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.

Friday, April 25, 2014

How to eliminate those big-mouth civil rights attorneys criticizing the judiciary. A recipe for New York judges.



Now, if you are a New York state judge and you need to eliminate a big-mouth attorney who dared to:

  1. move to recuse you multiple times,
  2. questioned legitimacy of your elections,
  3. raised the issue of your conflicts of interest (prior representation of social services for 27 years in cases where the same social services appear in front of you as a petitioner in bench trials, and you assess their credibility);  reasonable attorneys know about that one, but wisely keep mum about it;
  4.  investigated your background through FOIL requests,
  5. raised issues of your improper behavior in court in the media,
  6. complained about you to the Judicial Conduct Commission and asked to take you off the bench,
  7. asked the New York State Attorney General to bring a quo warranto proceeding against you as a usurper of public office (now that was a good one, New York State Attorney General is your attorney and also appears in front of you against the big-mouth attorney, so did she really think he will choose to oust you instead of using your good graces in court) and, finally, when everything else failed,
  8. sued you in state and federal courts.


What is a judge to do with such a pest?  Especially if what the pest is saying is the truth?


Here is a ready recipe prepared by joint efforts of Delaware County judge Carl F. Becker, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and, of course, with the help of the multi-hat office of the New York State Attorney General who claims to protect the public from official misconduct, but is instead your legal protector no matter what you do to that public.


The chart shows that first you need to get assigned to the big-mouth attorney's court cases, otherwise how would you be able to sanction her?  That is a piece of cake because, with the current budget cuts, court clerks will be afraid for their jobs and will assign you where you tell them to assign you.


Disregard the big-mouth attorney's request to step down because of your bias.  She will have no recourse if you tell her to her face that you are not biased, even if the entire world knows for a fact that you are.  What is she going to do?  Complain to the Judicial Conduct Commission?  Those guys will never discipline you, you know that.  They will sent you her complaint, and you will be able to get even, so don't you worry.


Hide all of your conflict of interests and knowledge of extrajudicial facts, because - how will she find out if she can't?  And if she tries, you'll sanction her.


Don't worry if she would bring a motion to recuse.


Even though New York state law requires you to step down where your impartiality may be reasonably questioned, and the same is required by constitutional federal law, New York state courts allow you to be that "reasonable person" deciding whether you are biased or not.  And how can you consider yourself (YOURSELF!) biased?!  No way.


Then, you sanction the big-mouth attorney for frivolous conduct, order her to pay a couple/10/50 thousand dollars so that she would shut up and crawl into a corner somewhere, and then you send your sanctions to the attorney disciplinary committee.


The big-mouth attorney may, of course, sue you in federal court for retaliation, but you know she will fail because your malicious and corrupt acts as a judge are protected by judicial immunity.  Your brothers in federal courts created that doctrine for you, so you can do whatever you want to the big-mouth attorney and she cannot do anything to you.  Isn't that what makes your job so great?


The big-mouth attorney may, of course, appeal your sanctions, but she will fail, first, because a judge will not pick out another judge's eye, so to say, and appellate judges are your brothers, and also because appellate courts have "tunnel-vision" and will not look outside of the record of one sanction when you imposed 3, and thus the pattern of your misconduct will be unreachable, and the courts will affirm the sanction. 


One correction, the appellate court will exercise their "tunnel-vision" "it is outside of the record" point of view only when the big-mouth asks for protection, the same "tunnel-vision" review does not apply to you. 


You can gather dirt on attorney from as many sources outside of the record as you like and present it as an unsworn witness or through unidentified hearsay sources, your appellate brothers will still accept it.   More points for you and against the big-mouth attorney.




After the federal court dismisses the big-mouth attorney's lawsuit for retaliation, you can impose a couple more sanctions on her, for good measure, so that your previous sanctions stick by weight of sheer numbers.  This way you will make sure the big-mouth attorney will be disbarred (or at least suspended) for sure and will not darken your horizon while you are on the bench. 


And if she will try to make any motions to vacate your sanctions, now based on a pattern of retaliation from different proceedings, be assured that at least some of your lower-court brothers will feel for you and will not allow the big-mouth attorney to bring those motions.  To claim a judge did something wrong!  The gall!


Once the big-mouth attorney has been safely stalled on all of her efforts to undo your punishment for impertinence, you can safely make sure that all of your sanctions have reached the disciplinary committee and took root there, sit back and enjoy the slaughter of the big-mouth attorney who dared to complain against you and especially sue you.


And remember - those folks on the disciplinary committee are practicing attorneys who may happen to appear in front of you one of these days.  They will not dare to cross you.  They have their own licenses to think about.  And for them, eliminating one competitor will have its own advantage.  So more points for you here, too.




Now that you are sitting back and enjoying the view of the slaughter of that pesky bad-mouth attorney from a distance - the last gift to you to make your leisure even more enjoyable.    Always listen to the classics, it's an absolute treasure of advice on necessary subjects!  And the last chords of the performance (I meant the disciplinary proceeding against the big-mouth attorney) will be such sweet music to your ears!



And, so you do not forget how to do what you just did to one big-mouth attorney, in the unlikely event another one dares to crawl out and raise her big-mouth head, here is your recipe of how to get rid of those pests.  Always keep it close at hand. 










Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)