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.

Monday, May 11, 2015

Mary Gasparini's confession

When Mary Gasparini argues something to the court, and especially on issues in which she has no competency as an attorney, she sometimes makes interesting revelations.

For example, Mary Gasparini, as a criminal prosecutor, argued to the court that exposure of prosecutorial misconduct (her OWN misconduct), is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

I cited a case claiming that it is - that blogging for public interest is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Mary Gasparini attempted to shift the issue and said the following:


Mary Gasparini stubbornly refuses to accept the law of the State of New York that provides that an attorney who is the subject of a disciplinary proceeding holds the key to the proceeding's privacy and confidentiality - as soon as the attorney waived her own privacy (and I did, in writing, on notice to Mary Gasparini, in December of 2014), the proceeding is DEEMED open to the public as a matter of law.

Thus, Mary Gasparini's claims that anybody "blogged sealed records and documents" are fraudulent and defamatory.

Obsidian (the case sited in the snippet) actually provides that even if statements in the blog about a private person, but on issues of public interest, are FALSE, they are still protected by a higher standard against defamation, under the 1st Amendment of the State Constitution.

Mary Gasparini asserts that Obsidian is a case about defamation, not confidentiality.

To say that is the same as to say that my case is the case about confidentiality, not defamation.

If is it not about defamation, does it mean that Mary Gasparini just acknowledged to what she has been accused on the blog - conspiring to cook court transcript and knowingly submitted fabricated transcripts to get her way?

So, now, as Mary Gasparini argues, it must be illegal in New York to publicly report commission of a crime if it is committed by a prosecutor and a judge in the course of a publicly funded proceeding that is open as a matter of applicable New York law? 

And, as she argues, I must be put in jail for violating the sealing order that was put in place to protect my privacy that I waived?

The word "stupidity" does not even begin to describe what is going on, and that taxpayers money are spent on such prosecutions, done clearly for purposes of personal revenge, should be a subject of criminal investigations by state and federal law enforcement - if they are independent enough and have enough courage and integrity to do investigate public officials for fraud.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)