"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.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Poor, poor Ms. Gasparini

Disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini wants to have the court punish me for allegedly revealing what was in my disciplinary proceedings despite a prohibition from a court order (which was not true, of course, but she does not care anyway).

The problem that Mary Gasparini has is that now she has an interest to either:

(1) withdraw the entire disciplinary proceedings against me, or;
(2) drag those proceedings on so that the proceedings should never end, which is impossible even for her.


Because by Judiciary Law 90(10) as soon as attorney disciplinary proceeding ends and an attorney's license is suspended or revoked, ALL records of such proceedings become public as a matter of statutory law.

Of course, records of criminal proceedings are also open to the public, with only three exceptions:

(1)  identity of sex offense victim (and only after conviction);
(2) pre-sentencing report of the defendant;
(3) identity of a confidential informant who did not testify.

None of these exceptions apply in my case, so records of my civil-turned-criminal proceedings under the civil caption are now open to the public, thanks to Mary Gasparini.

This is the first time I see (and I represented people in disciplinary proceedings and researched a number of cases all over this country) when I see disciplinary prosecutors fighting so desperately against the attorney they are prosecuting trying to prevent the attorney from revealing to the public what exactly they are doing in the disciplinary proceedings.

Mary Gasparini's desperation got to the point that she forgot completely what she was doing and inadvertently opened proceedings to the public by attempting to make them criminal - filing a "notice of motion", in a civil action, for criminal contempt of court against me.

Poor, poor Mary Gasparini.

I understand that the whip that you are holding over the heads of attorneys in this state is so scary that you think you do not have to know the law or have any shred of integrity to be a disciplinary prosecutor.

But, sometimes you slip on your own incompetence, misconduct and desire for revenge.

Poor, poor Mary Gasparini.

What will you do now that you opened the very records that you wanted the public not to see?

No comments:

Post a Comment