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, May 13, 2015

A judge caught red-handed claims the order he disobeyed was wrong and needs correction

I blogged yesterday about Judge David Guy who acted as if he was assigned to a Surrogate's Court case while he was assigned to a removed Supreme Court case, and who caused my client (and husband) a lot of unnecessary effort and expense by his unlawful actions.

When I found (yesterday) that order of removal from the Surrogate to the Supreme Court, dated April 3, 2015

 
and when I forwarded it to the Supreme Court clerks to assign an Index No. and an RJI (Request for Judicial intervention) number to the case, as they were supposed to do immediately after the order of removal was issued (but did not do to this day because they were not notified that the case was removed), the Supreme Court clerk, according to my admission to me, consulted the assigned judge, Judge Guy, who allegedly told Ms. Sanfilippo that the order of removal of Judge Guy's administrative superior, Judge Mulvey, is "erroneous".
 
As a result Ms. Sanfilippo authored and gave me the following letter:
 
 

Of course, neither Ms. Sanfilippo, nor the assigned judge, Judge Guy, have authority to deem a clear and unambiguous order of assignment as "erroneous" - at least while there is no other order on file.

Of course, Ms. Sanfilippo had no authority to say what she said in her letter to me because the only order she has at this time is the order of April 3, 2015, by Judge Mulvey, and according to her statement to me, she did not speak to Judge Mulvey about it, she only spoke to Judge Guy who either misread the court order or deliberately misled me that he was assigned to the Surrogate's Court case instead of a removed Supreme Court case (different statutes apply).

Apparently, when a judge committed a blunder, a judge may ask his superiors to correct his blunder IN ARREARS in order to save his hide?

What is the most amazing part in this is that the judge is seeking an order of REMAND to the Surrogate's Court, which is for parties to do and not for a judge, and this way Judge Guy clearly stepped in as an ADVOCATE for those parties for whom it is preferable to keep the case in the Surrogate's Court - and that would be my client's opponents, because in the Supreme Court it is too easy to make motions to consolidate several pending related cases, which will further reveal conflicts of interest of politically connected attorneys involved in the whole Mokay mess.

So much for the rule of law, ladies and gentlemen.

And, since we have (allegedly) equal protection of laws in this country, if you do not like an order of Judge Mulvey, just ask the court clerk to correct it in your favor.

Of course, I asked Judge Guy to step down and notified his superior and the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct of his behavior.

We will see if Judge Guy will ever be punished for pretending he was a lawfully assigned Surrogate's Court judge and attempting to change the order he disobeyed when caught red-handed.



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)