"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 26, 2024

On presidential - and not only - immunity

I see posts in the mass media and social media everywhere eagerly anticipating whether the US Supreme Court will or will not "grant" immunity from criminal prosecution to our former President Trump.

I have several questions to the public about this eagerness.

As much as I would not like the demented shadow of a man Joe "Pause" Biden to continue to "lead" this country on a crash course, and as much as I believe, as a person who has practiced criminal law for years, that criminal cases against Trump (all of them) are fabricated and politically motivated, as a legal scholar researching and writing on issues of constitutional law, I have a real problem with several issues in the presidential immunity debate.

First - nobody, as in, I repeat, nobody has a right to absolve people from the reach of criminal law, to permit them to commit crimes in public office.

SCOTUS is not a religious body and may not issue or sell indulgencies.

Commission of crimes in public office runs contrary to the oath of office of the holder of that office.

Second, the US Supreme Court lacks legislative power to create law, and especially, law interfering with states' sovereignty to prosecute (alleged) crimes committed within their borders, or with the federal executive power to charge and prosecute violations of federal crimes.  

Thus, the expectation that SCOTUS will create an immunity from criminal liability, federal or state, for President Trump, is an expectation and endorsement for continued unlawful operation of SCOTUS as this country's unlawful superlegislative body that has put a collective absolute monarch, 9 men and women, above any laws and made them the source of laws, contrary to the US Constitution that the court, hypocritically, is sworn to uphold.

That said, no immunity should exist - and that includes (which completely falls through the cracks in the immunity debate) the self-given absolute immunity of judges, and the absolute immunity given by judges to criminal prosecutors.

Consider the sheer impropriety of judges and prosecutors not only in cases against Trump, but in all criminal cases, FABRICATE these cases WITH IMMUNITY/IMPUNITY, aallowed by SCOTUS as the usurper of superlegislative powers in this country to

And, consider the interesting position that attorney regulation plays in this immunity distribution.

Immunity is given in criminal and quasi-criminal ("civil") court cases to anybody, but to the defense attorney.

Not "public policy" of these black-robed crooks to give immunity to the defense of the innocent against fabrications of immunized criminals.

So, the judge and the prosecutor are free to fabricate cases against anybody BUT prosecutors' benefactors who gave prosecutors absolute immunity to commit crimes in office: judges.

Why not? Because if prosecutors dare to prosecute their benefactors, judges, judges will use attorney monopoly (introduced, as NYS AG argues at this time to the 2nd Circuit in Upsolve, Inc v James, to protect consumers) as a sword against such prosecutors, and will simply take their licenses and livelihoods.

As the Pennsylvania state judiciary did to the former state AG Kane who dared to investigate judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the state at all levels.

Do not bite the hand that feeds you.  Do not embrace the fantasy that your office is on behalf and to benefit your electorate, not a small clique of immunized criminals.

The immunities so given and so used make all oaths of office a joke, since the moment they take that oath, they may break it with impunity.  

And they do.  Boy, do they do.

Absolute impunity causes absolute corruption, and corruption causes chaos, which is the very contrary to the rule of law that both sides of the immunity debate hypocritically pledge to.


No comments:

Post a Comment