THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"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.

Friday, April 29, 2022

News from Appellate Division 3rd Department on the unlawful salary of Gov Kathy Hochul, conflicted representation of NY AG Letitia James, incompetent unlawful behavior of NYS Comptroller and other exciting topics

Yesterday New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division 3rd Department has issued a very interesting decision.

That can lead to stripping the current and former Governor and Lt Governor of the State of New York of a good chunk of their salaries, as unconstitutionally received.

Here is the decision in full.







The decision leads one to raise interesting questions.

First, State Comptroller took an oath of office to uphold the State Constitution.

The NYS Legislature's sweetheart declaration raising salaries of Gov. Cuomo and Lt Gov. Hochul mid-term THREE TIMES was contrary to the text of the New York State Constitution (a separate issue is what New Yorkers are paying, through their collective noses, to NYS Legislature's legal department that allowed this declaration to go through).

A trick question - what has prevented the Chief financial officer of the State of New York to "just say no" and refuse to obey an obviously unconstitutional order of the State Legislature?

His career was more important than his oath of office, obviously.

Second, note WHO represents the defendant who illegally paid out salary increases knowing they are unconstitutional (any accountant would have been fired for THAT, not for disobeying that unlawful order.)

It is the pre-eminent NY AG Letitia James who portrays herself on social media and in leftstream media that she is defender of New Yorker's rights and enforcer of the law (while OPPOSING New Yorker's civil rights lawsuits in court, see Pacer.gov).

Here she also defend one violator of the law, a high-ranking violator, too.

And three - TA-DA, and note that this comes from the court that is also an ATTORNEY LICENSING/REGULATING authority in that same area.

The interesting conundrum is that, by the licensing rules of the App Div 3rd, Letitia James should have been stripped of her law license a long time ago for representing people with conflicting, often, opposing, interests, in the same litigation.

Yet, App Div 3 calmly state in the decision that Letitia James may do just that.

Why?

Because EVERY SINGLE JUDGE of the App Div 3 is ALSO Letitia James client - and she will vigorously defend them if they themselves are sued for some unconstitutional behavior.

Reducing both the value of the oath of office that every single one of these "public servants" give - and the licensing rules of attorney ethics, exactly to 0.

Graft wins - every single time.



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)