"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, January 12, 2015

As I said to the Appellate Court earlier (and they did not listen), the appointed referee cannot read, and that is a big problem

This is the court order of December 8, 2014 ordering the disciplinary referee in my case to:

(1) conduct hearings (hear testimony) within 60 days of the December 8, 2014 order, and
(2) to report findings of fact to the court, Appellate Division 4th Judicial Department.

To anybody who can read, especially to a referee who is supposedly a retired judge (and a licensed attorney still) what the order says and the RESTRICTED authority that it gives to the referee is abundantly clear - (1) to hear the testimony, and (2) after "final submissions by the parties, including proposed findings of fact, if any" are submitted to the referee by the parties "within 15 days following completion of the stenographic transcript of the minutes of the hearing:, "the Referee's report shall be submitted within 30 days" after parties submit their proposed findings of fact and final arguments, AFTER the hearings to be held on consecutive days within 60 days of December 8, 2014.

After December 8, 2014, the referee held NO hearings whatsoever.

Today was supposed to be a scheduling conference for such hearings.

I could not appear today due to the road conditions in Delaware County (out interaction about it with the referee is going to be published in a separate blog, not to confuse the issues).

Yet, today's appearance, once again was only announced to me as a "scheduling conference".

The only point of scheduling was - what the court ordered the referee to do on December 8, 2014 - conduct a hearing and report the findings of fact to the court.

Instead, the referee did the following:

(1) granted the prosecution's motion for a summary judgment on the issue of liability INSTEAD of holding a hearing that the court ordered him to hold, and

(2) attempted to schedule "proceedings in mitigation", while

     (a) denying me, without an explanation, a public hearing "on mitigation" in the area where I am practicing, in Delaware County, and

     (b) ordering me to announce to the prosecution in advance who my mitigation witnesses are (which would make it easy for the prosecution to intimidate my witnesses ahead of time).

Since I was not going to have any mitigation heard in front of THIS particular  referee, Steven Sirkin, who was obviously incompetent and biased, based on his disregard of the court order and usurping the court's authority to decide motions, I told Sirkin that if he does not recuse, and if he orders me to disclose my mitigation witnesses to the prosecution before the hearing, I would rather submit my affirmation for mitigation, so I will have no other hearings until the court makes its final determination.

Of course, I will be making motions.

To vacate the unlawful decision of Sirkin.

To recuse the court who:

(1) despite Sirkin's announcement in October of 2014 that he is going to rule on the motion instead of hearing the case, still kept Sirkin on as a referee;

(2) refused to give me reasoned decisions on my cross-motion and motion to vacate, renew and reargue the denial of my cross-motion with constitutional issues;

(3) imposed, without a notice or opportunity to be heard, an anti-filing injunction on me;

(4) refused to open proceedings to the public and the media at my request.

So, the fight goes on.

No comments:

Post a Comment