"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, December 16, 2020

So when will we have mass articles of impeachment against judges filed?

I wonder when mass impeachment of judges are going to come since judges across state and federal courts across the country somehow at the very same time forgot civil procedure 101 and dismissed election fraud cases on lack of evidence when evidence cannot even come close to review on motions to dismiss.

And that is in gross violation of the review standard of motions to dismiss, assuming as true allegations in the plaintiff's complaint and ruling in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

And that is before discovery.

And that is while the evidence was in exclusive possession of the defendants who were blocking plaintiffs' access to it.

And that is far before any kind of jury trials that have the only authority to review issues of fact.

Professional judges do not have such a right, and certainly not before discovery and on a motion to dismiss.

Those are violations of the law for which a first year law school student will fail his final exam.

It is gross incompetence at best.

Concerted treason at worst.

Not to mention all justices of the United States Supreme Court save for justices Alito and Thomas who unlawfully tossed for political purposes a case of original mandatory jurisdiction.

It appears to be a well-coordinated action of judicial corruption across the country and across state and federal courts up to the top.

The courts demonstrated they are not only useless for the people when they need them in maintaining the rule of law, but that they are harmful and actively helping in subverting democracy.

So when will we have articles of impeachment filed?

Saturday, December 5, 2020

A slam-dunk explanation as to why Donald Trump may pardon himself


So - may Donald Trump pardon himself preemptively for all that whoever wants to charge him federally for?

My answer based on constitutional principles would be - of course, not.

Nobody may sit in judgment of his own self.

That is an ancient principle long predating the US Constitution. 

But for.

I was stripped of my profession for asserting constitutional principles in court, by a judge who did MORE than pardon himself.  He also punished me for accusing him of bias, misconduct - and #electionfraud,  because there were no necessary public records requured by law confirming that he was a legitimate judge.

When you are making a motion to recuse a judge, the judge 

* considers himself "the sole arbiter of his own recusal", he or she 

* is expected to "examine his/her own conscience" (which is a substance, if it exists at all, that you cannot attach to the court record, as well as the process of its examination), 

* verify whether he/she is or is not impartial, is or is not corrupt - and then

* that same judge has a full freedom, on his own whim, to start, prosecute and adjudicate a disciplinary proceeding against you and your lawyer for making such a motion to recuse, 


Full freedom to sanction you for making that motion to recuse, 

to the point of 

depriving the lawyer who makes such a motion to recuse of his profession 

for life.

recall that we're talking here about your federal constitutional right for impartial judicial review, and about motions to recuse as the only way to secure that federal constitutional right for you.

And that that fundamental federal constitutional right is entirely at the whim of judges without any oversight from anybody.

If your lawyer maybe arbitrarily deprived of his profession for life, together with his reputation his financial and time and effort investment in becoming a lawyer - that's why you, the American public, cannot find lawyers to make a motion to recuse.

Because lawyers are afraid to do their jobs for you.

Because judges in this country are allowed to be tyrants. Are allowed to disregard the law, the Constitution, their oath of office.

Are allowed to do whatever they want to you, and you will have no recourse.

You know why?

Because judges also gave themselves a gift of immunity for their own malicious and corrupt conduct.

They did not have a right to do that.

The United States Constitution, separation of powers, does not give judges the right to legislate from the bench, especially in their own favor and self-interest.

But what do they care?

They still gave themselves that immunity.

And they vigorously assert that that is now the law of the land.

And if you sue a judge, you will be sanctioned and blocked from your access to court for the future - because you supposedly filed a frivolous lawsuit, because that lawsuit follows the federal civil rights act, but those contrary to the judicial self-given right to be corrupt with impunity.

And this systematically happens in American courts.

I'm exhibit one of the private vengeance of a judge who I did not only ask to recuse because of his bias and misconduct, but who I verified through a records, was never properly elected to his position, so that was the case of election fraud.

And you know what the judge did?

He sanctioned me in his own case.

The appellate Court said that he had full freedom to do that.

And then the same appellate Court acting now as the licensing Court, took my license to practice law without giving me a hearing. Because sanctions of Judge Carl f Becker imposed upon me because I made emotion to recuse telling him based on documentary evidence that he was never elected as a judge, were enough for the licensing Court to strip me of my profession for life.

By the way, judge Carl F Becker ran from the bench several months before I was stripped of my license, chased by three government bodies:

The New York State commission for judicial conduct, the New York state comptroller/ chief financial officer, and the FBI.

But, my law license was still taken because it is the ultimate taboo that entertaining may not under any circumstances criticize a judge, even when her duty to her client requires to do it, so even if her arguments are properly supported, as mine were for my pro bono client, with law, constitutional arguments and documentary evidence.

Again, I'm exhibit one in a case where judges are allowed to sit in judgment of their own cases.

But, I'm far from being the only one, there is an epidemic of such cases across the United States.

Right now there is a lawsuit pending against six United States Supreme Court  justices and against federal judges - who ruled to dismiss cases below against themselves.

We have a case back in 1975, Turner versus the American bar association and several judges including all justices of the then United States Supreme Court.

You know who consolidated several cases filed in several different district courts in different states?

And who appointed a judge to review that consolidated case?

One of the defendants, the then Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

You know what that case was about?

The judges were sued for establishing an unlawful and unconstitutional attorney monopoly where legally competent adults are deprived of the right to pick their own representatives in court without approval of their procedural opponent in the litigation, the government, which makes no sense to a reasonable person.

Both federal and state courts have that unconstitutional monopoly, including the United States Supreme Court.

And you know how the judge appointed by one of the defendants ruled in the case?

He ruled that the defendant judges power, and his own power to define who may or may not come in front of him trumps any rights anybody has to pick their own independent representative in court.

That was sitting in judgment of his own case. Deciding that his own power is more important than people's constitutional rights.

That was 56 years ago.

The attorney monopoly still continues intact.

But now what also continues is the Trump litmus test.

Trump presidency and his disregard to The Establishment hypocrisy reveals more and more of that hypocrisy and double standards to the American people.

Tell me, please, why judges in the United States can be sole arbiters of their own corruption, can 

* start, prosecute and adjudicate cases against the own critics to the point of permanently depriving those critics of their profession for that criticism, 

* can dismiss cases against themselves, 

* can consolidate cases against themselves and 

*Appoint judges to review them - and dismiss them, of course -

but at the same time Trump somehow may not pardon himself?

He sure may.

Under this particular logic - he sure can.

Either he may, or, if he may not, then judges may not do the above either.

And, they should be stopped from doing it.

And, their victims should receive just compensation and restoration of their rights.