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.


Monday, February 23, 2026

Does it smell like rotten fish in the 3rd Department?

 

Back in 2015 I published a series of articles about an individual who was fraudulently elected as a Supreme Court Justice of Albany County Supreme Court, Christina Ryba (interesting coincidence, the name “Ryba” means “Fish” in Russian, so that is a rotten fish, indeed).

You can read the essence of the rotten-fish’s rotten fishness in the elections in my blogs dated:

November 4, 2015, here;

November 12, 2015, here;

Another November 12, 2015 article, here, titled “GOP wants an ethical probe of Christine Ryba who was elected as judge one day after she was terminated from an appellate court for unethical behavior” – yet, who is GOP in “democratic” New York and what “ethical probe” may be had against a BLACK WOMAN and a “FIRST BLACK FEMALE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE”? And so young?  And so pretty?  Oh, no.  Go away, GOP, with your ethics probes into rotten fishes, let them rot happily ever after, at NYS taxpayers’ bottomless expense.

(The next day, quite coincidentally, my law license was pulled 😊, and remains pulled – for how may a LICENSED attorney complain about various judges’ rotten fishness – OPENLY?)

I did not stop writing about the rotten fishness of the rotten fish, and published the next article about her the next day – as already an unlicensed attorney 😊:

November 14, 2015, here, article titled “Michael Coccoma's stop-gap job offer to Christine Ryba: for a senior high-ranking male judge, ethical misconduct of a pretty-face female attorney who has ties to the government is grounds for promotion. Again”

January 2, 2016, here, article titled “A "historic" fraudulent election of a black woman to the New York Supreme Court bench is cheered on by those who should have reported and disbarred her”.

I was not the only one who raised the issue of the fraudulent election – but apparently, the her gender and the blackness of her skin – and the prettiness of her face meant more than her obvious fraud upon voters.

And she survived in her judgeship.

And she thrived.

 

And – hallelujah – she made a thunderous comeback to the very 3rd Department from which she was fired (but not disbarred), allowing her career to proceed.

The 3rd Department recently announced the next step in the rotten fish’s career – the appointment to the Appellate Division 3rd Department, you can read the public announcement by the 3rd Department of that appointment here.

The is Honorable know.  The Honorable rotten fish.

The announcement is an copy of the announcement of New York State Governor Hochul made on January 15, 2026, available here.

In the announcement, you can trace the “successful” career of the rotten fish, including the litany of where she is a “member” and where she “served”.

Judging by how exactly she got elected and who harbored her after that, which I described in my contemporaneous blogs referenced above, the “service” could be as prominent as her fraudulent election and safe-harbor trick with then-Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael V. Coccoma, the connoisseur of pretty women who quite coincidentally happened to be rotten judges.

Unfortunately, my alma mater, the Albany Law School, fell for the brown-nosing temptation, putting the rotten fish on its Board of Trustees.

Consider that the rotten fish, as the announcement of the 3rd Department claims, “serves” on the Permanent Commission for Access to Justice, people! 

And, of course, first and foremost what was prominently mentioned in the announcement of the 3rd Department, the rotten fish was she is “the first Black person ever elected to the Supreme Court in the Third Department and will be the first Black justice elected from the Third Department to serve on the Appellate Division”.

That must mean a whole lot to attorneys whose law licenses the rotten fish will be now regulating, and to litigants whose liberty and property issues the rotten fish will be now adjudicating, guided by her own, already demonstrated to the public at the point of her first election – rotten fraudulent principles.

I get a kicker out of identity politics of judicial appointments.

The same 3rd Department is headed – and I openly wrote about it before – by the first LGBTXYZ@#$^ justice “serving” as the Chief Judge of an Appellate Division, Elizabeth Garry.  Whose only qualifications was who she chooses to sleep with.

Welcome to the woke world of the judiciary – ever alive.

And prepare - now the rotten fish will not only decide your fate, but will decide the fate of your attorney and lifeline to court relief - and teach that attorney ETHICS, CARL.  Figure.

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment