Bar Association Claims Members Are Above the Law

NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE GOVERNMENT TO PRACTICE LAW?

The below excerpt is from the Preamble of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers.  It was taken from the rules in Pennsylvania, however, it is derived from the American Bar Association’s national rules,  that controls all of the country’s bar associations. It claims that the Judicial System is not dependent upon the government for the right to practice law.  This is beyond unconstitutional, a lawless statement and it is unbelievable that it has gone unchallenged for decades.

[11] To the extent that lawyers meet the obligations of their professional calling, the occasion for government regulation is obviated. Self-regulation also helps maintain the legal profession’s independence from government domination. An independent legal profession is an important force in preserving government under law, for abuse of legal authority is more readily challenged by a profession whose members are not dependent on government for the right to practice. Continue reading “Bar Association Claims Members Are Above the Law”

Yale Law Study Shows Judicial Corruption Is A Major U.S. Problem

Corruption in Our Courts: What It Looks Like and Where It Is Hidden

Recent surveys and events indicate that judicial corruption could be a significant problem in the United States. This Note builds an economic model of bribery to better understand the incentives behind this pernicious phenomenon. It then compiles a data set of discovered incidents of judicial bribery in the United States to test the effectiveness of our anti-judicial-corruption institutions. This analysis suggests that our institutions are particularly ineffective at preventing and uncovering judicial bribery in civil disputes and traffic hearings. Continue reading “Yale Law Study Shows Judicial Corruption Is A Major U.S. Problem”

You Can Sue the Opposing Attorney in Pennsylvania

 Fifteen years ago, a neighbor came to my door, asking me to watch her son.  She had three young children all under the age of six, and was on her way to court. Her husband had left her for another woman, and refused to sign off on their home so it could be sold.  Her job alone was not enough to pay the mortgage, and he would have received a portion of the proceeds in equitable distribution.   The husband also rarely complied with child support, which would have been reduced had he cooperated in the sale of the property.  The home was in foreclosure, however, for no other reason than the misconduct and bias of the judge. He was focused on providing hourly fees to repay campaign contributions, to the fellow bar association member that represented her husband. My neighbor could not afford an attorney, and was representing herself.

A judge does have the power to remove a non-cooperative spouse from the deed, and enforce economic relief.  They have a duty to mitigate the  harm to the family, that is directly written in the domestic relations statute.  At the time, I also had three young children under the age of six.  I could not believe what she was telling me; surely we have laws that protect us from this sort of thing.  She could put in a complaint regarding the judge, right? My neighbor said to me ,“You don’t know how bad it is until you are in it.”

Ironically, fifteen years later, I had the same judge preside over my own divorce.  It has been eight years, and I too, have had to represent myself.   The same things have happened to me.  My home is needlessly in foreclosure over a simple signature for a modification of the mortgage.  Judge Kelly Wall, in Montgomery County, was indebted to the bar for campaign contributions.  She let a motion for relief go unaddressed for four years, and failed to disclose it on the Rule 703 reports, which require them report timely disposition of issues.  After four years of contacting the Judicial Conduct Board, I managed to get  a meeting with them.  They did force her to recuse, but apologized that they have no restitution mechanisms. My anger is not so much with my revengeful spouse, as it is with the people who are being paid to control these situations.

Maybe if I had gotten involved fifteen years ago, with trying to repair our severely decayed justice system, I would not be now battling for eight years, still not even divorced.  Whether you are involved in family court or just a plain civil matter, the problem is all from the same source.  No checks and balances over the Judicial Branch.  They are directly responsible for all of the government corruption we are seeing.  So I understand the apathy; but I cannot understand when those that are involved, how they still do not participate in trying to stop this from happening to their children in the future.

It took Martin Luther King, Jr. over twenty years, to get enough people to actively participate in the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.  This is where our trouble with the courts began.  You can learn about it here.  Since that time, the bar associations increased their power over the courts, to take away those rights that were fought for during that time.  There is a lot of information on how this occurred on Pennsylvania Court Watch – it regards the Open Meeting Laws and Sunshine Act. 

But in the interim, I have an historical case – one that no one in the state of Pennsylvania has had as much success on, in suing the opposing attorney in my divorce. If I prevail, it will set precedent for others to use. The reason I was able to get as far as I have, is because ONE judge, did not take campaign contributions, and is not subservient to the bar.  For the last four years I have been in litigation against this attorney and  it has given me valuable information that I would like to share.  

