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, May 25, 2025

What is similar between now-partner in Hancock Eastabrook, "officer of the court" Frank W. Miller and Judge John F. Lambert? Complete refusal to read what one files with the court and what is filed...

 Was reading some court cases recently to prepare for a certain litigation.

And, lo and behold, what did I find?

The litigation attorney Frank W. Miller, now partner in Hancock Eastabrook, the law firm I wrote about in my previous blog post today, has done what NO attorney is allowed to do - and so far escaped unscathed, hopefully not for long, as I have turned him in for appropriate investigation and discipline.

When a party or attorney is e-filing documents on NYSCEF in New York State court cases, the party or attorney MUST check boxes that he or she has verified that there is no personal information that he or she is putting into the public domain - because, among other things, e-filed documents in open court cases are instantly downloadable by the public for free.

There is a court rule directly prohibiting such exposure, too, even though New York State does not have a common law cause of action for invasion of privacy.

Well, well, well.

Attorney Miller, admitted to practice law in New York since 1979 (I checked), appears to think this rule does not apply to him.  He obviously had to check that box claiming to the court that no personal data of a minor child is being filed by him unredacted.

And - put out into the open miles and miles of information from Family Court about a very young child: the child's full name, the child's full date of birth, the name of the child's adoptive parent in a pending adoption, the child's entire medical history - diagnosed mental illnesses, medications, hospitalizations and the like.

Made the child fully identifiable to the public, pre- and post-adoption, and disclosed all of the child's medical problems.

The documents, of course, are buried in a large file that Miller e-filed with the court WITHOUT READING IT - obviously, because how would he otherwise check that box that there is no personal information in the document he is e-filing?

I am not publishing here the name of the case and the name of the document attorney Miller has e-filed with the court, to prevent further exposure of the child, but it is there... it is there...  And the only reason I know about it is because, unbeknownst as to what the document may contain, I downloaded it from the NYSCEF system, so I have it on file, too - in case Miller attempts to claim I am not telling the truth.

This is not the only problem.

The problem is that the presiding judge over the case was Judge John F. Lambert.

And, Judge Lambert also allowed this information to remain in public access - for many, many years.

Which means that Judge Lambert DID NOT READ what was filed for his attention.  Because otherwise he would have picked it up - as I did, on my very first reading of that document.  Because, as I said, it is miles and miles of records there, can't miss it if you read it.

So that you know about the attention span, diligence and truthfulness of attorney Frank W. Miller and Judge John F. Lambert.

An appropriate complaint with the NYS Judicial Conduct Commission seeking investigation and discipline against Judge John F. Lambert, with attached court documents, and an appropriate complaint against Attorney Frank W. Miller to the appropriate Attorney Grievance Committee, also with attached court documents, has been filed.

In the complaint, I ask these authorities to prevail upon the court in question to have the documents revealing private information about the child sealed or redacted.

Last, but not least, the continued existence of this unredacted private information about the 5-year-old child in open access to the public on NYSCEF shows also that the County Clerk where the document was filed and the Court Clerk where the document was filed are also not doing their respective jobs and are not making sure that private information is not put out to the public.

For 5 years this information is exposed, ladies and gentleman.


For 5 years!






Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)