"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.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

If it isn't improper - why hide it? Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the NDNY federal court removes his name from an American Inn of Court website when sued to disclose his perks

I've written in this blog about the "mutually beneficial interaction" of attorneys and judges through the secret-membership social networking organization "The American Inns of Court" and dangers of bribery of the judiciary and fixing cases without opponents' knowledge through such mediums.

I have also filed a lawsuit to verify membership and perks of judges who were or are about to decide my fate through a federal lawsuit Neroni v. Peebles, which was dismissed with a lightning speed by the court which was named as a Defendant, which was even more illegal that its judges were sued in their individual capacities for misconduct they appeared to be involved in against me outside of any court proceedings.

The interesting thing is that I provided in Neroni v. Peebles, as an exhibit, Judge Lawrence E. Kahn's membership in the Albany "Innovation" Inn of Court.

The quality of the snippet is poor, but the quality of the exhibit submitted to the court is good and allows to see Judge Kahn's name as the President of this Inn of Court, the document is available on  I put this scan here to show the path on top of it, that evidence of Judge Kahn's participation in this particular inn of court was submitted to the NDNY in Neroni v. Peebles on May 28, 2014.

Here is a better scan where Judge Kahn's name as the President of the Inn is clearly visible:

After the lawsuit was filed, information that Judge Kahn was president of that particular Inn of Court, was removed from its website.

"Key contacts" remained, Judge Kahn's name was removed.

There are peculiar coincidences about the removal of Judge Kahn's information and about known members of that particular Inn of Court (information about memberships is not available on the website of the Inn, only by self-reporting of the members).

Multiple attorneys from a large and powerful law firm Hiscock & Barclay of Albany, NY self-reported membership in the same Inn of Court where Judge Kahn was (and, possibly, still is a member - only in secret), see, for example, a partner in that law firm John Cook who is also, "coincidentally", a former law clerk of NDNY and a current member of the "Local Rules Committee".

In other words, Hiscock & Barclays decides what local rules need to be introduced in the courts where Hiscock & Barclays appears as attorneys of record.

And, Hiscock & Barclays likely pays or paid for monthly dinners of Judge Kahn, because judicial members are participating in Inns of Court for free (I only can derive this information from Inns where it is available - and it was available from a Federal Inn of Court).  Well, at least another judge, Judge Glenn Suddaby, whose former law clerk has also recently been accepted as an attorney into Hiscock & Barclays, and who worked as a prosecutor together with William Fitzpatrick, law school roommate of a famous New York rogue judge who wanted my disbarment because I reasonably questioned his integrity, did not allow my lawsuit against NDNY to proceed.  

That was the same William Fitzpatrick who wanted to share in the blackmail money from Judge Hedges (the judge who, according to affidavits submitted to NDNY in the Morin v. Tormey, lawsuit "outed" Judge Tormey's role in her harassment to the victim) and turned the judge in for a disciplinary proceedings when that effort failed.  

Without the joint efforts of: 

(1) Judges Tormey, 
(2) Suddaby (who dismissed sua sponte Neroni v. Peebles), 
(3) Kahn (who dismissed portions of my husband's case pertaining to John Casey's corruption and remanded my own disciplinary case back to the 3rd Department, disregarding evidence of selective enforcement of law and corruption by John Casey) and, of course, 
(4) efforts of the disgruntled judge Carl F. Becker, who acted obviously in concert with John Casey and his law firm, but was allegedly covered by absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts, disciplinary proceedings against my husband (which resulted in his disbarment) and proceedings against me would not have been possible.

Talking about company, coincidences, transparency, accountability and judicial integrity.

By a "sheer coincidence", Hiscock & Barclays' partner John Casey was involved in prosecutorial corruption in investigation and prosecution of myself and my husband when he was a member of the Committee for Professional Standards, Appellate Division, 3rd Judicial Department, and that was discussed in two federal lawsuits over which Judge Kahn was presiding in Neroni v. Zayas (what remained of it is still pending), and in that lawsuit Judge Kahn ruled in such a way that precluded further discovery of prosecutorial misconduct of John Casey in order to accept as paying clients AGAINST myself and Mr. Neroni two people who John Casey was supposed to prosecute in the Committee for Professional Standards.

Even more "coincidentally", those clients for whose benefit John Casey traded his oath of office, but created a financial benefit for his law firm Hiscock & Barclay, were a retired judge Robert Harlem and his son attorney Richard Harlem, of Oneonta, NY who escaped disbarment, apparently, only because of the efforts of John Casey - read what these two attorneys did in the Blanding saga.

Even more "coincidentally", John Casey similarly rescued (and accepted as law partner) attorney M. Cornelia Cahill, the wife of Judge Richard Sise, the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Claims, when she was turned in to be investigated and prosecuted by John Casey's Committee for fraudulently receiving benefits from school districts as if she were the school district's employee.  She disgorged those benefits, but was never disciplined - thanks to John Casey who instead embraced her as a partner and allowed her to be promoted as the manager of the Albany office of Hiscock & Barclay.

"Coincidences" did not stop here.  

Hiscock & Barclay also employ multiple recent law clerks who worked for various judges in the Northern District of New York, including a former law clerk of the Chief Judge.

It would be bad politics for the judge to punish these people and expose corrupt practices of their law firm or partner, especially since the law firm likely very literally feeds the judge lavish monthly dinners (at least) through the American Inn of Court where Judge Kahn was President at the time when he was deciding Neroni v. Zayas.

Even before he came to the federal bench, Judge Kahn was known for making self-serving political decisions on the bench.

For example, Judge Kahn first tossed a state lawsuit challenging legality of cross-endorsements of judicial candidates by multiple political parties which was challenged as depriving voters of choice in judicial elections - and three years later got elected exactly because of the same cross-endorsement deal that he ruled (for his own sake, obviously) was valid.

A well respected attorney Doris Sassower who for decades was a pillar of legal community, suddenly became an outcast once she filed that lawsuit and was quickly suspended without a hearing once she announced that she is going to appeal the decision of the intermediate appellate court legalizing the cross-endorsement deal to the New York State Court of Appeals.

The timing of suspension was, I understand, also " coincidence" - her announcement to pursue the appeal of the cross-endorsement deal to the Court of Appeals was published on May 19, 1991, and she was suspended in June of that year.

I guess, to expect justice from Judge Kahn under the circumstances is beyond naive.  Judge Kahn appears to be a politically and, possibly, financially motivated block to fair resolution of cases in federal court rather than an impartial tool of that resolution.

And it will remain this way until citizens demand from their representatives in the federal legislature to provide better mechanisms of judicial selection and accountability.

No comments:

Post a Comment