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 18, 2015

One more point in favor of deregulation of the legal profession - talking to the regulator is like talking to a wall


I received today yet another "Affirmation in Opposition" from my disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini.

 In opposition to my uncontroverted assertion that Mary Gasparini disqualified herself by filing, as of January 28, 2015, criminal charges against me (dismissed before the initial appearance).

 She would not have disqualified herself had she filed those criminal charges on somebody else's affidavit.

 Yet, she has chosen to file multiple criminal charges upon her own affidavit, advancing those frivolous criminal charges as a prosecutor - and as the sole complaining witness - and as the alleged victim - a completely disqualifying set of roles.

 In response to my assertion that Mary Gasparini is disqualified, she has provided the following "exhaustive" argument in paragraph 12 of her 2+ page "Affirmation":

 "All remaining assertions regarding bias, disqualification, and recusal are without any factual basis or legal authority, are without merit, and should be therefore denied".

 Mary Gasparini simply does not know how to answer factual assertions and citations to legal authorities in an attorney disciplinary proceedings (both of which were submitted to the court and served upon her).  Since attorney discpilinary proceedings in New York are so grossly unfair,  I understand that most attorneys find "alternative" ways of handling their disciplinary proceedings - either by admission to SOMETHING (whether they committed misconduct or not), just to cast the disciplinary inquisition a bone and to be able to escape with his/her law license, or by abandoning their practice completely, defaulting and thus allowing the disciplinary inquisition to take the law license and simply start a new life someplace else without that law license.

 It is rare that an attorney fights the charges of misconduct for as long as I did, requiring the regulators to satisfy every procedural step and to make all substantive proofs - and the disciplinary committee did not meet those requirements.

 Since usually attorneys do not litigate such charges, attorneys put in charge of prosecuting such proceedings obviously do not have to practice what they preach - professionalism, integrity, competence or adherence to ethical rules, or the rule of law.

 Reading how Mary Gasparini asserts, again and again, despite the fact that both she and the referee were caught red-handed in using fabricated court transcripts, in not hearing the court-ordered hearing and thus defying the order of the appellate court, in submitting to the court, repeatedly, false statements in order to strip me of my due process right to work in my profession - and to provide help people through my professional services, reading all of that is absolutely surreal.

 Did Mary Gasparini ever go to law school?

 Did she ever pass the bar?

 Did she ever take the oath of office as "an officer of the court", pledging to support the laws and Constitutions of the State of New York and the United States?

 If she did, why does she continue to try to win a case where everything, from start to finish, constitutes fraud and shameful political persecution and where she must clearly see that no proof of my misconduct was provided to the court?

 Why insist that "Judge /sic/ Sirkin found /sic/ that Respondent's pleadings did not raise any issue of fact, and therefore an evidentiary hearing on the petition is moot" if the ONLY duty that REFEREE Sirkin was supposed to discharge is hold the evidentiary hearing in question?

 Mary Gasparini does not know how to read?

 Or, Mary Gasparini refused to read the section of the New York State Constitution, Article VI paragraph 4 subsection (b) that provides that only a quorum of 4 appellate justices, with a concurrence of three such justices, can make decisions in the appellate court.

 Therefore, Referee Sirkin (he is a RETIRED judge, and was never an appellate judge by the way, so he could never even be appointed as an appellate judge after retirement under New York law) had no authority to "find" anything ON THE PLEADINGS - WITHOUT A HEARING.

 Well, at least, Mary Gasparini admitted in that statement that an evidentiary hearing that was ordered by the court was not held by referee Sirkin - and that referee Sirkin did make a decision to forego the evidentiary hearing, a decision that referee Sirkin had no authority to make.

 Now we will see how the court will deal with the referee who refused to abide by the court orders.

 The interesting part is that Mary Gasparini, with the help of the referee, is defying a court order ordering an evidentiary hearing in my proceeding, while at the same time has the audacity to pursue me for allegedly not "obeying an order of the tribunal" and not paying sanctions imposed upon me by Judge Becker after I sued him - that same Judge Becker who is, for some interesting and undisclosed reason, hastily abandoning his position 3.5 years before mandatory retirement.

 What is the point of regulation of the legal profession if all that the regulation does is seeking to free the legal profession of those who truly work and truly provide to people actual valuable services, often for free or at a reduced rate - while helping out people who do not or would not accept the letter of the law as it is written if that letter is against their wishes and against the wishes of those who hold the key to their career advancement.

 And they insist, as Mary Gasparini does, that all of that pretense for "justice" must be done behind closed doors, away from the very public Mary Gasparini is pretending to be protecting.

 It is easy to state, in a conclusory manner, that "all remaining assertions ... are without any factual basis or legal authority".  The little problem is that - all assertions that I am making are, in fact, based on competent evidence and mandatory legal authority.

 But, talking to Mary Gasparini is like talking to a wall.  Being a prosecutor - and a complaining witness - and the alleged victim in the dismissed criminal proceedings - Mary Gasparini simply does not know how to be impartial and professional with me, or how to rebut factual assertions and mandatory legal authorities with anything but conclusory statements.

 We will see how the court will handle this epic mess on May 26, 2015.

 Stay tuned.

Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. Pete RidleyMay 19, 2015 at 11:03 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pete RidleyMay 19, 2015 at 11:05 AM

    Hi Tania!

    I wish you success on 26th May. Please let me know how it all turns out.

    Best regards, Pete

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)