"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.

Saturday, October 24, 2020

Elections2020: on ethnic shaming by fascist Democrats-2. Condescending shaming of Cuban Americans for their support of Trump and aversion to socialism

 I have posted previously an article showing evidence of ethnic shaming by Democrats of a Russian American, a US citizen and a mother of a US soldier, for daring to say that the Democratic idol Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a corrupt judge.  

(Remember, you may not criticize RBG for proven corruption and misconduct, you may only bash judges for being nominated by Trump to the US Supreme Court, that's the new Democrat "law" in America).

Since then, there was a series of articles where Democrats lamented as "Trump-induced hatred and bigotry" when somebody yelled at the 2nd Lady of the State of Pennsylvania (a former illegal immigrant from Brazil) - "go back to your country ".

When I posted my article in the commenting thread about it showing how Democrats suggest that I go back to Russia simply because I dared to criticize their darling judge Ginsburg, some more insults if the same kind were directed at me.

A (former) illegal immigrant from Brazil supporting Biden cannot be told to go back to her country.  It is bigotry and ethnic hatred caused by Trump.

A longtime American citizen from Russia can. It is not bigotry or ethnic hatred.

Now some Latino American citizens, Cuban Americans - those voting for Trump - can be told by Democrats to go back to Cuba.  That is not ethnic bigotry or hatred.

Here is how that ethnic bashing went today on Facebook:

If you do not vote for Biden, you ain't black and you ain't Latino.  Got it?

And you know nothing about the true socialism, even if you lived in a socialist country half your life.  You are just a poor brainless thing that does not know what is good for it.

And you can go back to your country.

And no, it is not ethnic hate speech.  Facebook told me so.

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

What to do if we want the United States Constitution to be truly enforced

I don't know how about you, but I personally am sick and tired of the amount of time and especially taxpaying money spent upon partisan fights over dying wishes, stolen seats and packing the court regarding the US Supreme Court.

The court is surely not operating as a proper Court should.

Instead of doing its judicial function, strictly applying written law as it was written by the legislatures two facts of cases, it has turned into a nine people monarchy, a super legislative body where it's participants sit for life in a marble palace, pick about 70 cases per year to review, mainly from their own former law clerks (that's why those look looks get $400, 000 hiring bonuses by law firms - to ensure corruption of judges), and make new laws.

Every year I see law professors and lawyers engaging in guessing games whether that Court will take or not take this of that case to review on the merits, whether the US Supreme Court will or will not make a new law for the entire country.

Judges of the Court becomes celebrities specifically for their lawmaking, which is in reality abuse of power and judicial misconduct.

Yet, there are simple measures needed to restore normalcy and proper judicial function to that Court.

The US Supreme Court takes only about 70 cases per year for review on the merits, and for decades it was claiming that the amount of filings per year remain unchanged, at about 8,000 to 10,000 petitions, which is incredible because the population grows and the volume of litigation in federal and state courts from where people appeal to the US Supreme Court also grows exponentially. 

 That said, the court dumps without an explanation 99.99% of cases and has been doing that for a century. 

The reason for it is the Judiciary Act of 1925, written instead of the US Congress by the chief judge of the US Supreme Court at that time, and written for the only purpose of making the life of judges on that Court easier - which is not even close to being a legal or constitutional reason of changing jurisdiction of the Court.

 The chief judge explained to the US Congress that allowed him to legislate in this matter that because of the growing population due to the first world war and the Russian revolution and immigration into the US of refugees, there are too many cases now filed with the US Supreme Court, so the court needed to reduce access to court for people by changing jurisdiction of the court from mandatory to discretionary review.

And the United States Congress rubber-stamped that self-serving unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power by the US Supreme Court judges.

There was no proper legislative review of that statute, and there was no intermediate review of the legislation to see how it works and the whether it serves the people and whether it violates the United States Constitution, and no sundown provision.

The US Congress could not fail to realize that they are unleashing a disaster upon the American people by changing this way jurisdiction of the highest court in the nation.

And that is especially because by changing jurisdiction to discretionary, the court received a carte blanche to refuse to address constitutionality of that same statute written by them for themselves.

And that is before the court gave itself immunity for malicious and corrupt actions through a court case which they do not have a right to do either.

The act changed the jurisdiction of the Court from mandatory review on the merits of every filed petition to a discretionary review, turning the jobs of US Supreme Court justices into sinecures. 

