"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.

Wednesday, March 25, 2020

Is it easy or difficult to enforce the federal constitutional right to impartial judicial review in the state of Louisiana

An interview with a practicing Louisiana attorney Christine Mire, in English, with Russian subtitles.

This material is unique, as the topic - judicial misconduct and motions to recuse judges based on judicial misconduct - is mostly taboo in the US amongst members of the legal profession.

Yet, sun, as a US Supreme Court Justice have told us long time ago, is the best disinfectant, so here is the discussion of points of law and of facts of one motion to recuse to contribute to public debate as to how to improve access to justice in the United States.

You won't regret listening to what attorney Christine Mire has to say on the topic.

I admire her beautiful English language, her expertise as a professional lawyer, her dedication to her clients - and, last, but not least at all - her courage.

Christine Mire, the conscience of the American legal profession.

Tuesday, March 17, 2020

People need the truth about how did corona virus pandemic start

I understand that this is an explosive - and highly political - issue.

But, when the government is mum, while there are a lot of factual information raising questions - and eyebrows - people will inevitably think the government is hiding something.

In the State of Washington, the spread of corona virus started out of 1 nursing home where 40 people died.

A criminal investigation is in order.

Is it being done?

The timeline of the spread of corona virus is disturbing.

October 2019 - Johns Hopkins University together with Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (global vaccine pushers) stage a simulation of - guess what - a coronavirus pandemic, predicting that:

Now, strict FDA regulations are dropped in order to allow certain pharmaceutical companies - presented to the public as absolute heroes - to quickly invent a vaccine on coronavirus, and a testing on human volunteers of the half-baked vaccine has already started.

That same industry that has previously obtained from the federal government a completely unconstitutional (but SCOTUS-approved nevertheless) Child Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a federal statute prohibiting ONLY CHILDREN (and not adults injured by vaccines) and ONLY CHILDREN INJURED  BY VACCINES (and not by other medications) to sue vaccine manufacturers in STATE courts (which the federal government may not possibly do), instead having a "fund" set up in such a way that DISCOVERY of causation of vaccine injury to children is blocked - and then pushed through legislations throughout the country to make vaccination mandatory, to the point of not allowing children to go to schools without it, and having parents charged with child neglect and criminally for refusing to vaccinate their children with chemical/biological matters with unknown components that may cause injury or death for which the manufacturers will not even be liable.

You must believe that this same industry are heroes addressing an international crisis.

In your dreams.

Now, as an honest good faith citizen, I do not want to "spread conspiracy theories".

But, I can put certain facts next to one another and at least WONDER if they are related.

I do not have access to investigative capacities that our government has.

That's why, as a citizen, I am asking our U.S. government a question - ARE YOU CONDUCTING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF HOW THE CORONAVIRUS EPIDEMIC HAS STARTED?