First and foremost - recordings that I placed on this page are legal.
New York has a "one-person consent statute" for recordings of telephone conversations, requiring only one party to the conversations to consent to recordings. New York law does not require the consenting party to notify the other party to the conversation that the conversation is recorded.
I was a party in both conversations that I publish below.
I posted earlier today a story about how I was blocked from coming to see a client in Delaware County jail under the circumstances where my client is in the jail based on investigations and charges brought by a police officer who nearly run my client over (intentionally) in a police vehicle trying to destroy the tablet she held in her hands while videotaping the police officer.
I naturally find the sudden vigilance of the Delaware County jail, and vigilance directed only at me and only for purposes of access to this particular client, extremely suspect and in bad faith.
You can listen to my conversation with Lt. Stanton, Chief Officer of the Delaware County Jail, New York by downloading the voice file from this link. Or, you can listen to the file on the linked site.
You can listen to my conversation with Porter Kirkwood, County Attorney for Delaware County, New York, by downloading the voice file from this link. Or, you can listen to the file on the linked site.
It is clear that the Delaware County Attorney and the Chief Officer of the Delaware County jail coordinated their statements, but not completely.
The Delaware County Attorney (with whom I talked later than with Lt. Stanton) seemed to be unaware of Lt. Stanton's statement that corrections officers are allegedly supposed to "flip through pages" of my attorney file, and even attempted to deny it. His denials were replaced with an awkward silence once I told him that I recorded Lt. Stanton's statements.
Also, the Delaware County attorney appeared to be unaware of the county policies on the matter, while Lt. Stanton rattled those policies right off and even relied upon the alleged "minimum standards" allegedly established by the New York State Commissioner of Corrections.
The County Attorney assured me that I will be allowed access to my client today if I go to see her in jail, but still insisted that the corrections officers will look into the envelope, if attorney materials are held in the envelope.
The County Attorney also could not guarantee me that the corrections officers will not "flip through the pages" of my file, even if my attorney file will be in a "manila folder", which to me was still a denial of access to my client.
I have sent a cease and desist letter to both the County Attorney and the Delaware County Sheriff.
Will keep you apprised as to how the situation develops.
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment