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.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

You sued a judge - the judiciary will get even with you! Right, Judge Lambert?



Judge John F. Lambert of Otsego County Court, assigned to made two cases in Delaware County, one a civil case in the Delaware County Supreme court, O'Sullivan v Bowie, and another a criminal case in Delaware County Court, People v. O'Sullivan, made two blunders in those cases practically at the same time.

 BLUNDER NO. 1

 In the case of O'Sullivan v. Bowie the judge allowed to reopen the default of police officer Bowie sued in his individual capacity by Barbara O'Sullivan for assault on her with the use of a police vehicle.

 That same judge ordered previously to the police officer, on an Order to Show Cause, to serve Barbara O'Sullivan with the motion to reopen his default by personal service.

 No affidavit of personal service was filed with the court.

 So how could Judge Lambert even hear that case then, if service, as ordered by the judge, was not done?

 Well, the judge not only heard the case, but found that Ms. O'Sullivan was properly served and granted the motion.   

 Yet, all he had to do to deny the motion is simply read his own Order to Show Cause and compare it with what kind of affidavit of service was filed, especially that Barbara O'Sullivan is a pro se litigant and the judge should have been more careful in observing her rights.

 What is also quite amazing to me is that police officer sued for misconduct is represented by counsel at taxpayers' expense and the Supreme Court waives his filing fees for the motion, as if he is a representative of the government, even though he is sued, once again, in his individual capacity only.  Not too many breaks for a person who should be charged for assault and attempted murder of a woman?

 BLUNDER NO. 2

 Judge Lambert is presiding over the parallel criminal case of People v. Barbara O'Sullivan where the officer who made an assault on Barbara O'Sullivan is allowed to file charges against her, but the Delaware County District Attorney filed no charges against Derek Bowie for assault upon Barbara O'Sullivan (sending the message to the community that her life is expendable - because she sued Delaware County judge Carl F. Becker, the patron of the local government of Delaware County?).

 Barbara O'Sullivan has made a pro se motion there asking to dismiss the indictment against her because she was not notified of the scheduled grand jury proceeding.

 A New York statute required such a notification.

 Judge Lambert ruled that because the felony complaint was "disposed of" at the end of the felony hearing in the lower court, the prosecution did not have to notify Barbara O'Sullivan of the pending grand jury proceedings.

 I wonder how a case may be "disposed of" when a person is "held over" for the action of the grand jury at the end of the felony hearing in the lower court.

 Being "disposed of" is being dismissed.

 I wonder why Judge Lambert suddenly forgot that.

 Two major mistakes in two parallel proceedings, civil and criminal, against the same person?

 A coincidence? 

 In my opinion, there are just too many coincidences.

 When all of those "errors" are on issues that would require to rule in favor of a woman who had the courage to sue a judge,  and when Judge Lambert keeps coming up with reasons (contrary to applicable law) as to why such relief should not be granted - the only reasonable explanation that a reasonable observer can come up with for such behavior of Judge Lambert is - the judge is trying to help out the police officer and to bury a woman who sued a judge.

 And it appears that Judge Lambert should have had the decency of recusing from both cases long time ago.






Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)