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 7, 2026

The real face of NYS Supreme Court Justice Christopher P. Baker

Next time you decide whether to vote for this guy to re-elect him to judicial office:




 

have this image in your mind's eye:



This is blood.  Real blood.  Of a 78-year-old immobilized man, a litigant, who Justice Baker cannot stop retaliating against because (1) he bested Judge Baker in court when Judge Baker was an Assistant District Attorney in Chemung County; (2) we sued Judge Baker for misconduct.

My husband has fragile veins.  They ruptured twice in three days so far.  Judge Baker was notified, with a repeated request for a disability accommodation.  He turned a deaf ear.

Today, the vein ruptured again.  I came running to my husband's yelling for help to see the picture of a pool of blood around my husband's foot, with the blood squirting.

I (63 and 3-strokes' survivor and a long-COVID survivor, so I am not as agile as I was at 15) dropped on the floor and have spent 15 frantic minutes on the floor clamping upon the wound as much as I could while my husband was calling 911.

Coincidentally, we had a technician that came to work on our car waiting for me outside.  When I finally took the blood squirting under control and came out running to meet the ambulance, my arms were elbow-deep in blood.  

It is very apparent that my husband cannot travel - and that is on top of his complete inability to sit at all, or stand for prolonged periods of time - because it causes him hip-pain (fused joint) and ruptured veins.

I have been litigating in New York courts for many years as an attorney - and so was my husband.  The usual approach of judges is the immediate grant of requests to make motions on submitted basis on such circumstances - or to appear by phone.  Out of sheer humanity.

That is not the case here.

Judge Baker DELIBERATELY put several MUNDANE motions - "extend time" by defaulting defendants, motion to dismiss (on the pleadings).  These do not require evidentiary hearings.  Defaulting defendants are not entitled to hearings on motions to extend time to answer.

And nevertheless - NO, NO, NO and NO.  "Justice Baker" is completely deaf to our requests not to drag us 1,700 miles on a roundtrip that will require us to pay for medical transportation for my husband in order to oppose a motion to extend time by defaulting defendants.

That is a matter of principle for Judge Baker - to show us who is boss.  The law and humanity be damned.

Judge Baker declared a war on two invalids - my husband and myself - first, because my husband bested Judge Baker when he was a mere ADA in Chemung County's District Attorney's office, and, second, because we sued Judge Baker for manufacturing evidence for opponents.

And for that - all bets are off now.  Baker is bent on revenge, casting to the winds all tenets of human decency and all pledges he made to the public when running for the judicial office.

Notably, Baker ran for judicial office on self-advertisement of serving the disabled:





He serves the disabled all right after he got to become the King of the Hill.

My husband, with fragile veins, could just as well bleed to death - like he had a close call today - by being dragged 1700 miles roundtrip to the courthouse for mundane motions because Judge Baker is bent on revenge.

Justice Baker is currently ignoring any and all ADA accommodation requests to allow appearances on mundane motions (extend time by our governmental defaulting opponents) - requests that he routinely grants sua sponte without any disability to governmental counseled parties.

My question is - how much do law firms for those counseled parties donated to his election campaigns?  Who of his relatives do they employ? How many trips or wine-and-dine opportunities did they fund for this judge?

Once again - just think about WHAT "Justice" Baker is adamantly, stubbornly and insistently doing to a disabled individual.



That is Tennessee v Lane revisited.

That is the real face of Judge Baker - and of the NYS Judicial System who enables Judge Baker.

Remember that at your voting booth.






Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)