Upon my information, a writ of prohibition was filed by Barbara O'Sullivan in the NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department.
Ms. O'Sullivan exposes Delaware County District Attorney and judicial candidate Richard Northrup for failure to disclose to her and the court the fact that Mr. Northrup has been employing the uncle of the alleged victim in the criminal proceeding that Mr. Northrup has brought against Barbara O'Sullivan for 20 years and there is an appearance that he is representing in those proceedings not the People of the State of New York, but is exacting a private vendetta on behalf of his employee.
Ms. O'Sullivan is asserting that the Delaware County District Attorney was disqualified from being present in the grand jury proceedings because of the conflict of interest where Mr. Northrup's employee is the uncle of the alleged victim and where the alleged victim committed a vehicular assault upon Ms. O'Sullivan at an earlier date than the alleged events that are used against her, and yet Mr. Northrup chose not to prosecute his employee's nephew for assault and attempted murder of Barbara O'Sullivan, further disqualifying himself from presenting her case to the grand jury and invalidating the indictment against her as the jurisdictional basis of criminal proceedings.
That's quite a blow to the judicial candidate Richard Northrup, as the petition for the writ directly points out his lack of competence, integrity, proper temperament to be a judge or all of the above taken together.
I wish Ms. O'Sullivan good luck in her rightful fight against corrupt prosecutor and collusive judge.
Since Judge Lambert is a newcomer to the bench and since Judge Lambert previously worked as a prosecutor in Otsego County, a County adjoining Delaware County, I am sure he knew that the Delaware County DA has employed for 20 years Jeff Bowie, who is Derek Bowie's uncle.
Yet, having such extrajudicial knowledge and being a witness in the case, Judge Lambert did not step down either from the civil case brought by Barbara O'Sullivan against Derek Bowie - since the corrupt Delaware County District Attorney did not do his duty and did not charge his employee's nephew with assault and attempted murder, or from the criminal case brought by the corrupt Delaware County DA against Barbara O'Sullivan, the victim of his employee's nephew.
Which says a lot about integrity or, rather, lack thereof, of Judge Lambert.
By the way, at the arraignment, according to Barbara O'Sullivan, Judge Lambert, responding to Barbara O'Sullivan's statement that the whole prosecution against her that is lasting years and that has culminated with the criminal proceedings has been brought in retaliation by the now retired judge Carl F. Becker, stated that "he knows all about it all too well".
Well, if Judge Lambert "knows all about it all too well", I wonder why, being a witness in the proceedings that has to testify on behalf of the defendant, he continues to preside over two proceedings, one by Barbara O'Sullivan against Derek Bowie and another by People of the State of New York (allegedly) on behalf of Derek Bowie as an alleged victim against Barbara O'Sullivan, and has been consistently ruling so far, without legal basis, as far as I could judge from the court records, against Barbara O'Sullivan.
But we do cannot expect honor from the profession who conferred upon itself at the same time a presumption of honor and competence and an absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench, can we?
Once again, I wish Barbara O'Sullivan luck on her petition and hope that the 3rd Department will finally see the light and stop the corrupt proceedings, applying the rule of law and restoring in the public the sense of decency, fairness and at least residual faith in the integrity of at least some of judges in New York judicial system.
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment