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.

Thursday, September 4, 2014

New complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commission submitted

I just submitted complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commission about the following judges:


1)  Judge Christopher Cahill of Ulster County - I submitted additional information that court administration destroyed of evidence of Judge Cahill's ex parte communication with attorney Delice Seligman by overwriting the security tape of what happened on his floor that day.


I wonder whether Judge Cahill who threatened to "turn me in" went across the hall to complain against me to the Chief Judge of the Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Karen Peters who at that time handled my disciplinary proceedings.  To complain to the chief judge of the licensing court would be illegal, but illegality did not deter Judge Cahill from ex parte communication with Attorney Seligman.


I wonder whether Judge Cahill's potential visit to Judge Peters's chambers that day documented by the security tapes was the main reason why the security tapes were overwritten before expiration of 30 days, the time set by NYS Court administration's own policy for such security tapes to remain intact.


Fortunately for me, Attorney Delice Seligman, driven by feelings which had nothing to do with friendship, put her foot into her own mouth and admitted to the ex parte communication in sworn statement to another court - and I provided that admission to the Judicial Conduct Commission as proof of Judge Cahill's ex parte communication with her.  I wonder what the Commission will do now, being confronted with irrefutable proof that misconduct happened.


A lot of work - but judicial misconduct should not remain unreported.


2) Judge Mary Work of Ulster County - for her misconduct in a divorce case and another related case involving the same attorney Delice Seligman whose atrociously uncivilized behavior Judge Work seemed to be unwilling to control to protect my client and myself, the "slayer of New York judicial system" (Attorney Seligman's authorship).


3) Appellate Division Third Department and its Chief Judge Karen Peters, of Ulster County for misconduct, including, but not limited to:


  •      engaging in ex parte communications with my opponents, see here and here;
  • refusing to provide access to documents submitted ex parte;
  • failing to provide to the court with the transferred documents the ex parte documents as part of the record
  • failing to recuse from other pending proceedings where my husband and I were parties after recusing from one of such proceedings
All complaints were filed by e-mail, so that nobody can claim they were not filed where an electronic evidence of a transaction exists, and a copy was of the Appellate Division 3rd Department complaint was sent to the Appellate Division 3rd Department, also by email.


I pointed out to the Commission that the Commission is responsible for the current state of affairs where judges feel absolutely above the law and commit egregious misconduct with impunity while attorneys are afraid to report it for fear of retribution and losing their livelihoods through that retribution (which is what is happening to me now).


I asked the Commission for Judicial Conduct to do their jobs, for a change, on these complaints.


We will see whether that will happen.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)