"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.

Tuesday, July 13, 2021

Disbar them (for taking a position in court in a highly political matter)! The new "democracy" a-la-USSR in the USA

There was a time in the Stalin's USSR when there were meetings held at large factories and universities alike, where people were "expected" to condemn - and demand death for - accused political opponents of Stalin and to "spies".

Of course, accusations of spying were fabricated out of the thin air and confessions extracted by KGB under torture.

And, of course, most people did what the government expected them to do.  They publicly condemned people they did not know.  And demanded death for them.


For their careers, peace of mind, not to be flagged and not to be the next on the butcher block.

Appears that we have the same tendencies starting in this country.

What is horrible, but not very surprising to me who have been researching and writing about the American legal profession for years, the left have subverted public thinking about the legal profession and instilled into a large portion of the U.S. population the idea that attorneys who defend in court positions of political leaders the "woke" do not like must be disbarred and forever forbidden to practice their profession - to support the snowball of political repressions against non-woke lawyers has already started rolling. 

 In New York, in South Carolina, now in FEDERAL COURT in a Michigan district.

Now why this kind of tendency is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot for every single member of the American public?

In the U.S. there exists a so-called absolute attorney monopoly.

In my view, it is not legal and it is not constitutional for the government to control people's access to court by allowing only people to be represented by only those individuals who are vetted by that same government.

Figure how crazy the reality sounds of your opponent in a court case controlling who you can choose for your representative to oppose that opponent in that court case.

Yet, that is the reality in the U.S. where the government is on the other side of a court case.

Because that same government controls the license - and, thus, the ability to represent you in court - of every single lawyer in the country.

And, the "Democratic" mass media not only considers this total lack of independence of the American legal profession as proper - but it literally sics people to demand, see above, no, not death yet, but being stripped off their profession for lawyers who dared to support a so-called "big lie" about election fraud in presidential elections of 2020.

Now, I have written a separate article on evidence in regards to why nobody, until now, has a right to state that allegations of election fraud ARE a big lie.  Because the only types of governmental bodies in the country - juries in respective states - did not adjudicate such claims, after a full discovery and a trial with cross-examination of witnesses - as false.

By the way, you know, what is the reason toted by those who are benefiting from trying to prevent the dismantling of the unlawful and unconstitutional absolute attorney monopoly in the US where adult legally capable people are PROHIBITED BY THE GOVERNMENT to choose WHO THEY WANT to represent them in court?

Which makes no sense since every person in the US may represent him/herself in court without a lawyer - for that the government gives people a right. But not to choose a trusted another to represent them - somehow people must trust only those who the government allows them to trust, government-licensed attorneys.  Which, again, makes no sense.

Well, the reasoning in support of the absolute attorney monopoly (other than "it has been like that for a long time, so why wouldn't it continue some more") is - because people are dummies, they do not know the law (they are presumed to know, otherwise people cannot be prosecuted for breaking those laws), mind, they do not know THEIR OWN public laws, enacted by people they elect to act on their own behalf and for their own benefit.

Which is - all in all - a crazy reasoning.

But yet.  The absolute attorney monopoly - 

blocking the entire country that calls itself "democratic" access to court with a representative of their own choice 

-exists because citizens of that country de facto agree that they are too dumb to know their own laws and can "only" represent themselves without a representative/lawyer, but cannot possibly be smart enough to choose such a representative unvetted by the government.

Ask a licensed lawyer regarding the constitutionality of the concept of attorney monopoly in the US - most likely you will get a blank stare, or an "it has always been that way" "argument", or "I don't care", or "I do not want to know" "argument".

It is a gilded cage that all licensed lawyers in the US "enjoy".

As to who regulates lawyers, which branch of the government - that is a separate song and dance.

It is the branch of the government that 100% consists of lawyers.  It's judges.

While all other regulated professions in the US are regulated by the executive branch, somehow the nature of attorney regulation is claimed to be "different", and lawyers are regulated by judges - while claiming that they are a "self-regulated profession", one more lie.

Does such regulation violate federal antitrust laws?  You bet.  A profession regulating itself under the guise of neutral government regulation cannot possibly be neutral to itself.  All it does is restricting competition and upping prices for its services for the public.

And, as to the regulators of the profession - judges - how can that regulator be considered neutral and honest when

1. it gave itself an absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt conduct in office, and

2. it prohibits criticism of itself to lawyers - at the threat of stripping them of the government-given "privilege" to practice in their chosen profession, devaluing their law school diplomas to zero.

