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.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

In the Mokay case, pre-judgment and denial of access to the court records is the rule of Judge Kevin Dowd's court

The mixed issue of law and fact as to what could or could not constitute damages in the Mokay trial was supposed to be decided by the jury, and a litigant cannot be held to have waived his state constitutional right for a jury trial becuase his counsel got sick and was diagnosed by her physician as such, with a legitimate release from work that no court can overrule without seeing me and without trying the issues pertaining to my illness.

Apparently, what the jury was supposed to decide was prejudged years before the jury trial was supposed to happen (and it is still supposed to happen in the future, because the ex parte trial in the Mokay case is clearly illegal and the judgment from that trial must be overturned - and I will ask the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct to take Dowd off the bench for his shenanigans in this case, as well as I am going to ask the feds to investigate if Dowd got a cut from the $300,000.00 judgment he imposed as a result of the ex parte trial). 

Judge Becker pre-judged the issue of damages, before even going into the damages trial, in 2012, the Appellate Division 3rd Department prejudged the issue of damages in 2013, and Judge Dowd rubber-stamped those two decisions on June 12, 2015.



That is just one reversible error out of many that Judge Dowd made aplenty in the Mokay case.  So far, I counted more than 30 reversible errors, and my analysis of the case is far from complete.

I will publish a full table of issues that constituted, in my view, reversible errors (with legal grounds for my view) a little later.  By the way, Dowd and other courts that decided those issues, never bothered to provide any legal grounds for not following the law throughout the litigation in the Mokay case.

Which brings me to this thorny issue.  There are simply too many of mistakes, for them to be a coincidence, when stakes in litigation are so high and when the only damages claimed are legal fees of a conflicted law firm headed by a son of a judge.

When a judge decides one, or even several issues, not many, against the law, even when judge makes a couple of reversible errors - that is bad, but does not necessarily smack of corruption.

When a judge disregards, ignores or shrugs off as "brouhaha" every single law applicable to the case, state or federal, constitutional and statutory, rules of ethics and civility, lack of proof in the record - only to award nearly half a million in judgment in a case when not a penny could be awarded as a matter of law - that SMACKS of corruption to me.

Moreover, when Judge Dowd attempted to punish me for not appearing at a trial for being injured and having a doctor's diagnosis and medical release from work (and Dowd had my doctor's report a day before trial, and injuries happen without asking us when to happen), and when Dowd attempted to punish me 6 days after his final decision in the case (when, if he claims he had jurisdiction to conduct a trial without my presence, he lost jurisdiction in the case after he made the decision on damages), Dowd really hit the bottom of judicial misconduct.

Moreover, the attempt to punish me "coincidentally" came on the same date when I commented on Judge Dowd's incompetence in this very case, (see here and here) which appears far from being coincidental to me (see also my blog here).

When Dowd directed the court not to give me access to trial exhibits that were admitted by him "in bulk" on April 7, 2015 (at least that is what the trial transcript shows), after he already made his decision based on those exhibits and after they no longer were or could be in use by him - when his jurisdiction over the case ceased, as of the date of his final decision of June 12, 2015 - that is only proving that something is rotten.

By the way, Dowd's office so far ignored my request for Dowd's vacation schedule that I made yesterday, and Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk Kelly Sanfilippo ignored my request for access to the file or for an explanation why access was denied.

Yet, issues that I raise in the Mokay litigation are all issues of public concern, and I will do my best to get to the bottom of misconduct and, in my view, corruption in this case - for the benefit of my client, and for the benefit of the public.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)