Last week, the defendants attorney made a mistake.  He filed what is known as a Motion for Reconsideration, for dismissal of his preliminary objections, by the first judge, from years ago. When he did this, under the collateral judgment doctrine, the decision process went back to the first judge, who had been removed from the case after she allowed my case to move forward.  The current judge,  who took a large amount of campaign contributions, has been allowing the defendants to use dilatory tactics, and drag the case out for the last three years.

The first judge denied their attempts to dismiss the case again. and it gave me something invaluable. She wrote an opinion, which gives the Pennsylvania Law, to sue an opposing attorney for abuse of process.  Only about a dozen states in the country provide for this.  You can view the law on the site here:  Order of Judge on Attorney Abuse of Process.   Use it in your own case; maybe if enough people sue the opposing attorneys, it will help end judicial corruption. 

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Pennsylvania Court Watch

Court Reform Advocacy

Judge Claims Attorney Generals Cannot Investigate Themselves – But Judges Can?

crownblackThere is an excerpt  below from an article in the Nation’s oldest legal publication, the Legal Intelligencer, that is now owned by Apax Partners LLP, a UK-based private equity and venture capital firm, headquartered in London, England. It appears we are still a colony run by the monarchy.  This is also probably why our court venues are still modeled by the archaic system in England, from which we supposedly separated in 1776.  Our system still includes “sovereign immunity” in the form of “judicial immunity” taken from the concept that “the king can do no wrong.” So always consider your sources. That said please read on.

Pennsylvania Judge William R. Carpenter states that he appointed a special prosecutor to investigate allegations against the State Attorney General, because “Clearly, Attorney General Kane could not investigate herself,” he said.

 This is evidence of the hypocrisy with which our judiciary has been operating for far too long. Judges targeted with motions for their recusals, demanded by litigants, do in fact, investigate themselves.  They do not have to refer to any type of democractic process to determine if their actions violate their Judicial Canons or civil rights violations under the U.S.  or PA State Constitutions. We have a self-recusal system, that was put in place by the judges themselves, and not by legislature or a public referendum. The only alternative is to complain to the Judicial Conduct Board – that is also made up of judges and lawyers.

The Attorney General is part of the Executive Branch and is in charge of criminal investigations.  Therefore, Judge Carpenter has exceeded his jurisdiction in assigning a prosecutor to investigate Attorney General Kane, whose job it is to appoint prosecutors. These conflicts have been going on for decades in Pennsylvania, since the amendment to the State Constitution with Article V Section 10, whereby the courts interpreted that “administrative” self-regulation, gave them the power to block all oversight by the legislature and the public. They used this power to exempt themselves from the Open Meeting Laws in 1978.

Hopefully, the harrassment of AG Kane, will start a public dialog to address these issues, which have been denying due process, resulting in false imprisonment and extortion of assets by attorneys in collusion with judges, for decades…

AG Kane’s Case Highlights Justices’ March Arguments                

Lizzy McLellan, The Legal Intelligencer  March 10, 2015

Ethical issues in the public sector are set to take the stage next week as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is scheduled to hear several cases dealing with state officials—including an important one for Attorney General Kathleen Kane—as well as government agencies and funds.  A court of five justices is set to hear arguments March 10 and 11 in Philadelphia.

Kane’s Challenge

In an expedited case that has garnered widespread attention, the justices agreed to hear Kane’s challenge to the appointment of a special prosecutor in an investigation of her office’s alleged involvement in a grand jury leak, in In re 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury.

In an opinion filed by Supervising Judge William R. Carpenter, he said he appointed Thomas E. Carluccio as special prosecutor in the case after finding grounds for further investigation into allegations of a grand jury leak originating from Kane’s office. In support, Carpenter cited other cases in which special prosecutors were appointed to investigate grand jury leaks, and said he sought advisement from then-Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille.

“Clearly, Attorney General Kane could not investigate herself,” he said.

Documents unsealed by the Supreme Court show portions of a grand jury presentment recommending that Kane face criminal charges, and an opinion from Carpenter which said the grand jury recommended charges of perjury, false swearing, official oppression and obstruction.

Kane has maintained that she did nothing illegal, and that the possible charges are politically motivated.

Following the grand jury’s recommendations, the case was in the hands of Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman until the Supreme Court agreed to hear Kane’s argument.

“The Fraternity “- The Corruption of the Legal System Exposed by a Judge


john_molloy2

"The once honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.”

Justice John F. Molloy

When I began practicing law in 1946, justice was much simpler. I joined a small Tucson practice at a salary of $250 a month, excellent compensation for a beginning lawyer. There was no paralegal staff or expensive artwork on the walls. In those days, the judicial system was straightforward and efficient. Decisions were handed down by judges who applied the law as outlined by the Constitution and state legislatures. Cases went to trial in a month or two, not years. In the courtroom, the focus was on uncovering and determining truth and fact.

I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The clock did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door.

Looking back

The legal profession has evolved dramatically during my 87 years. I am a second-generation lawyer from an Irish immigrant family that settled in Yuma. My father, who passed the Bar with a fifth-grade education, ended up arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court during his career.

The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena, with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs

That was just the beginning. By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona’s largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited from.

I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the implications for clients and society as a whole. The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has become my call to action for legal reform.

Disturbing evolution

Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to create law. Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It’s called case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent. This now happens so consistently that we’ve become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.

This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That’s because case law is technically complicated and requires a lawyer’s expertise to guide and move you through the system. The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge’s application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.

Lawyer domination

When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest.

When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers, along with concerned citizens. How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench?

When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and relationships.


Business of law

The concept of “time” has been converted into enormous revenue for lawyers. The profession has adopted elaborate systems where clients are billed for a lawyer’s time in six-minute increments. The paralegal profession is another brainchild of the fraternity, created as an additional tracking and revenue center. High powered firms have departmentalized their services into separate profit centers for probate and trusts, trial, commercial, and so forth.

The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.

Bureaucratic design

Today the skill and gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often determine the outcome of a case. And we lawyers love it. All the tools are there to obscure and confound. The system’s process of discovery and the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital information off-limits to jurors and make cases so convoluted and complex that only lawyers and judges understand them.

The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.

The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served. Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low-to-middle-income citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What would our Founding Fathers think?

This devolution of lawmaking by the judiciary has been subtle, taking place incrementally over decades. But today, it’s engrained in our legal system, and few even question it. But the result is clear. Individuals can no longer participate in the legal system.

It has become too complex and too expensive, all the while feeding our dependency on lawyers. By complicating the law, lawyers have achieved the ultimate job security. Gone are the days when American courts functioned to serve justice simply and swiftly. It is estimated that 95 million legal actions now pass through the courts annually, and the time and expense for a plaintiff or defendant in our legal system can be absolutely overwhelming.

Surely it’s time to question what has happened to our justice system and to wonder if it is possible to return to a system that truly does protect us from wrongs.

A lawyer from Tuscon, Arizona, John Fitzgerald Molloy (b. 1917) was elected to the Superior Court bench where he served for seven years as both a juvenile court and trial bench judge. He subsequently was elected to the Court of Appeals where he authored over 300 appellate opinions, including the final Miranda decision for the Arizona Supreme Court. During that period, he also served as president of the Arizona Judge’s Association. After 12 years, Molloy returned to private practice to become president of the largest law firm in southern Arizona. His book has received widespread praise for its candor and disquieting truths. (Photo courtesy of Paragon House)

Copyright 2004, Paragon House



From an Internet released preview of the book by John Fitzgerald Molloy, The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, Paragon House, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2004. Reprinted in accordance with the “fair use” provision of Title 17 U.S.C. § 107 for a non-profit educational purpose.


U.S. Department of Justice Claims No Due Process for Self-Represented

Due process is a right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  However, anyone that has been involved with the courts, and represented themselves, already knows that pro se discrimination is real and its a crime that goes unpunished.  If you are not a paying member of their club i.e. the bar association- you will receive no justice- because essentially you are cutting into their profits by not paying a  lawyer.  But now here it is in writing.. hard proof. .  From the Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.  HERE IS THE PHONE NUMBER OF ROBERT MOOSSY – WHO’S IS LISTED ON THIS LETTER AS THE CHIEF OF THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE…

Please call and ask for an explanation of this letter..202-514-3204