"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 6, 2019

Fire the expert law professor for his expert opinion that pissed the "legal" establishment. All that one needs to know about 1) the state of freedom of speech in the US and 2) the "integrity" of the American legal profession

Over the 3+ years of Trump's presidency a distinguished legal expert, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershovits, have been committing faux pas after faux pas - by simply presenting his expert opinion on the grounds, or, rather, lack thereof, to criminally investigate and pursue Donald Trump.

By Mueller.

He was badmouthed by the legal establishment, called names, called brainless, called a shame to his profession etc.

Simply by stating what he knows best as a criminal defense attorney - whether there are or there are no legal grounds to sustain criminal charges.

Now the same harassment campaign is unleashed upon a well-known George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley.

For simply - also - stating his expert opinion that he does not see legal grounds for impeachment of the President, badly wanted by the Democrats in the House.

That articles of impeachment may not be based simply on somebody's anger, dislike and desire to impeach.

For his testimony, Professor Turley got the following:

1) a demand to fire him (a tenured professor) - won't happen, but the mere fact, of what is demanded and in response to what; and, note, that the demand to fire Professor Turley came from within the law school - from a member of the faculty or from a "future lawyer of America", a law professor or a law student;

2) threatening messages delivered to his home and office:

"Jonathan Turley said the nasty messages began rolling in before he could even finish telling the House Judiciary Committee that impeaching President Trump was a bad idea on Wednesday.

“My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee,” Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, tweeted on Thursday. “Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW.”
Now, Jonathan Turley has a BIG clout.

As a tenured professor, he won't be fired.

If he is, he will be offered a zillion jobs.

But - think about it, what chance does a regular Joe has in simple expressing his opinion that is based on his professional training and expertise, but that goes against the temper tantrums, petty grudges and wants of a large number of people in power?

And - these threats and bullying are coming to the PROFESSOR'S HOME, and obviously from the "legal community", all holders of law license that are given with the condition of observing the rules of the so-called "attorney ethics".

This is the supposed anti-bullying crowd.  Until THEY want to bully.

Obviously, attorney ethics - or the U.S. Constitution, its 1st Amendment, freedom of speech, or the freedom to exercise one's expert opinion and speak his mind based on his professional training and experience - are not worth a damn in the nowadays America.

We want impeachment (or anything else).

Do not stand in our path.

This is NOT called a democracy.