So the so-called constitutional law, the collection of cases reviewed on the nearest by the United States Supreme Court before and after 1925 present a drastic difference 

Before 1925 the case law of the United States Supreme Court presented the entire picture of all petitions filed with the court. After 1925, cases decided by the United States Supreme Court on the merits represent simply the whims of the Court's justices in picking cases in order to make legislative policy for the entire country - and justices of the Court are not authorized to legislate at all by article 3 of the United States Constitution each one of them is sworn to protect and uphold.

If you think lawyers of this country and judges of this country do not know about that, think again.

Of course, they do.

But there was one more trick played by the judiciary upon the American people since 1925 to secure the status quo of the judiciary.

And that is called absolute attorney monopoly.

To reduce challenges to judicial power and mainly to abuses of that power, the judiciary with consent of legal elite, usurped the power to decide for and instead of the people who can represent them in giving them advice, and representing them in transactions in and out of court.

Since now all attorneys in the United States are licensed/ permitted to work in their profession by the judiciary, and since the judiciary invented and viciously enforces the main rule of its power all the lawyers - prohibition for lawyers to criticized judges for misconduct in office - lawyers pretend not to know and not to offer to the public the effective solutions of how to reform the judicial system, including the US Supreme Court.

Let's return back to the United States Supreme Court.

They now do not have a minimum of cases that they have to review per year.

It is not physically possible for nine justices to review even eight to ten thousand petitions which is an understated and not a true number with a three months vacation, all the public holidays and weekends in the remaining 9 months, and all the speaking engagements travels nationally and internationally, University professorships and book writing activities that justices of the Court regularly engage in during business hours of the court.

They don't have to work at all.

Their law clerks, at least four per judge, sworn to silence and personal loyalty to judges, do their work for them.

That's why I see the shenanigans of both parties to fill the court or pack the court, or are you about qualifications of candidates for that office as laughable. 

By the way the United States Constitution does not require a United States Supreme Court Justice to be and attorney licensed by a state government. In fact, being licensed by a state government is an influence problem and and irreconcilable conflict of interest for all federal employees/licensed attorneys, including the United States Supreme Court justices.

I wonder which one of the United States presidents will have the guts to appoint a non-lawyer to that Court - which the United States Constitution perfectly permits to do.

As it stands now, no matter if justices of the Court are liberal or conservative, they will still be dumping 99.99% of petitions filed by Americans without an explanation, at a whim. 

And they will rule the legal profession, and through it people's access to Justice with an iron fist.

 That is what we need to change. 

We need to abolish the judiciary Act of 1925, return the court to reviewing every single filed petition on the merits, which will drastically reduce the potential for corruption of that Court and its power that is unheard of in a democracy and looks like a super-legislative power and not judicial power.

 If we abolish the judiciary Act of 1925 and return the court to mandatory review on the merits of every single filed petition, then it will become an obvious and reasonable necessity to appoint as many judges as necessary to deal with the caseload, so there will not be any shenanigans about dying wishes, stolen seats, packing the court by both parties for political purposes etc.  

Coupled with very short term limits, not more than 2 years, and abolishing the super complex and technical filing rules, instead simplifying those rules and allowing electronic filing, we can restore normalcy to the court and its proper judicial function for the benefit of the people, as courts are supposed to function.

Will so need to abolish attorney monopoly, the restriction by the judiciary of the right of legally competent adults of the United States to pick 

1/ who advises them on the law that is made by our public representatives on our behalf and for our money, the law that all of us are presumed to know for purposes of its enforcement,

2/ who represents us in various transactions outside of court and in court.  That is nobody's business but of the person who is choosing he's or her own representative.

Once the power of the judiciary over the legal profession and over the people's access to Justice through that legal profession is gone, once the United States Supreme Court is made again to review on the merits every single petition filed with the court, it will drastically change how state governments uphold the United States Constitution.


Because now federal, state and local government officials may laugh into your face violating your constitutional rights in the most obvious of ways, knowing full well that due to restrictions on access to the United States Supreme Court and to other courts for review of constitutional issues on the merits, the absolute overwhelming majority of the American people will never have their constitutional violations reviewed or heard by that Court.

And that is a license to violate the United States Constitution for state governments. After and despite the fact that each one of State officials is sworn to uphold and protect it.

If we want our Constitution to be respected and upheld, we will make sure that review of constitutional violations regarding the rights of every American is not discretionary.  And that's to begin with.