I do know is that successful longtime attorneys do not have time to, in the middle of a working day, surf Facebook and insult female strangers on social media for mentioning presumption of innocence as "commie hogs".

 And I know words "misogynist" and "bigot" that fit the #dogbiteattorneyDavidJCowhey and the #SouthJerseyMotorcycleAttorneyDavidJCowhey perfectly.

Potential customers, female colleagues, beware.



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)