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.

Sunday, June 5, 2016

Delaware County (NY) illegally employs all of its police force

I already wrote on this blog about the controversy with residency problems of former Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie, the beater of women.

 Former Delaware County (NY) Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie who is involved so far in two lawsuits that I know of involving two look-alike women who he assaulted while claiming to be acting as Delaware County Deputy Sheriff - was residing in Broome County and had no right to be employed as Delaware County Deputy Sheriff, where such hiring is a condition of employment.

 I filed a FOIL request with the Delaware County on April 29, 2016, by e-mail, asking to provide records of residency for all Deputy Sheriffs employed by the County, as well as other information about such Deputy Sheriffs, such as police academy training, Criminal Justice Department certification, Taser certification and pistol license.

 Here is what the Delaware County answered me on June 3, 2016 - that is, within 25 business days, and not 5 business days, as required by the Freedom of Information Law:



So, let's see.

 No residency information for ALL Deputy Sheriffs currently employed by Delaware County, NY. 

 That means that ALL Deputy Sheriffs are employed - and are paid by the County, at taxpayers' expense, illegally.

 There is no information on file with the County that Deputy Sheriffs are hired out of the civil service registry - which is also extremely interesting because, for example, Derek Bowie testified at a deposition that he was hired without even a written application, by "invitation" - obviously, because his uncle Jeff Bowie worked as a longtime DA/DSS Investigator in the Delaware County District Attorney's Office.

 Delaware County refused to provide to me any information whether police officers employed by the county have:

 (1) Taser certification;
(2) Criminal Justice Division certification, and
(3) whether they graduated from the police academy BEFORE they were hired.

 The basis for the denial was, as the response indicates, New York "Civil Service Law 50-a".

 There is no such statute in New York.

 There is a statute, Civil RIGHTS Law 50-a, but that controversial statute prohibits only the release of records that are needed towards "performance evaluation" "towards continued employment".  So much for County Attorney's competency - he doesn't even know the name of the statute used to deny access to records under FOIL.

 I was talking about conditions of hiring the officers in the first place:

 (1) education;
(2) Criminal Justice Division certification, and
(3) Taser certification.

 The records precluded for disclosure under Civil Rights Law 50-a are disciplinary records of police officers, not records regarding their education, training and certification.

 By the way, the Delaware County also responded to me that it does not have on file the employed Deputy Sheriff's pistol licenses either:



 It is apparent that Delaware County Sheriff's Department is in deep trouble, and tries to cover it up.

 It unleashes upon people untrained police force without verification of police officers:

 1) residency;
2)education;
3) Criminal Justice Division certification.

 It arms such officers with Tasers and pistols without verifying or having their Taser certification and without having on file their pistol permits.

 Are you feeling safe from your own "protectors", the police force, residents of Delaware County?

 I will continue to disclose the interesting revelations of Delaware County (NY) that I received through my recent FOIL request.

 Stay tuned.




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)