"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.

Monday, December 15, 2014

How difficult it is for the court to adhere to the law? It is impossible if the law is on the side of the attorney marked for destruction for criticizing and suing judges

On September 30, 2014, the Appellate Division 4th Department has issued an order in my disciplinary case denying my cross-motion (constitutional issues, sanctions against the disciplinary prosecutor, dismissal of certain charges, including fraudulent charges and moot charges).

The order had NO reasoning at all.  None.

The order appointed a referee in violation of the statutory law requiring that such a referee can only be a retired Supreme Court Justice.  The referee appointed is a retired County Court Judge.

On October 9, 2014 I moved to vacate, renew and reargue, recuse the court because of its behavior towards me, and to sanction my opponent for frivolous conduct, for promoting fraudulent charges.

On October 23, 2014 I had to travel 3 hours one way to appear at a conference before the referee in the case.

The conference took a whole of about 10 minutes during which the referee told me and my opponents that he is not going to schedule any hearings until the court hears my motion of October 9, 2014.

Apparently, I could have been notified by phone simply not to come all the way to hear that, but I wasn't.

At the conference, the referee stated, and it was reflected in the transcript, that he is going to make not simply factual findings, but a decision on the case.

I supplemented my motion by a request to disqualify the referee, as he not only was not qualified to be so appoitned by the statute, but also obviously did not understand what his authority was, even after reading the court order that allowed him only to make factual findings, but no orders.

At the conference of October 23, 2014, the referee and my opponent indicated to me that the expected date when the decision on my motions is going to be made is November 20, 2014.

No decision was made until the date of the conference on December 5, 2014, and the referee adjourned the conference until January 12, 2015, waiting for the decision on my motions.

On December 8, 2014, without making any decisions on my motions, the court made the following order:

It is clear from the order that it did not even mention that a motion is pending since October 9, 2014 to vacate the September 30, 2014 order, recuse the court and the referee and allow me to renew and reargue the cross-motion raising fundamental constitutional issues that the court denied without an explanation.

When a motion to recuse is pending, and until it is resolved, the court has no authority to make any intermediate decisions.

Yet, apparently, the court did just that.

When a motion is made, the moving party is entitled to a written decision, and as a matter of due process of law, to a reasoned written decision.

As the court's decision of December 8, 2014 demonstrates, no mention of my motions is even made.

How difficult it is for a court of law to actually follow the law?  In my case, it appears to be impossible. 

The court cannot provide any plausible explanation or legal authorities as to why it granted a hearing without granting or denying a summary judgment of the prosecution, because there is none.

The court cannot provide any plausible explanation or legal authorities as to why it denied my motion to dismiss the charge seeking to discipline me for not committing a crime of practicing law without a licence in 2008 when I was not licensed to practice law, which is the subject of Charge I Specification I, and for which I provided irrefutable documentary evidence, court records that the opponents did not and could not rebut.  The disciplinary petition stated I was admitted to practice law in 2009.  Court records stated that the deposition and motion where I allegedly did not appear and did not oppose, both happened in 2008.  What else does the court need to dismiss those charges?  I guess, to harass me some more, at the directive of some people who want me to be harassed.

The court cannot provide any plausible explanation or legal authorities as to why it did not dismiss the charge that I did not pay the sanctions when the charge was filed in 2013 and the sanctions were paid in 2011, immediately after they were imposed, into the escrow of Delaware County Supreme Court.

The court cannot provide any plausible explanation or legal authorities as to why it skipped ruling on all of my constitutional issues, because the court must do that, and the federal court remanded my case back to state court on the argument that the state court will review and rule on federal constitutional issues.  Apparently, it is too dangerous for the court to do that.  It might create a precedent for the whole country that it is not constitutional to sanction an attorney and deprive an attorney of her reputation, property and livelihood for criticizing misconduct of public officials including judges.  The court is not ready to actually discharge the function of protection the Constitution that each of the judges on the court have been sworn to uphold.

The court cannot provide any plausible explanation or legal authorities as to why, while prosecuting me for allegedly frivolous conduct (in the opinion of Judge Becker who imposed the sanctions after I sued him), it fails to sanction my opponents for promoting against me clearly fraudulent charges, which was proven by irrefutable court records.  Of course, my opponents claim to be "part of" the same court that is presiding, which is only more grounds for the court not to preside.

In other words, the only reason why the reasoned decision was not provided by the court was because there can be no reasoning to rule against me other than there is an agreement by the court and, possibly, high-ranking individuals who direct the court, to rule against me no matter what the law says.

To say that, under the circumstances, I am heard by a court of law and not a Star Chamber court would be gross intellectual dishonesty.

The authors of the decision that ignored that a motion to recuse and to vacate, renew and reargue the September 30, 2014 decision is pending before the court and who proceed as if no motion was ever made, are:

  • Judge Smith
  • Judge Fahey,
  • Judge Carni,
  • Judge Sconiers
  • Judge Valentino.
Shame on you, your Honors.

It appears that the only reason I am prosecuted is because I complained about misconduct of judges, and sued judges - and no matter what the law says, my livelihood and reputation must be destroyed to teach me, and any other attorneys who would contemplate to complain about such misconduct, a lesson, and the court is the tool of destruction that is teaching such a lesson to the legal community.

The rule of law, right.

No comments:

Post a Comment