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, January 13, 2015

A crash course in crimlaw for Mary Gasparini


Any 1st year law student is exposed to this hypothetical in criminal Law 101".

An individual decides to shoplift. He or she steals from a store and manages to leave the store unnoticed.

When the thief is safely in the parking lot, he or she is suddenly gripped by remorse, goes back to the store and surrenders the stolen item. 

The store can still prosecute the thief.

The crime is complete - and prosecutable - once the individual acts with the requisite state of mind (knowingly, intentionally or recklessly, for different crimes).

So, when my disciplinary prosecutor submitted fraudulent charges to the court and obtained a denial of my cross-motion by stating that her charges were in good faith, and now obtained a decision on liability against me based on the fraudulent charges (unlawful, since it was made by a referee without authority to make such a decision, but still a decision which may stick in our habitually lawless world, as far as critics of judicial misconduct like me are concerned), it is too late to unring the bell.

The crimes were committed, the liability has accrued.

With the exception that I cannot suspect Mary Gasparini of remorse, it is an attempt to save her hide after being sued for fraud and fraud upon the court, especially that I sued her in a jurisdiction that has a recent mandatory precedent that excludes "prosecutorial immunity" for her when she prosecuted me for NOT practicing law without a license.

And, in federal criminal world, what Mary Gasparini and the crew are doing, in my legal opinion, falls under the definition of RICO - using the court system and the disciplinary system as a criminal enterprise involved in racketeering.

Once again, this is my legal opinion, because, I believe, the elements of RICO are satisfied.

Whether Mary Gasparini and the crew are going to be prosecuted for that though, is the matter of discretion of the U.S. Attorney's Office, where my fate and the crime committed against me and my family may weigh too low against the chance of ruffling too many feathers of the establishment in the New York state government on many levels.

But, one never knows at what stage in one's career one's sins will be called to the fore and when one would be sacrificed as a scapegoat by his or her masters...

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)