Independence of Representation in Court and Judicial Accountability in the United States: Should these 14 New York Senators be impeached for voting in favor of a legislation that benefited them financially and protected the market of their professional services?

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.

Friday, August 1, 2014

Should these 14 New York Senators be impeached for voting in favor of a legislation that benefited them financially and protected the market of their professional services?

Recently a legislation was passed in New York State enhancing unauthorized practice of law from a misdemeanor to a felony.

According to my research of public records, 14 New York Senators whom I name in the table below voted for this legislation, legislation that enhanced restrictions to the market where they continue to provide professional services.

Therefore, these New York Senators had a material interest in the legislation they were voting for - to restrict competition to their business - and should not have voted at all.

It is interesting to mention that what exactly constitutes the practice of law remains undefined, and thus is subject to selective and arbitrary enforcement.

Yet, these 14 attorney-senators made sure that this vague and undefined activity must be now punished as a felony (1 1/3 to 4 years in state prison + fines and prohibition to vote and have firearms) rather than a misdemeanor (up to 1 year in the local jail + fines).

The data in the table below was compiled by me from two public websites - the website of the New York State Legislature as to the voting records for this particular statute, and the website of the New York State Court Administration as to registration statuses and information for senators-attorneys.

It is for the public to decide whether the senators who use New York Legislature to get benefits for their business should be impeached, thrown out of office and disciplined as attorneys for conduct unbecoming a member of the legal profession.

No.	Name of Senator-attorney	Attorney Reg. No.	Admitted to practice law in NY	Judiciary Committee Vote - Mar 1, 2011	Floor Vote, Mar 7, 2011	Judiciary Committee Vote – Jan 18, 2012	Floor Vote – May 1, 2012
1.	Breslin,Neil D. ( in private practice, Hiscock & Barclay)	1431972	1972	Aye	Aye	Aye	Aye
2.	DeFrancisco, John A. (private practice, DEFRANCISCO & FALGIATANO) (co-sponsor)	1374495	1972	Aye		Aye
3.	Flanagan, John J., (in private practice, FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO, COHN & TERRNA, LLP.)	2433803	1991	Aye		Aye
4.	Gianaris, Michael N.	2598399	1994	Aye		Aye
5.	Lanza, Andrew J.	2550093	1993	Aye		Aye
6.	LaValle, Kenneth P (in solo private practice)	2554574	1993	Aye		Aye
7.	Little, Elizabeth E. (in private practice, LITTLE & O'CONNOR ATTORNEYS, P.C.)	2528818	1993	Aye		Aye
8.	Nozzolio, Michael F. (in private practice, NOZZOLIO LAW OFFICES C/O HARRIS BEACH PLLC)	1818814	1980	Aye		Aye
9.	O’Mara, Thomas F. (in private practice, DAVIDSON & O'MARA, P.C. 243 LAKE ST)	2479269	1992	Aye		Aye
10.	Perkins, William P. (in private practice, WILLIAM PHILLIP PERKINS SEYFARTH SHAW LLP)	2843191	1997	Aye		Aye
11.	Ranzenhofer, Michael H. (in private practice, FRIEDMAN & RANZENHOFER PC PO BOX 31)	1765411	1980	Aye		Aye
12.	Saland, Stephen M. (co-sponsor, in solo private practice)	1634526	1969	Aye		Aye
13.	Zeldin, Lee M. (in solo private practice)	4195053	2004	Aye		Aye
14.	Adams, Eric R. (in solo private practice)	1786243	1978			Aye

Independence of Representation in Court and Judicial Accountability in the United States

Friday, August 1, 2014

Should these 14 New York Senators be impeached for voting in favor of a legislation that benefited them financially and protected the market of their professional services?

No comments:

Post a Comment