"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.

Thursday, June 24, 2021

The bell is tolling for attorney independence. Once again. Rudy Giuliani is suspended - before the final disciplinary decision - for being a brave an honest lawyer for 45th President Trump

 A yet another political suspension of an attorney license in NY for doing his duty for his client. 

The shameful political "interim" 27-page decision is here

Note that the suspension was on motion, without a hearing, certainly without a jury trial. 

Note that proceedings were closed to the public.

Note that in attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York, unlike other court proceedings, the intermediate appellate court is allowed to play all fiddles that is usually forbidden by the constitutional separation of powers principle: 

1. It is a party in the proceeding (licensor); 

2. it is a legislator of both attorney conduct rules AND the court procedural rules in attorney disciplinary proceedings. 

3. The prosecuting attorney is officially deemed "an arm of the court", of that same court that is adjudicating the matter. 

All of the above combinations of roles of the presiding court are gross constitutional violations making such proceedings jurisdictionally invalid. 

Just some food for thought for the public - who is usually completely unaware as to how attorney licensing is happening in their state and country. 

Btw, what they are licensing (the so-called "practice of law") is not clearly defined by statute anywhere in the country, including New York state, making the whole attorney licensing process unconstitutional. 

But - since it is an attorney for Trump, why not celebrate what is otherwise unconstitutional? 

Don't ask, for whom the bell tolls...


The basis for the interim suspension is - supposedly spreading false news about election fraud in the 2020 presidential elections to courts, lawmakers and the general public.

A kicker here - no courts have so far allowed discovery in election fraud cases, nor did they allow cases to proceed to jury trials.

And, without a jury, as I wrote here in my article on evidence, no other court can presume - as the disciplinary "court" did here - that there was NO election fraud.

Which is exactly what Rudy Giuliani told these idiots in his answering papers.

To no avail.


And yet another note - to the celebrating public.

If even a US President does not have a right to an independent and fearless representation by an attorney - what chances as to access to justice do average Janes and Joe from the street have?

If or when you have a sensitive issue to raise in court and you cannot find an attorney to represent you - look no further.

Otherwise, feel free to celebrate.