The public should well remember that if a lawyer is too intimidated to raise a legal issue in court, for fear of losing his or her right to earn a living in her profession - and especially in cases where the almighty government is the lawyer's client's opponent - every single member of that public does not have grounds for hope to find an independent and fearless lawyer to represent that member of the public on a "sensitive issue".

Now, let's go to what is happening now where THE GOVERNMENT (the Michigan Attorney general) is asking a judge in Michigan to sanction lawyers - Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and a number of others, with names less famous - for making "false claims" of election fraud in court.

Once again, there was no discovery in the Michigan lawsuit, there was no jury trial, and the judge who dismissed the case, on a motion to dismiss had to be guided, by the law, by the rule that requires of that judge to ASSUME AS TRUE every factual allegation in the complaint.

Mind that when most of the data is in the hands of those whose actions are challenged in that lawsuit, no factual decisions may be done without an evidentiary hearing, and a dismissal NOT assuming as true allegations in the complaint (despite supporting affidavits) is starkly unlawful and should be reversed on appeal.

Yet, the same judge who did the unlawful dismissal of the case, is now, on request of Michigan Attorney General (opposing a civil rights lawsuit, mind - as the State AG opposes EVERY civil rights lawsuit of EVERY resident of the State of Michigan, see for public records of that) - is trying to sanction lawyers who dared to represent "that who cannot be named" and who tried to raise the "issue that cannot be named" - election fraud.

Now, I do not know about commentators in the left press which, same as in the USSR of the 1937 and other years of KGB purges, demand to disbar all Trump lawyers for "spreading the big lies" and "influencing the public" - for political reasons, which does not bother the "demanders" one bit.

I do not know whether they watched public hearings re certification of the presidential votes in 2020.

I did, the whole thing.

And, I did watch Democrats pushing against Republican witnesses of election fraud in Michigan, to certify nevertheless (and a Republican certifiers first certified and then recanted claiming she did it because she received death threats for her daughter).

You know what "legal grounds" did Democrats present to have elections in the State be certified WITHOUT AN INVESTIGATION of fraud despite multiple witnesses coming forward with testimony of fraud at public hearings?

Because, supposedly, the Michigan state law "does not allow" investigation before certification.

Certify - Democrats said - the election as TRUE, and THEN, "by law", the investigation will become possible.

Only it does not work that way - and they knew it.

As soon as elections in Michigan were certified - under death threats - Democrats immediately claimed that certification of elections as true, IS evidence that certified election results are actually true, and there is nothing to investigate.

A classic trick of fraudsters.

And, when voters sued, the case was blocked by a woke judge before it proceeded to discovery and jury trial - and now the same judge whose decision lawyers are appealing as unlawful is reviewing sanctions against them - for doing their jobs for their clients.

Mind that there was NO evidentiary hearing (with witnesses) in that case - as in any other election fraud cases across the country.



Mind that it is a huge separation-of-power no-no for STATE COURTS to take law licenses of CIVIL RIGHTS attorneys because of their stand in FEDERAL civil rights cases.

Yet, the left has put the law squarely on its proverbial head in order to brainwash the public regarding their political agenda.

With no regard whatsoever about either the rule of law, or the fate of every single member of the public when the time comes for them to get their lawyers to defend their sensitive issues in court.  Especially against the government.

And, if the law is put on its head, if certification is done by trick and death threats - and if it is a sanctionable offense for a lawyer to challenge this setup in court, and if the sanctioning judge has given herself immunity for malicious and corrupt conduct in office and thus put herself above the law - what hope for a fearless, honest and effective representation any of us have in court.

What rule of law?

Now "enjoy" the scans of people asking to disbar attorneys who are trying to do their job in court.

Shooting themselves in the foot has become the Democrats favorite game.  I do mind this game though - because it is destroying what was left of the rule of law before election fraud cases in this country.

Hard cases make bad law, huh?

"Enjoy" the opinions of people braving shooting themselves in the foot - as well as all their co-citizens.

Talking about "sancta simplicitas".

Endorsing a self-immunized-for-corruption woke judge (Stump v Sparkman) endorsing the request for sanctions of the judge-immunized-for-corruption prosecutor (Imbler v Pachtman) against lawyers after blocking the jury from reviewing the same evidence that they say is "a big lie".

By the way, you know the reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court used unlawfully granting immunity for corruption and other crimes in office to all American judges and to all American prosecutors (the only people who can prosecute judges for corruption and crimes in office in criminal proceedings)?

To grant judges and prosecutors impunity for corruption and committing crimes in office is GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE - so that judges and prosecutors are acting fearlessly - in committing corruption and other crimes in office.

So they are.  Now.