"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 4, 2017

THE DEADLINE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT BY E-MAIL IS TODAY! Public comment on the proposal by the New York Justice Task Force regarding its proposal of "standing orders of discovery" in criminal cases - Part V, NYS courts and Task Force continues its hush-hush game

I wrote on this blog about the "standing order of discovery" proposal made by New York "Justice Task Force", and the lack of transparency as to how the "Justice Task Force" in question was formed and operated.

The deadline for public comment by e-mail about the proposed order of discovery is TOMORROW.

Information about this proposal, or about the tomorrow's deadline on a new court rule that will adversely affect ALL criminal defendant,, is not publicized by either the New York court system, nor by the Justice Task Force itself.

The New York State Unified Court System did not prominently include this proposal into its "What's New" notifications, see the scan I have obtained today from NYS Unified Court System website:

Nor did the Justice Task Force advertise the deadline or the proposal on its own website, see the scan I also obtained today:

So, when such an important rule is being proposed - and promoted - and both the court system which pushes the rule, and the "Task Force"  (consisting of those for whom more convictions mean career promotions), do not publicize it prominently, and do not clearly state for the public the deadline, I would assert that there is no public notice, and the rule is not legally valid.

With that, I encourage those who read my blog, to send their own comments as to this rule.

The deadline for public comment by e-mail is tomorrow.

The e-mail to submit your comments to is:

I am going to publish several more blogs today as to why I consider the rule as a bait-and-switch attempt of prosecutors and those who are backing them to promote a rule that will muzzle criminal defense, provide an iron-clad protection for prosecutors against discipline for misconduct and increase the number of wrongful convictions.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment