"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, July 13, 2016

For Rudy Guliani and former NY Court of Appeals justice Carmen Ciparick money does not smell when they are paid by a law firm fighting to keep wrongful incarcerations at profitable level

It has been reported that Rudy Guliani has joined the law firm Greenberg Taurig that lobbies the U.S. Congress to kill Senator Bernie Sanders' Bill to prohibit for-profit prisons.

I wrote about Greenberg Taurig on this blog, specifically about its members' participation in:

1) New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct - as referees holding judges' fates in their hands, while appearing in front of judges and, obviously and likely, having their cases decided with a view not to upset Henry Greenberg as a potential referee if a judge is turned in for misconduct;

2) the shadow quasi-judicial organization New York State-Federal Judicial Council, while currently both the State and the Federal judicial systems stalls my Freedom of Information Requests as to members, agendas, structure and meeting schedules of that organization.

I also reported on this blog - and somehow the press did not pick that up when exposing Rudy Guliani, that the lobbying firm engaged for their support and is paying not only Rudy Juliani, but also the former New York State Court of Appeals judge Carmen Ciparick, while fighting to keep legitimate for-profit prisons that perpetuate slave labor and incentivize the states to encourage police and prosecutors to obtain wrongful incarcerations so that the states fill "for-profit" prisons and avoid paying "lockup" quota penalties to Greenberg Taurig clients.

A recent judge of a highest state court and a former "law and order" New York City Mayor are paid by a law firm fighting to promote wrongful convictions, predominantly of African Americans.

And Rudy Guliani then dares to say that protesters against police misconduct - the police who is playing a major role in filling the "lockup" quotas in the for-profit prisons - have wrong "agendas".

I guess, big money does not smell.

No comments:

Post a Comment