"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, October 24, 2014

Attorney Mary E. Gasparini teaches what is ethical at CLE seminars while filing fraudulent claims with the court. What a joke and what a valued teacher.

I already wrote on this blog that in January of 2013 a disciplinary charge was launched against me by the Appellate Division Third Department Professional Conduct Committee stating that I, as an attorney representing clients, did not appear at a deposition in a named court case, did not provide an explanation as to why I did not appear, did not answer a subsequent motion to strike and for a default judgment and thus caused the default judgment.

As described, the charge portrays gross neglect of the client.

The court records of that named case clearly show that:

(1) the deposition was held on September 15, 2008 when I was not an attorney and could not be required to appear for clients as an attorney in a court case;

(2) that the motion to strike was made on December 9, 2008, simiarly when I was not an attorney.

I provided a copy of the transcript of the deposition with the above date to:

(1) Attorney Discipliary Committee of the 3rd Department;
(2) the Appellate Division Third Department court;
(3) The U.S. District Court of the Northern District court where the disciplinary case was initially removed
(4) The New York State Attorney General's office representing the disicplinary authorities
(5) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit where I appeal the remand back to state court;
(6) To the Appellate Division 4t Department;
(7) To the Attorney Grievance Committee for the 4th Department 5th Judicial District.

That's 7 agencies, where at least 10 people in each, all paid by American taxpayers, were reviewing the court records that I provided and refused to drop obviously fraudulent charges, continuing instead to charge the public for advancing fraud in court against an attorney, in order allegedly to protect the public.  Think about it!  Isn't it the stuff for John Oliver's Last Week Tonight show?  

Only it is not so funny when it is happening to you.

Until now, the fraudulent charge remains pending, and yesterday I received a sworn statement from attorney Mary E. Gasparini of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the 4th Deparment 5th Judicial District stating under oath that:

recitation in Charge I Specifiction I 

(1) represents correct procedural history of the case (Ms. Gasparini does not name which case, and I doubt that she knows which case, since she admitted under oath she did not review the case and does not have to because it is transferred from another department and she must prosecute it "as is");
(2) does not allege any misconduct against me;

(3) the date of 2008 when the deposition was held and the motion was brought ( I was admitted to the bar in 2009) is irrelevant to the proceedings.

Here is Charge I Specification I and a full description of what I find wrong in it.   

Mary Gasparini, once again, stated under oath that Charge I Specification I correctly describes procedural history of the case, does not allege any misconduct on my behalf, and the date 2008 and my admission to the bar in 2009 are irrelevant to the charge.

Compare that to the actual portion of Charge I Specification I and be the judge as how fraudulent Mary Gasparini's statement is.

"Respondent (and that is me in the Petition that Mary Gasparini prosecutes) did not appear for scheduled depositions, offered no explanations, and failed to submit written opposition to plaintiff's subsequent motion to strike the answer.  The above referenced court granted plaintiff's motion to strike and entered a default judgment against the defendants".

Once again, the date of the deposition was September 15, 2008, there is a copy of the transcript of that deposition (listing my husband as an attorney of record, by the way, who actually appeared there), that copy was submitted to 7 agencies including Mary Gasparini's client, but Mary Gasparini did not "review" the charges she is prosecuting against me, because under 22 NYCRR 1000.8(a) apparently she must prosecute whatever is handed to her from the other court, no matter what - so why read if you must do it anyway.

The date of the motion is December 9, 2008.

If any private attorney would be asserting before any court, for nearly TWO YEARS, WITHOUT READING THE COURT RECORDS CONTRADICTING THE ASSERTIONS, certain things that were obviously false, as shown in court records, that attorney would have been CORRECTLY disbarred.

Yet, who will disbar Mary Gasparini?  Mary Gasparini?  Her colleagues?  You understand what a joke it is, don't you?  Attorney regulation and discipline protects the public?  When a disciplinary prosecutor asserts as a matter of right AND AS A MATTER OF LAW, her right to prosecute on charges without reading those charges and whether the charges are fraudulent or not, when such a prosecutor, without reading underlying court documents, makes false statements as to the contents of those documents to a court, when that charge is pursued for nearly two years against a civil rights attorney and vigorous critic of judicial misconduct somehow the public is protected?

Mary E. Gasparini also claimed in support of her position in proceeding with fraudulent claims, the rule of the Appellate Division 4th Department 22 NYCRR 1000.8(a) providing that if a proceeding is transferred from another court, it must be prosecuted on the original papers.

Not only such a rule is blatantly unconstitutional because it ties the prosecutor's hands and requires the prosecutor to proceed as a puppet of a recused or disqualified prosecutor, having no authority to withdraw the proceedings altogether, amend anything in the charges, or amend anything in the pleadings, including fraudulent statements, but Mary E. Gasparini, an attorney and officer of the court who took a constitutional oath of office of her own and pledged to uphold the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme law of the land, instead upholds an obscure rule that directs her to commit fraud upon the court - and she does by prosecuting a fraudulent charge, supporting fraudulent sworn statement of a recused prosecutor, and aggravates it by making her own fraudulent statements.

Mary E. Gasparini, ladies and gentlemen, and taxpayers of the State of New York, teaches seminars on ethical behavior.  She just asked a referee on October 23, 2014 for an adjournment of my case (where she acknowledged under oath she did not read the file before prosecuting on that file) because she needs to teach in two more CLEs in the week of December 1, 2014.

Those who are paying for those seminars, obviously, get a real boon, a teacher who commits fraud upon the court, so far got away with it, adamantly continues with it despite clear documentary evidence that her sworn statements are perjurous, and tries to teach other people about ethics, during state time and I am wondering whether Mary E. Gasparini is paid for her teaching efforts.

No comments:

Post a Comment