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.

Tuesday, April 8, 2025

Discrimination against disabled pro se litigants in court: New York Courts' "public policy". The DEI spoiled entitled hire "Justice" Sallie Mandanez-Daniels and her despicable outburst against a disabled individual in a public appellate court proceeding

 I have seen a story going viral all across the so-called "legal press" and blogosphere, that of a pro se appellate presenting to an appellate court in New York a videotaped appellate argument delivered by a AI avatar.

The ever-cowardish legal media is, of course, cheering to the appellate justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels who "did not have it", shut down the video appellate argument, put the disabled pro se person on the spot, yelled at him for "misleading the court" because, according to ther own testimony based on hearsay knowledge from her clerks, the same pro se person talked to her clerks for 30 minutes - and based on that, our friend Sallie played doctor and diagnosed the man as having no speech or other impediment.

My husband and I were just on the receiving end of discrimination against us as pro se litigants with disabilities, and I very much identified with what that man felt.

Especially that, accoridng to a case decided by the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit that my husband and I found in our research of the issue, this man is entitled to - SUE the State of New York (and cost NYS taxpayer money, unfortunately, for the stupid bizarre actions of this entitled DIE bitch, a k a "Justice") for ADA violation and depriving him of his right of access to the appellate court.

The New York State Court system made me very, very motivated to write about discrimination it condones and promotes against pro se litigants in the courtroom.

This is just the first article of the series.

In the next series I will publish the biographies of those who are in charge of accommodations for disabilities all across New York State Court Administration system, so that you will see how well these entitled people are prepared to deal with the problems of the disabled and the poor in the courtrooms.

I will specifically zero in on the biography of the extremely privileged DEI hire "Justice" Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, who believes, same as another DEI hire, from the US House, believes, that people's disability is something to publicly mock.

I will publish actual documents, as I usually do in my blog, showing that New York State Court Administration is, excuse my French, spits on the fate of the disabled in New York State courtrooms.

Finally, I will publish and analyze federal statutes and regulations, and will publish my husband's lawsuit, showing exactly how such lawsuits can be drafted by pro se individuals in federal court.

We will not overcome this entitled elitist heartless lawless mafia until we learn how to fight it by available legal means - and DO it.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)