EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY:

"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).


“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.


"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.


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 cos
t.
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.







Sunday, July 31, 2016

The 3rd Department attorney disciplinary committee hires a confidential court analyst, without a law degree, for spying on attorneys online and for managing the court system where the Committee appears

Here is the application - the deadline is already past, so the pool of applicants is already defined for this job:


Note that the "court analyst" will perform "confidential analysis, research, planning and other related duties" in the areas of:


  • budget development;
  • court finance;
  • personnel administration;
  • resource allocation; and
  • court system management and administration.

That a court analyst publicly hired, for taxpayers' money, to secretly analyze public functions of public courts is already an outrage and completely illegal.

What is even more illegal - and revealing - is that the employee of the attorney disciplinary committee will perform confidential research and analysis of the entire "court system management and administration" - authority that attorney disciplinary committees (which are illegal to begin with because their existence is not prescribed by Judiciary Law 90 regulating the legal profession in New York) do not have under any stretch of imagination.

Since attorney disciplinary committees now secretly research and analyze "court system management and administration", "court finance", "court personnel administration", and "court resource allocation" (the word court is located in the sentence before the word combinations "personnel administration" and "resource allocation", and, by rules of construction, defines those word combinations, too), with this announcement it has become even more clear that attorney regulation in New York is illegal, because the accusers are part of the adjudicators - which is illegal as of June 2016 under Williams v Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. __ (2016).

Also, please, note that the "court analyst"/investigator will be "gathering information from online sources" - about attorneys.  So, I understand that the new position involves, very simply, spying on attorneys' posts in social media.  And I am sure that posts praising judges will not be sought - only those criticizing the court system and misconduct of its politically connected "pillars".

I will verify through FOIL who was hired for this "lucky" and powerful behind-the-scenes position and will report it on this blog.


Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment