"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.

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Will attorneys Mary Gasparini, Monica Duffy and Andrew Ayers go to federal prison for falsifying court records?

I am talking about two disciplinary attorneys who handled my case in New York Appellate Division 3rd and 4th Judicial Department, and about the Assistant Solicitor General of New York State Andrew Ayers.

The trio claimed to several courts, falsely, but successfully, that I did not attend a deposition and caused a default of my two clients by not answering a default motion.

The claim brought about my suspension from the practice of law.

Available court documents submitted to the court showed that the deposition and motion in question occurred in 2008 when I was not admitted to the bar.

Therefore, not only I was not required to attend the deposition or oppose the motion AS AN ATTORNEY, on behalf of client, but I was forbidden by criminal law to do that.

Later on, attorney Mary Gasparini submitted to the court fabricated transcripts and attempted to criminally prosecute me when audio tapes of the transcribed proceedings showing that the transcripts she submitted to the court were fabricated ended up online, for the entire wide world to hear.

It has been recently reported that an attorney was sentenced to 2 years in federal prison for falsifying court records.

I am sure Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who is chasing corrupt New York "big fish", can find in his busy schedule some time to prosecute these three people.

I will file a complaint, and will follow up with it, as I will follow up with my previous complaint with Preet Bharara, about corruption of Governor Cuomo and Judge Leslie Stein.

Because in federal law, unlike in New York State law, the attorney general has an obligation to turn complaints of citizens into investigations of the grand juries and may be compelled by court to do that if he refuses.

No comments:

Post a Comment