"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, August 26, 2021

“I don’t care whether you are right or not, but I will rule against you anyway, for trying to seek the truth in court” – On politically motivated “rule of law” in the United States courts

Over the past 5 years or so, and especially since 2 events emerged – presidential elections of 2020 and ensuing lawsuits, and introduction of covid19 vaccines – politically motivated judicial decision-making has come from being hidden from the view of the majority of the American public – right into the limelight.

It happened because of the issues where this politically motivated jurisprudence was applied, concerning every single American.

As this article is showing, we know have a “justice system” that dishes out political expediency rather than resolves arguments between parties and delivers justice – and it is early time to celebrate for Democrat or Democrat-leaning Americans that it is their “teams” and their agendas are as yet winning in these political expediency decisions.

Political winds may change, but case law and principles of such decision-making may haunt all Americans for a long time.

This article will show how unlawful politically motivated judicial decision-making can impose a major undermining of major rights on fundamental issues related to lives of everyone in this country – on just two court cases, but seminal cases in their importance for every single American and our future lives:

      A case where a judge authorized private employers to condition employment on covid19 vaccination[1], and

2.  A civil rights case by several voters in Michigan where a judge dismissed the case without allowing to verify whether what plaintiffs were saying was true or not through discovery (since the bulk of documentary proof was, as it usually is in such cases, in the exclusive possession of the government stonewalling access to it) and a jury trial, but nevertheless sanctioned their lawyers for bringing the lawsuit[2].

Both cases show interesting tendencies.

First, judges in both cases are blocking the facts on the key issues of litigation from being discovered and presented to the jury:

· I In the vaccination case it is discovery from 3rd parties – government-immunized vaccine manufacturers of Covid19 vaccines[3] – of facts, kept by these vaccine manufacturers under lock and key, regarding their true efficacy and safety – or lack thereof;

·    In imposing sanctions against civil rights lawyers in election fraud cases – regarding the centerpiece issue whether there was or there wasn’t widespread fraud during the 2020 elections.  That is an issue of fact that only a thorough discovery, and then cross-examination before juries, can establish.

Second, notwithstanding the lack of stonewalled evidence[4] that the judges did not allow to be discovered and established before a jury – the judges then rule on the merits of the case;

Third, judges in both cases – adamantly and openly refused to even review the key issues of litigation:

a.      Whether the covid19 vaccines are safe and effective[5],

b.     Whether there was widespread election fraud at the 2020 presidential elections and whether the “elections were stolen”[6].


  • 1.     block the true facts from being discovered, and
  • 2.     rule against the plaintiffs[7] and punish their lawyers[8] without regard whether what they complained about in their lawsuits were right or wrong.

Ruling against people without allowing to fully develop and review key issues of litigation on the merits is the opposite of justice, fairness and the “rule of law”.

Courts exist actually to resolve disputes between parties, and because of their truth-finding function.

When a court refuses to engage in truth-finding, but instead firmly declares that it WON’T do the truth-finding, moreover, it DOES NOT CARE WHAT THE TRUTH IS, but it will rule – against the party seeking the truth – anyway, this is the opposite to the rule of law.

This is tyranny of the worst kind.

It is also a denial of access to court, in violation of the 1st Amendment Petitions Clause, and 5th and 14th Amendments’ due process clauses - because of political expediency.

It is also an illustration of how federal judges in the US – employed in their positions for life – can wreak havoc in people’s rights by engaging in unlawful, politically motivated judicial decision-making – or, likely corruption (from which courts have given themselves absolute immunity). 

This type of denial of justice to the entire country by a few biased or corrupt judges on important issues of public safety and/or democracy should not be permitted. 

A justice system reform in the US is long overdue.

[1] Bridges v Houstan Methodist Hospital, Civil Action No. H-21-1774 (US District Court, S.D. Texas, June 12, 2021).

[2] King v Whitmer, Civil Case No. 20-13134 (US District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division, August 25, 2021).

[3] Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (Prep) of 2020 and 2021, .  The way this immunity from liability operates is that anybody who develops, sells or administers covid19 vaccines is immunized from liability (injuries or deaths) that the vaccine may cause, specifically, a lawsuit cannot be filed against such people or entities, discovery cannot be had and their liability cannot be established before juries – as it can be done when a person is injured or dies after administration of any other medicine.  Yet, what the PREP Act did not block is the possibility of subpoenaing vaccine developers and manufacturers as third parties to testify in discovery and at trial in related cases, such as in mandatory vaccination cases against employers.  That possibility was blocked in

[4] By vaccine manufacturers (3rd parties in the lawsuit) in the mandatory vaccination case, and by the government in the 2nd case.

[5] “Wrongful termination.    Vaccine safety and efficacy are not considered in adjudicating this issue”,  Bridges v Houstan Methodist Hospital, Civil Action No. H-21-1774 (US District Court, S.D. Texas, June 12, 2021). at 1 of 5.

[6] “To be clear, for the purpose of the pending sanctions motions, the Court is neither being asked to decide nor has it decided whether there was fraud in the 2020 presidential election in the State of Michigan”, King v Whitmer, Civil Case No. 20-13134 (US District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division, August 25, 2021). at 3 of 110 (footnote omitted).

[7] Bridges v Houstan Methodist Hospital, Civil Action No. H-21-1774 (US District Court, S.D. Texas, June 12, 2021).

[8] King v Whitmer, Civil Case No. 20-13134 (US District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division, August 25, 2021)..