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, April 27, 2016

Honesty of the local law enforcement personnel in Delaware County, New York, is governed by insurance policy

Now that all the foaming accusations against me subsided for alleging the unthinkable - that local law enforcement personnel and firefighters may be committing misconduct in non-extinguishing and non-investigation of the house of a local critic of governmental misconduct Barbara O'Sullivan, I will publish a portion of a document that I actually received on April 26, 2016 from Delaware County in response to my FOIL request.

 That's a portion of Delaware County liability insurance policy for actions of its law enforcement personnel.

 The policy is pretty standard and, I am sure, a similar policy covers actions of firefighters.

 Here is the interesting portion that I would like to share (I will analyze the policy in a separate blog, probably, tomorrow):

There were a lot of people who, based on their emotional attachments to individuals working in the local law enforcement and the Delhi Fire Department, defended their loved ones to the point of casting ugly allegations against the victims in Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire, as well as against her daughter, her extended family, me who reported the case, misconduct of the law enforcement and firefighters included, and even against my husband who has nothing to do with reporting of Barbara O'Sullivan's house fire story.  

 Those relatives , driven by their emotional attachment to their loved ones, were telling me that "they know", even though they were never at the scene of the fire, because "they know" their husbands, or boyfriends, or former comrades-in-arms, and "they know" that those loved ones or comrades "can never" and "they are not liars", and because of that, I am the liar, and I need to have my head checked out, and to relearn the law (why I need to relearn the law in journalism, I don't know), and all other nice things that I need to do, including apologize to the Fire Department.

 I won't apologize.

 Read the liability policy of Delaware County regarding its law enforcement personnel.

 It is pretty standard policy, I am sure.

 Just read it.

 The insurance policy says, in black and white, that "the insured" "shall not" (that is a prohibition) "admit any liability" or "assume any obligation".

 Do you know what that means?

 It means that Delaware County law enforcement personnel is PROHIBITED to tell the truth and "admit a liability" or "assume an obligation" - in other words, they are PROHIBITED to say - YES, I caused a bodily injury of this person, or "I neglected my duties and caused injury to a person or property".

 They are prohibited to say that.

 You can read the full text of the insurance policy here.

 And, even though I will be requesting a separate policy as to firefighters, I am pretty sure that it will say the same.

 So much for the claimed honesty.

 Just saying...



Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. kitkat3478December 6, 2017 at 10:33 AM

    Well, we all know that at least at this side of Delaware County, WE ARE PROTECTED by the stand up Troopers from Troop C, you know , the ones that state, A LIE STUCK TO IS AS GOOD AS THE TRUTH!
    If anyone believes that the Shirley King case was an isolated incident within our police organizations, you need to think again. Here was a woman, who was guilty of a crime. To what extent, we will never know, as our TRUSTED source of law enforcement, those given the DUTY to PROTECT and SERVE it's citizens, do exactly the opposite on far to many occassions
    Here we had the police acting in concert to make sure the evidence of a crime was there,right where they wanted it, so what did they do, they put it there. This was not an act carried out by one bad cop. Several Troop C officers conspired together to violate the same laws they are charged with the duty to enforce.
    I am in no way trying to imply that ALL cops are bad. But even one is too many. I do know a few officers that are great, and are proud of the jobs that they do. The truth of the matter is that police are a necessity in this world, you would not be able to maneuver your way thru life without them. I'm afraid to leave my house because of them, they can and do whatever they want, legal or not, and again, in many instances , their co-conspirators, the judges, give their stamp of approval. and it ain't just me and the other guy this happens to...
    i recently read an appeal of a conviction for a pedaphile, someone we all want off our streets. WELL, this guy was there, in jail, but on his appeal, not only were the affidavits, used to get a search warrant exposed as being untrue,the entire person giving the statement was invented. We all know giving false statements is against the law, the police knew the judge would not take offence of police submitting and swearing to the statements to him, because the judge also was a totally fictitious person, one the officers created for their benefit. THIS IS A TOTALLY TRUE ALLEGATION ON MY PART, and it happened in GREENE NEW YORK. the only reason it was discovered was that the appellate court was reviewing this unlawful conviction, gained by the abuse of process and power by both judges and police in your back yard.
    also shocking was the actual knowledge of how often this is the normal and expected procedures our justice system utilizes, THESE THE WORDS FROM THE US SUPREME COURT, and STILL it is allowed to continue.
    Two years ago I was assaulted by a man who was recently released from prison. I think he did like 18 years, part of which was for assaulting a police officer (one from troop c actually), this wasn
    t a minor incident, first i had a loaded shotgun put in my face, next, my dog was run over and had her head split open from this felon trying to flee the scene before police could show up, I next was rammed, head on while sitting in my car and my car, with me in it, was shoved backward a couple hundred feet out into the roadway, only to be greeted once again with loaded shotgun IN MY FACE...yeah, it was a little bit scarey.
    when police arrived, TROOP C, police picked bullets up out of driveway, i gave report, told them who did it, and guess what, he was charged, but never prosecuted by Chenango County despite my NUMEROUS calls asking for justice. i think he had one court appearance before the paperwork got lost or something...i never could get an answer why my safety meant nothing, even when i asked Afton judge, face to face on one of the ten appearances i was ordered to same court for, for my dog licenses.
    I bring this up because I totally believe the inactions, life and death situations where county agents opt out of providing assistance. WILL IT EVER END??? It could if people say, enough is enough

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)