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.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

I encourage the media and members of the public to come to my disciplinary hearings and to call my disciplinary court, ask for access to my disciplinary records (on my express permission) and record what the court has to say to that


Please, see my previous post here about the invitation to my disciplinary hearings.  I will know the exact dates/times/places of the hearings on January 12, 2015 and will post them.  I will ask the referee to hold the hearings in a facility that can accommodate a lot of people.

 You can read about my disciplinary proceeding throughout this blog by using in the search box search words "disciplinary", "Zayas", "Torncello", "Gasparini", "Becker".

 In addition to the invitation to come to my disciplinary hearing, I encourage the public and the media to call my disciplinary court and ask for access to the records of my disciplinary proceedings.

 I expressly give the public and the media permission for such access.

 If the court pretends to deny access on the basis of Judiciary Law 90(10), that law is designed to protect MY privacy, not the court's, and I am waiving my privacy by this post, as I did two times in writing in my letters to court.
I encourage the public and the media to call the court, ask for the records and to actually RECORD your conversations with the clerk. 

It is interesting to learn how the court will be getting out of this mess where it refuses to allow me to waive my own privacy without the court's permission.

In New York, every adult is presumed competent (especially an adult who has a license to practice law), and any competent adult does not need permission of anybody but him/herself to waive his/her own privacy.

As to the law pertaining to recording of telephone conversations, New York has a one-party consent statute, Penal Law 250(1):


§ 250.00 Eavesdropping; definitions of terms.
    The following definitions are applicable to this article:
    1.  "Wiretapping"  means the intentional overhearing or recording of a
  telephonic or telegraphic communication by a person other than a  sender
  or  receiver  thereof,  without  the  consent  of  either  the sender or
  receiver, by means of any instrument, device or  equipment.  The  normal
  operation  of a telephone or telegraph corporation and the normal use of
  the services and facilities furnished by such  corporation  pursuant  to
  its  tariffs  or  necessary  to  protect  the rights or property of said
  corporation shall not be deemed "wiretapping."
To translate it from the legalese, if you are a PARTY to a telephone conversation (sender or receiver), you can give consent (to yourself, obviously), to record a telephone conversation in which you are a party (sender or receiver - you called somebody or somebody called you), without telling the other party to the conversation that you are recording.

 I am encouraging you to record because, in my experience, you should not rely upon the perceived "honor" of court personnel, they will backtrack on anything borderline sensitive they told you on the phone.

Court contact information:

Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the court
New York State Appellate Division
4th Judicial department
50 East Ave.
Rochester, N.Y. 14604
(585) 530-3100
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)