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

In Delaware County, ethical violations are charged (only when misconduct is revealed in a bad court case) only against the lowest-level workers. Old boys who mastermind fraud remain untouched.

Walton Reporter announced a "press-release" today allegedly made by Delaware County Department of Social Services - which I never found anywhere on the website of Delaware County Department of Social Services - indicating that social worker since 2000 and County employee since 1992 Carolyn Massey was suspended without pay and then resigned after a settlement in Delaware County Surrogate's Court in the matter of Estate of Accardi.

 Records of Delaware County Surrogate's Court are public and anybody who is interested can come to the Surrogate's Court at 3 Court Street, Delhi, NY and view open records on the court's computer.

 Delhi attorney James Hartmann who was recently involved in fraud upon the court in the Mokay case (obtained legal fees for the Estate of Andrew Mokay for the period of time when the Estate was not a party in the proceeding, from June 2007 to March 2008) was trying to "do the right thing" in the Accardi case where social worker Carolyn Massey "guided" the hand of an elderly individual writing a will that allegedly gave:
  • a benefit to social worker Carolyn Massey and
  • a power of attorney to former Commissioner Moon, which the former Commissioner used to sell the testator's house
There are no publications indicating that either Massey or Moon were criminally charged.

While Massey, an ordinary caseworker, was suspended without pay and then was forced into resignation, William Moon, according to the same article in Walton Reporter, was allowed to quietly retire and is now employed with Sullivan County Department of Social Services, even though William Moon was also caught in self-dealing of County-foreclosed properties.

The article also indicates that allegedly judicial candidate and Delaware County Attorney Porter Kirkwood claimed that Delaware County has an ethical code, and that all county employees are required to comply with it.

 Porter Kirkwood was quoted by Walton Reporter to say the following:

       "A standard of conduct clause prohibits employees from soliciting, 
        accepting or receiving a gift which has a value of $25 or more, whether 
        in the form of money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, etc, in which 
        it could reasonably be inferred that the gift was intended to influence 
        them or could reasonably be expected to influence them in the performance 
        of their official duties or was intended as a reward for any official action on 
        their part. The ethics policy also prohibits employees from holding any 
        investment directly or indirectly in any financial business, commercial 
        or other private transaction, which creates a conflict with his official duties.

Apparently, Porter Kirkwood did not follow his own Code of Ethics when he represented several private parties, on County time, sued for elder abuse - a representation that ran contrary to Porter Kirkwood's duties as an attorney representing Delaware County Department of Social Services who was supposed to FIGHT elder abuse, not DEFEND it.

That's a situation when one does not need to practice what he preaches?

And, the chief of the Board of Supervisors James Eisel who should be investigated for allowing awards of $129.6 mln of public contracts without public bidding - and that's only what the State Comptroller's report says as a result of an audit of only one year's contracts - reportedly withdrew the revision of the Code of Ethics promised to the State Comptroller for "further revisions".

For a person who is clearly devoid of any ethics to delay introduction of new ethical code because he is revising that ethical code?

Not funny, really.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)