"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

Mary Gasparini changed the court rules - when she was affected personally

I wrote on this blog at length about misconduct of attorney for the Attorney Grievance Committee, 4th Department, 5th District, Mary Gasparini, specifically, promoting the fraudulent Charge I Specification I (that I neglected clients by not appearing at a deposition and answering a motion at the time when I was not admitted to the bar) and no less fraudulent Charge IV (that I did not pay the court sanctions imposed by Judge Becker after I sued the judge - when I paid them into the court escrow immediately as they were imposed, 1.5 years before the Charge IV was brought against me in January of 2013).

I made a motion to the court to sanction Gasparini for submitting fraudulent charges to the court.

Mary Gasparini opposed my claim of frivolous conduct by saying that she inherited the claim (whatever it is) from her predecessor, the prosecutor from the Appellate Division 3rd Department, and that the court rules of the Appellate Division 4th Department where the case is in now prevent her from changing anything in the original petition.

Based on Mary Gasparini's submissions, the court denied my request to dismiss the fraudulent Charge I Specification I, without an explanation, so I can presume the court relied on Mary Gasparini's claim that she "could not change anything because of the court's rules".

Today, at a conference before the referee, the referee, instead of doing what the court ordered him to do, and that is - scheduling a fact-finding hearing to hear testimony on outstanding issues of fact - did something that the court did not authorize him to do, and that is, granted to the prosecution the motion for a summary judgment without hearing any testimony at all, and without even scheduling the evidentiary hearing, which was the ONLY thing that the referee was appointed to do.

"Coincidentally" the referee swept the proceedings under the rug and denied me a hearing that was ordered by the court after I put on social networks, including Facebook and in my blog, an invitation to the public and the media to come to my hearing after I waived privacy in my proceedings.

I bet it was very scary for the Petitioner to have to go forward and present evidence that was, in fact, fraudulent, and do it under oath - that would put the prosecution even closer to federal criminal investigation and prosecution.  And the referee obliged by helping the prosecution out and saving them from having to go forward with fraudulent claims - the referee simply granted the claims, having no authority to do that.

AFTER the Referee told me that he "granted" the prosecution's motion, Mary Gasparini stated on record that the prosecution is withdrawing Charge I Specification I - even though it cannot be procedurally done after a motion is granted, and even though, by Mary Gasparini's own claims to the court under oath, she could not change the original petition in any way.

I guess, after Mary Gasparini read in my blog that she is being sued for bringing Charge I Specification I, for fraud upon the court, she no longer cared whether court rules applied or not - she needed to do something to, basically, save her own hide.

Yet, what she did was the opposite.  Now that she withdrew Charge I Specification I there are clear issues that she knew that the charge was fraudulent, but never withdrew it before it was granted by the incompetent referee.

Stay tuned for the documents I am going to publish in my next blog, including the entertaining recording of the referee "granting a motion" and denying me a public hearing.

I will also publish my proposed list of witnesses, subpenaed records and issues for discussion at today's scheduling conference  - that the referee did not care to review, since the only purpose of proceedings, I understand was to SHUT ME UP and to PREVENT ME FROM HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING that would EXPOSE CORRUPTION IN THE COURT SYSTEM.

Well, I certainly will not shut up, as this case stinks of corruption to high heaven.

As I said, please, stay tuned for my next blog-post, with the recording of the telephone conference with Referee Steven Sirkin where the referee states that he "granted the motion" without hearing the testimony, or even scheduling such a hearing, which is the only function that he was supposed to do by court order.

 And one thing I must say to Mary Gasparini - withdrawing a fraudulent charge AFTER you won several motions based on it, does not preclude me from proceeding against you with my lawsuit for fraud upon the court, especially that you did not withdraw the other fraudulent charge, Charge IV.

No comments:

Post a Comment