On July 29, 2014, a federal civil rights lawsuit has been filed by a suspended attorney Leon Koziol in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
In the lawsuit Mr. Koziol, a former successful civil rights attorney (what a coincidence! - do they suspend any attorneys other than civil rights attorneys?) alleged that when he applied for reinstatement, the following occurred:
1) the Attorney Grievance Committee sent a secret report opposing his reinstatement to the App. Div. 3rd court, which was in itself an attorney disciplinary violation - but who will prosecute them? themselves?
2) the court considered that ex parte report which was a disciplinary violation for all judges involved in such a consideration;
3) the court relied upon the ex parte report of the Committee;
4) the court denied the application for reinstatement in reliance on a secret report of the Committee;
5) the court refused to give Mr. Koziol a copy of the report, based on which reinstatement of his law license, a liberty and property due process interest, was denied.
Mr. Koziol's case was handled (coincidentally?) by the same attorney who handled my husband's case and who was handling my own case, up until the time when that attorney, Mr. Zayas, had to resign from the Committee among investigation that he allegedly falsified time sheets.
Since the Committee and the court denied and continue to deny access to the Committee's files to me and to my husband, and since the Committee and the court engaged in an ex parte communication regarding my disciplinary case and regarding my husband's closed disciplinary case (and likely, to thwart his so far successful federal civil rights lawsuit against the court and the Committee), the ex parte communications between the court and the Committee which deems itself a branch of that court, appears to be a pattern.
Now, a question arises.
Where are all those attorneys, including attorneys who are court clerks in the Appellate Division 3rd Department, as well as attorneys who work for the Committee and who are members of the Committee. Isn't it their duty to report attorney misconduct and judicial misconduct, such as ex parte communications?
Or their duties are only to cover up the assess of their colleagues and persecute critics of judicial misconduct and of misconduct of politically connected attorneys?
And, Mr. Koziol claims in his lawsuit that Mr. Zayas staunchly opposed his reinstatement pointing out at Mr. Koziol's public posts on his website and his testimony before the now disbanded Moreland (ethics in the government) Commission.
It is sad irony that Mr. Koziol was denied reinstatement of his law license for his testimony regarding corruption in the court system before the ethics Commission while now the feds are looking into whether corruption was involved in disbanding the commission that was created by Governor Cuomo allegedly to fight corruption in the government, but was disbanded by Governor Cuomo when the Commission turned its focus on Governor Cuomo's buddies.
Will the feds be able to uncover the full scope of corruption in how the anticorruption committee was created, functioned and was disbanded?
One does not have to have a crystal ball to predict with 100% precision that the New York State Attorney General, this declared protector of the public from fraud, will defend the lawsuit against Mr. Koziol on behalf of the App. Div. 3rd and the Committee, and will defend the unconstitutional actions of the court and the Committee, actions in violations of the oath of office of the judges and attorneys representing the Committee and who are members of the Committee.
The NYS AG will defend engaging in ex parte communications between the Court and the Committee, relying upon the secret report by the Committee to the Court that Mr. Koziol was not even allowed to see and denying a constitutional benefit to Mr. Koziol for simply doing his job as a citizen and exposing corruption in the government - both on his website and before the Moreland Commission.
To defend these indefensible actions and to protect government officials involved in these corrupt acts, the NYS AG's office will expend YOUR money, New York taxpayers and will throw into the defense the resources of the government against the resources of Mr. Koziol, already depleted by years of oppressive litigation.
That is - oppressive litigation to stifle a person who was a civil rights attorney who fought for YOUR rights, New Yorkers, something that the NYS AG should have helped him do, not thwart him in doing.
And, presiding over this lawsuit is - what a coincidence once again! - Judge Gary L. Sharpe, whose son Michael Sharpe, Attorney Registration No. 2731784 is employed by the NYS Attorney General's office.
And the judge's other son Robert A. Sharpe, Attorney Registration No. 2661239 - what a coincidence! - works for the U.S. Attorney General's office.
Thus, the law firm of one son of the presiding judge will defend unlawful actions of the court and the Committee against the victim of their corrupt behavior, among others, denying reinstatement of a law license because of Mr. Koziol's testimony before the Moreland Commission.
The law firm of the other son of the presiding judge will be investigating the corruption in the New York State government that led to disbandment of the Commission before which Mr. Koziol testified - and denied reinstatement of his license because of that testimony.
And the judge, of course, will remain impartial at all times, and there is no way to get him off the case despite his glaring conflict of interest.
How sweet.
First Amendment, anyone?
The rule of law, anyone?
Equality under the law, anyone?
The right to an impartial judicial review, anyone?
Right of access to court, anyone?
Blind justice without regard to people's statuses, anyone?
Yeah, right.
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment