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, October 7, 2022
Voters in Delaware County, NY, remember - no lawyer will dare tell you the truth about John Hubbard as a judicial candidate. You need to do your own homework before voting.
A gentle reminder to voters of how judicial candidate John Hubbard has dishonestly got his alleged extraordinary high conviction record as a DA - from his former law partner Judge Becker
It is very relevant now when judicial candidate John Hubbard, Delaware County DA now, claims in his election campaign to become a County Judge his extremely high conviction rate - without mentioning that that the said conviction rate was obtained
(1) illegally, without disclosure to defendants and their attorneys that the presiding judge (Becker) was Hubbard's law partner before coming to the bench, and
(2) from Judge Northrup, Hubbard's former boss/DA.
Coincidentally, both Becker and Northrup ran from their much-craved judicial positions before their terms were up, indicating that they were both booted quietly for undisclosed misconduct - and County judges are very, very rarely booted by the New York Commission for Judicial Conduct, so misconduct must have been really, really bad.
John must be proud by such an association and leadership.
By the way, John does not mention to the public on his Facebook election page that he, together with his then-boss Northrup and in cahoots with his former law partner Judge Becker, bought waivers of liability for himself, judge Becker, the County and its various employees in civil rights lawsuits through plea bargains in criminal cases.
I caught the crew doing that in 2009 in a case of a legally blind client where the crew had the legally blind client sign such a waiver without being told what he was signing.
That was a form waiver my legally blind client has signed (represented at the plea allocution by a previous attorney, who we sued successfully later), so there is a high likelihood John Hubbard, Northrup and Becker have had a zillion of those waivers sold in exchange for plea bargains.
The impartial and honorable ones.
Just know who you are electing.