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.

Monday, September 12, 2016

New York attorney disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini refuses to comply with the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court

I am about to file my petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.

 And, the U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29(3) requires me to serve an electronic version of my petition upon my opponent, and to engage in reasonable efforts to obtain the opponent's e-mail address.

 I've got an earful of yelling for my reasonale efforts to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court rule of service today.

 My opponent, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Judicial Department, 5th Judicial District, does not list their e-mail address anywhere - even though it is a public record.

 So, in order to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court rule, I called the Grievance Committee, explained the reason why I am calling, and asked for their e-mail address for purposes of service.

The woman on the other side of the line first simply refused to give me the e-mail address claiming that they do not accept service by e-mail.

 I explained to them that the service by e-mail is not my whim, and is the requirement of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Then, I repeated my request.

 After that, the woman on the other side, who was apparently, my disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini, flew off the handle.

 She started to yell, at the top of her lungs, calling me by my first name - which I never gave her permission to do (I do not call her "Mary") - and asking me, in return, why don't I accept personal service from her, which was completely irrelevant.

 I was asking her a question about her e-mail address, which was a public record, and which was required for service of a petition for a writ of certiorari upon Mary Gasparini in compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29(3).

 Moreover, service of an electronic copy is a convenience for Mary Gasparini and not for me - because otherwise Mary Gasparini will receive her 3 booklets, but they are not word-searchable.

 The U.S. Supreme Court's requirement of service of an electronic copy is a convenience for the opposing parties and not for petitioners.

 So, Mary Gasparini refused to accept what was convenient for her, and did it in an extremely rude manner.

 I am posting our exchange that I, of course, recorded, in order to avoid accusations against me that I did something wrong.

 Mary Gasparini , of course, should have known that I was going to record her because of our prior dealings - and yet she could not deny herself the pleasure of yelling me and being disrespectful to me.

 I will post the recording of our conversation later in the day, I need to do some work on the petition at this time. 

It was quite an interesting experience today talking to Gasparini.

 Mary Gasparini expressed a complete disdain to the rule of law and to the Rules of the U.S. Supreme Court, simply because she - very obviously - does not like me, which is an understatement of the century.

 I still don't get it why Gasparini finds it appropriate to call me by my first name - but that's the cultural level of New York disciplinary prosecutors, I guess, they do not need to be polite - who will prosecute them if they are rude, after all? 

Should I call her "Mary" next time we meet - in court?


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)