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.
Monday, January 12, 2015
The NYS Appellate Division 4th Department allegedly delivered a fax to my unplugged fax machine advising me that my desire to have a public trial is not dispositive
There was no fax path on top of the letter, so I presume Ms. Gasparini has faxed her "confidential" letter to the local courthouse and unsealed the proceeding. But - Ms. Gasparini can do it, I can't.
First, Ms. Gasparini, in her today's letter attempted to insinuate that I lied to Referee Sirkin claiming that I did not receive any faxes from her or from the Appellate Division 4th Department.
Apparently, in Ms. Gasparini's view, if I could fax my letter to Referee Sirkin this morning, I lied that my fax machine did not receive anything from her or the court.
Yet, Ms. Gasparini has received numerous letters from me, with the letterheads clearly stating that the fax number that is shown on my letterhead is "not for service".
Fax transmissions can also be lost, garbled, and you can be "presumed to have been served" while you have in fact received no transmission.
For the reason that I simply have a right to refuse service by fax, and I do, and for the reason that service by fax is unreliable, I simply switch off my fax machine and use it only to SEND documents, but not to receive them.
I would love to see the transmission report from the 4th Department court showing that their alleged fax transmission of January 9, 2015 got through to my SWITCHED OFF AND UNPLUGGED fax machine, but I know that I will never get it.
Ms. Gasparini included with her letter hinting that I lied to Referee Sirkin the letter from the 4th Department Court dated January 9, 2015 that was allegedly faxed to my unplugged fax machine.
Here it is:
In this wonderful letter, the clerk of the Appellate Division 4th Judicial Department advises me that I will not be allowed to have the public and the media come to my proceedings unless I make a motion to the court and ask for the court's permission to do that.
Obviously, the court does not recognize an attorney's due process right to have the proceedings open to the public and the media "as of right", without any necessity to seek court's "permission" or give the court reasons why opening my disciplinary proceedings should be permitted.
Imagine that a criminal defendant has to make a motion to the court asking the court to graciously allow him or her to have his or her proceedings open to the public.
The stigma and loss of rights associated with attorney disciplinary proceedings is comparable to the criminal proceedings, to the point that the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly recognized such proceedings as "quasi-criminal" in nature.
Well, I guess I will have to contest constitutionality of the court's actions in other forums.
Also, since Referee Sirkin denied me the right to a public hearing before I had the opportunity to react or file a motion to the Appellate Division (while the Appellate Division gave me a deadline to make such a motion, in the previous letter, by February 6, 2015), the question that I was denied my rights to a public hearing on issues of liability remains open.
Post a Comment