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

Separation of powers? Nah. Meet CONFLATION of power - and stupidity. A Family Court arrest warrant of a specified person, signed by an unknown judge, executed by an unknown officer, for an unspecified violation

Yesterday, New York State Delaware County Sheriff's Office has posted the following on Facebook:



Does anything seem wrong to you in what is described here?

Because if it doesn't, it most definitely should.

Remember why we have separation of government powers into 3 branches?

I don't believe they teach that in schools clearly enough.

It is because those "Founding Fathers" of ours DISTRUSTED integrity of the government and believed that, if the government is not constantly checked upon, the merged executive, legislative and judicial powers will become tyrannical.

The only thing is - their concept of separation of powers was incredibly naive and unworkable.

Why?

If the three branches, when/if merged, become an omnipowerful tyranny, why would they be entrusted to "check and balance" on one another?

Because instead of checks and balances - as we see again, and again, and again - we see that same MERGER of these three branches of power, producing tyranny.

Their separation exists only on paper.

Now, let's see again why what Delaware County Sheriff posted is Exhibit A of what I have just said about merger of power and tyranny.


Otsego County Family Court issues an ARREST WARRANT.

For an UNSPECIFIED violation of the Family Court Act.

And, the Delaware County Sheriff obliged and arrested a man whose name they publish, John P. Blackburn, of Kortright, NY, based on that arrest warrant.

Now, what is wrong about that?

Everything is wrong about that.

First, Family Court does NOT have jurisdiction over CRIMINAL proceedings, and, thus, should not be allowed to issue ARREST WARRANTS.

Arrest warrants are exclusively a feature of a criminal proceeding.

If the New York State Legislature gave this power to Family Court judges (and it did), and the Family Court judges, instead of declaring it unconstitutional, use that power, and the Sheriff, instead of refusing to obey an unconstitutional Arrest warrant, goes ahead and arrests a person based on it - AND PUBLISHES HIS NAME IN THE PAPER, damaging his reputation and likely jeopardizing his job, his business relationships etc. - that is, ladies and gentlemen, a MERGER of powers, which results in TYRANNY, in its classical sense.

Lawlessness.

Second, what kind of crap it is when a person's reputation is PUBLICLY damaged for an arrest for an "UNSPECIFIED" violation of something?

If you publish his name, do the next thing and disclose to the public, WHY, WHAT FOR.

If it is a secret (proceedings in Family Court are private), then, the arrest, is TWICE unlawful - because an arrest can be made only in a PUBLIC, criminal, proceeding.

You publicize the person's name - you publicize the charge, no way around it.

Because privacy of Family Court proceedings were supposed to protect litigants/parties in such proceedings, not judges and not the police catering for such judges.

In this case, the Judge's name who signed the warrant is - UNKNOWN, the officer's name who arrested the person based on that warrant is _ UNKNOWN, but the person's name (who is the ONLY person whose privacy the Family Court Act must protect) is publicized.

We don't know what he did wrong, but people don't get arrested for nothing, is the common line of thinking - isn't it?

So, the GOVERNMENT officials who DID WRONG by issuing and executing this arrest warrant are protected, but the person whose privacy that same Family Court Act is supposed to protect - is exposed.  Everything is topsy-turvy.

Is this what we pay these idiots in the government, all 3 branches, for?

I wonder when people start suing counties for such unlawful actions, and when County Attorneys will take their heads from where they are stuck now to figure out what kind of liability such "arrest warrants" put the County and its taxpayers into.

I will try to get a copy of that arrest warrant through a FOIL request and let my readers know who was the judge who signed it and who was the officer who executed it.  And what exactly the arrest warrant was for.

And THREE.

This announcement practically ACKNOWLEDGES what the government denies and lies to the public about.

Family Court proceedings ARE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS in their nature.

This arrest warrant is definitely not for "CIVIL" contempt of court (the only "civil" proceeding where arrests are allowed).

Because in civil contempts of court the purpose of the arrest is COERCION, not PUNISHMENT FOR A VIOLATION of anything.

Here, the arrest warrant was - as announced by the Sheriff's Office - "for unspecified VIOLATION of the Family Court Act", thus, a punishment, thus, a criminal proceeding.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long ago stated that the government's claim that a certain proceeding is "civil" in nature is not the end of story, the proceeding may still be challenged and declared criminal in nature if certain factors are present.

Later on, the U.S. Supreme Court has simplified the analysis whether a proceeding is civil or criminal in nature and provided a very simple rule:

if civil goals of the proceedings are THE ONLY goals of the proceedings - it is a civil proceeding.

if civil goal of the proceedings are NOT the only goals of the proceedings, and the proceeding ALSO has a purpose of retribution or deterrence (punishment) - they are CRIMINAL proceedings.

With all consequences of a criminal proceeding - requiring constitutional/procedural protections of a criminal proceeding.

And that is the big secret that Delaware County Sheriff has let out in his - stupidly, unlawfully - faithful following of an illegal court order that the Sheriff has proudly and publicly announced on Facebook.

Family Court proceedings are CRIMINAL proceedings in their nature - and, thus, this particular arrestee is entitled to procedural protections in a criminal proceeding - which undoubtedly he will not be given.

This is how tyranny works.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)