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, September 23, 2015
Barry Cozier cannot be cozier than that
The retired judge Carl F. Becker continues to drive around in a vehicle with a "judge" license plates, to claim the parking privileges or a court employee and, likely, to have access to the courthouse from behind, without the necessity of passing through metal detectors.
Two more retired judges Barry Cozier and Peter Skelos (both retired from the New York State Appellate Division, 2nd Judicial Department) were presiding over the New York City "public" hearing of the Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline.
The transcript reflects that both of these former judges who now work in an active law practice and ARE NOT judges, are called "Honorable" and, throughout the transcript, are called "Judge Cozier" and "Judge Skelos".
Moreover, private attorney Barry Cozier arrogantly and publicly calls himself "Judge Cozier of the Commission", which is a clear misrepresentation to the public of his status as a retired, former judge.
And, private attorney Barry Cozier no less arrogantly calls private attorney Peter Skelos "Judge Skelos", for another misrepresentation, and private attorney Peter Skelos does not object and does not correct Barry Cozier in his misrepresentation.
And, there is no point trying to hold these two private attorneys accountable for their misrepresentations to the public because - guess what - they are insulated by their status of former appellate judges (after all, do you seriously believe that their own former court that they have recently left will discipline them?).
So, these two private attorneys can claim their lifelong status of nobility, of being "Honorable" and publicly calling themselves "Judge" while they are no longer judges - and adding their participation in the Commission to their online advertising as private attorneys, in order to drum up business.
See Cozier's advertising his position on the Commission - and his position as being a member of the "Judicial Screening Committee for the First Department", so when you are talking of corrupt judiciary, he is the one picking them for the bench.
See the bottom of the webpage where Cozier advertised his participation on the Commission where he clearly says that what is on the page is attorney advertising.
By the way, when a disciplinary attorney Mary Gasparini recently tried to present to the 4th Department an argument in my case that "Judge Sirkin" made a report to the court (while referee Sirkin was a retired judge and "made a decision" instead of holding a hearing - which he, not being an appellate judge, had no right to make, but that's exactly what Mary Gasparini was trying to obscure), the 4th Department actually corrected her (at least, they heard some of what I repeatedly stated in my pleadings - that Sirkin is not a judge and should not be allowed to act like one and make decisions like one):
Yet, there is still no consistency in positioning retired judges.
The 4th Department thinks that "perhaps" "we should be referring to Judge Sirkin as Referee Sirkin since he is no longer a sitting judge", an interesting language twisting for people who know exactly what they are saying - the court is not saying "Referee Sirkin is not a judge, and let's not call him a judge". No, the court says "we should be referring to JUDGE Srikin as Referee Sirkin", so Sirkin, for the "court" is still a judge.
And so are private attorneys Skelos and Cozier for Chief Judge Lippman, because three official transcripts published on the site of the New York State Court Administration call them judges.
Barry Cozier who called himself "Judge Cozier" in the public hearing in NYC, is not a judge since 2006 when he retired - that is for 9 years - and changed two law firms since then, according to his biography on the site of his law firm right now.
Yet, for 9 years he continues to call himself a judge? And advertise his position as a judge so that he gets more business?
And frown on people, like he did at anybody who would say anything that he did not like at the public hearing?
And have a bulky male court attendant descend upon a middle-aged petite woman simply because what she was saying was pointing out that Barry Cozier, at the time when he was an appellate judge, contributed to the mess that he is pretending to deal with now?
Only it is not a good way to deal with the mess and do the fact-finding by refusing to look at evidence offered.
And it is not a good way to deal with that mess when Cozier's wore his heart on his sleeve expressing on his face displeasure with any criticism toward the legal profession and the judiciary that was pronounced at the hearing (I've seen videos that people made on their phones and posted on Youtube).
And it is not a good way to deal with a public hearing when Cozier shut up the last witness, Elena Sassower, did not allow her to speak, quickly wrapped up the hearing and fled.
Because, after all, Barry Cozier was not at the hearing to help the legal consumers. He does not identify with low-income people whose rights are screwed by the courts and by legal elite.
His clients are not whose rights are violated.
He himself belongs to the legal elite and belonged earlier to the judiciary who ARE the problem.
So, he put his participation in the Commission into his advertising, came to the public hearings, shut down all criticism and fled.
I will hold my breath to see his recommendations to Lippman. But I am sure Cozier will try to make sure no changes in his own status quo and status quo of people like him will occur.