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, May 4, 2016

Delaware County's use of force and non-compliance with that use of force by Derek Bowie and Delaware County Sheriff's Department in Kylie Smith's and Barbara O'Sullivan's cases - Part II

Here is the use of force policy of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department (State of New York).

 The policy was submitted to the federal court in Kylie Smith's federal lawsuit against Derek Bowie, but Delaware County claimed in responses to my multiple FOIL requests that it has no written policies.

 Well, that was a lie, and I wonder how many more lies as to some "secret policies" I, and other FOIL inquirers, were offered by Delaware County in responses to our FOIL requests.

 Here are the obligations of Derek Bowie and his supervisors, those obligations had to be followed in Kylie Smith's and Barbara O'Sullivan's case - and never were.





























 So.

 Derek Bowie and Delaware County Sheriff's Department had to do the following after he used force on: 
  1. Kylie Smith on January 16, 2013, 
  2. on Alecia Bracci on September 5, 2014, 
  3. on Barbara O'Sullivan on September 5, 2014, and then again 
  4. on Barbara O'Sullivan on September 18, 2014.

 First, Derek Bowie had to undergo "yearly training" as to the use of force - which is FOILable, but was not disclosed by Delaware County in response to my FOIL requests.

 Then, the use of force shall be "consistent with the training" - and, therefore, policies regarding training must be made known to the public, which Delaware County Sheriff's Department did not do either.

 Specific cases and statutes must be complied with when using force - Article 35 of the Penal Law, "Graham v Connor".

 The officer's actions, under Graham v Connor must be objectively reasonable to satisfy the 4th Amendment test.

 Running a police vehicle into a witness of police misconduct to smash a tablet with which she was videotaping police misconduct, is not a "reasonable use of force" (Barbara O'Sullivan's case).

 Nor is it a reasonable behavior when a police officer's is beating up, fracturing ribs, sitting on fractured ribs and is trying to kill the officer's former girlfriend with the help of his present girlfriend (Kylie Smith's case).

 So, Graham v Connor is already out the door.

 Also, according to the policy, 

Derek Bowie did not do that in either Barbara O'Sullivan or Kylie Smith's case.

 He did not "evaluate the need for medical attention or treatment" for either of these women.

 And, even though it was responsibility of Derek Bowie to "arrange for medical treatment", Derek Bowie made no effort to do so.

 In Kylie Smith's case, Kylie Smith had to go to the hospital herself, and to have her injuries documented without Derek Bowie "arranging" for it.

 Derek Bowie was also required to, by policy, to make pictures of his victims' injuries.

 He did not do that either.

 Derek Bowie was supposed to report immediately to his supervisors about the use of force, and to submit reports to his supervisors in accordance with the required content.










As far as I know, none of that was done, and I will follow up with another FOIL request, as to both cases.

 And, as to the supervisors, they had to (1) go to the site of each use of force - which was not done.

 They had to either dispatch the investigator to investigate the case "on site", or to video record that with the "dashcam camera" - which was not done either.

 NONE of the procedures prescribed by the "use of force" policy were followed in BOTH of Kylie Smith's and Barbara O'Sullivan's case.

 And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a pattern.

 Of cover up.




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)