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.

Sunday, May 12, 2024

Topics of upcoming blog article series on issues of public concern, stay tuned


The topic of this blog is court (and, generally, government) corruption and accountability and attorney independence, especially in representation of the poor.

Recently there was a flood of issues that have come to my attention on these topics that, in my view, are not adequately covered by the media or the watchdogs of the judiciary, so I will have to resume my blogging a little more actively.

I am about to start several series of blog articles on issues of very important public concern, based on brand new evidence, and my readers know that I do diligent research of documents in public access before I make an accusation of corruption or other misconduct of a public official.

So far, even though my blogs have caused several recusals of judges, none of the judges subjected to criticism on this blog ( or anybody else) dared to sue me for defamation, for obvious reasons - truth is an absolute defense, and discovery in such a case is a b*tch that may expose a judge to very, very interesting revelations for the public that may end the judge's career both as a judge and as a lawyer and put the judge behind bars.

The issues I am going to discuss are as listed below.

1.  Did New York criminally collude with the predatory credit card industry in introduction of its Consumer Credit (Un)Fairness Act and how the predatory features of this law are playing out AGAINST the indigent (poor) consumers in court.

2. Is New York's informational system for the public regarding its licensed attorneys misleading to the public as to the listed licensed attorneys' presumption of competence?

3. Is the New York State informational system for the public regarding its licensed attorneys misleading to the public as to whether the listed licensed attorneys' and the law firms where they practice law have actual legal authority to practice law in the state of New York?  Believe me, documents you will see illustrating this series of articles are hilarious.

I have bumped into this problem by accident, and I do not have resources or time to assess the scope of the problem in New York State court system, but, since courts are apparently not checking whether attorneys and law firms practicing in front of them are actually authorized by New York State law or not to practice, the problem may be very, very widespread.

I will describe in my article series how did I find out the problem, giving people an opportunity to at least look in certain places for certain signs of such, possibly massive, fraud being committed in the New York judicial system on multiple clients and opponents with impunity and without anybody looking into the problem.

I will also describe how judges in the State of New York, while having a death grip on the monopoly to control lawyers (for the judges' own benefit), are in complete dereliction of duties to control whether lawyers appearing in front of them are competent, diligent, honest or even HAVE A RIGHT TO PRACTICE LAW in the State of New York, yes, yes, yes, that, too, I have recent documentary evidence.

4.  The interesting conclusions one may draw from NYS AG Letitia James' bold assertion in a federal appellate court that the main purpose of attorney regulation in New York (repeated 10 times, I counted, in her appellant's brief) is MIND CONTROL by the government of those same attorneys (and of the public through those attorneys as representatives of members of the public in court.

That Letitia James was RE-ELECTED AFTER making that bold assertion shows that in New York State you may elect a mindless blurb of fat with a Democratic Party card to be Attorney General (or to any other public office).  So much attention people pay to the background of the candidates for public office they vote for.

On May 29, 2024, in two weeks, Letitia James (or her subordinates) will be making an oral argument in the 2nd Circuit in Upsolve, Inc. v. James, defending this bold policy, don't miss it if livestream is going to be available.

Btw, I have been licensed in New York, my husband has been licensed, too, I have polled several other attorneys licensed in the State of New York - and none of us people who have ever been licensed in New York knew what Letitia James  argued to the federal appellate court: that for over 100 years the main purpose of the government in the State of New York was MIND CONTROL of the lawyers by the government.

Believe me, documentary evidence I am going to put into this article series will be equally hilarious.


5.  As hilarious will be the coverage of the topic as to how the 2nd Circuit was trying to jam my pro se amicus curiae listing my research on the very topic of Letitia James' appeal made for a number of years - while this particular topic, constitutionality of attorney regulation in New York, is taboo in the mainstream academia for fear of losing their law licenses.

I have already lost mine, for criticism of a corrupt judge Carl F. Becker of Delaware County, NY (who was quietly taken off the bench, but I was still suspended, likely, because of articles in this blog criticizing other judges, such as the currently sitting corrupt judges John F. Lambert and Brian D. Burns), so I am free-free-free to discuss any topic in my legal scholarship or on this blog.

Moreover, since Letitia James has announced that the main purpose of New York State government (actually, I have raised this constitutional issue in my disciplinary proceedings) is mind control of lawyers, and I was suspended because I refused to submit to that mind control, I can just as well wear that suspension as a badge of honor.

The reason the 2nd Circuit has taken my amicus curiae brief off the publicly accessibly docket (while keeping me on the list of notified parties - since I have made a motion to vacate the deliriously stupid decision requiring me to undo my suspension and get admitted to the 2nd Circuit bar before I can file PRO SE amicus curiae briefs) is because it shows, in very simply legal terms, and based on mandatory US Supreme Court precedent that what New York is doing with attorney regulation is even less criminal that what the 2nd Circuit itself is doing with attorney regulation, and how disastrous that regulation is for the public.


6. Last, but certainly not least, will be my series of blog articles on Letitia James/Democrats' "Marie Antoinette" solution for the poor ("let them eat cake") in terms of lack of access to legal services when opposing the predatory actions of the fraudulent out of control credit card industry empowered by fraudulent out of control LICENSED attorneys - that generously donate to this fat rich woman's election campaigns, so she can only care to spend taxpayer money on her political agenda, while Rome is burning.

The whole point in the upcoming oral argument by Letitia James - who has spent so far, I am sure, hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on litigating this issue - is whether New York has a public interest in FORBIDDING THE POOR AND THE ILLITERATE (INCLUDING IMMIGRANTS) TO HAVE HELP IN CHECKING BOXES IN A ONE-PAGE COURT FORM, choosing potential affirmative defenses against credit card lawsuits in order to avoid default.

That's it!

That's what Letitia James, a fat rich entitled "Democratic" government official, is fighting over - that the poor are, in her view "BETTER OFF" WITHOUT ANY HELP than allowing Upsolve, Inc. volunteers, for free, help poor people voluntarily engaging such help to check those boxes.

In other words, and that is a yet another issue I have repeatedly raised both in my legal scholarship articles on Academia.edu, and in this blog - what RIGHT does the government have to control the right of COMPETENT ADULTS, CONSUMERS, to choose who represent them in court or who consults them on issues of PUBLIC LAW, for free or for a fee?

7. I will have a coverage of the so-called e-filing system in New York courts (NYSCEF) and my experience in using it recently (and currently) as a pro se party in a civil court case (easement dispute, but that does not matter, NYSCEF features apply equally to all civil cases).

I will cover the advantages and disadvantages of using the system as a pro se (representing yourself) litigant, based on real-life examples and documentary evidence, covering various aspects of civil litigation in New York courts through e-filing and virtual court hearings, and New York State Court Administration's failure to make available to litigants easily available technical means of presenting best evidence to the court and to effectively conduct litigation during hearings.

If you are interested in these topics, stay tuned, I will start rolling out these articles within several days.












Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)