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
To the public in Delaware County and State of New York - what Referee Sirkin and attorney Mary Gasparini did not want you to know
Now I decided to publish my tentative list of witnesses, records that I was planning to subpoena and issues that I was planning to discuss at the today's conference - issues pertaining to the hearing that I was not allowed to have by the referee, even though I was granted that right by the court.
Moreover, a retired judge cannot make decisions in attorney disciplinary cases, only elected judges can.
Here is my tentative list of witnesses (that I was not allowed to present to Sirkin because he "granted the motion" instead of holding a scheduling conference for a hearing ordered by the court), where many prominent attorneys, county and state officials, social workers, judges, judge's friends and attorneys for judge's friends, as well as every one of the members of the attorney disciplinary committees prosecuting me were going to be called as hostile witnesses (New York allows to impeach your own witness if there is a written statement by that witness contrary to what the witness is testifying to, and I had such statements).
Here is the list of public records I was going to subpoena on my rebuttal case (records of social services and NYS Office of Children and Family services would have provided clear evidence that Judge Becker was disqualified from presiding over Alecia Bracci and Barbara O'Sullivan's proceedings by his extrajudicial knowledge - and misconduct - at the time he was an attorney, before he became a judge).
I also wanted to subpoena relevant court records that my prosecution never read and put into the court outrageously false statements because they never read the records properly, and relevant records of the court escrow funds that prosecution never sought before fraudulently claiming that I did not pay the sanctions imposed upon me by Judge Becker after I sued him.
Here are the list of issues that I was going to raise today and that I was never allowed to raise - because Sirkin "granted the motion" to the prosecution instead of doing his job.
Don't get me wrong, when I raise issues of how to subpoena witnesses and records, I do not seek legal advice from the referee.
The reason I am asking is - I wrote about it in my previous blog - there is no procedural device in attorney disciplinary proceedings allowing subpoenas of witnesses and records, and there are no rules addressing applicability of normal evidentiary rules to such proceedings, while a recent survey by the New York State bar association singles out NYS Appellate Division 4th Department as having no subpoena rules in attorney disciplinary proceedings, no discovery rights and no evidentiary rules during such proceedings.
As an experienced trial attorney, I am entitled to know before the hearing commenced - what rules are applicable if no rules are announced?
I will post the audio recording of my conversation today with Referee Sirkin (in the presence of the prosecutor Mary Gasparini, I was appearing by phone) where Referee Sirkin deflects my questions as to how subpoenas of witnesses will be handled by claiming I am asking him for a legal advice, I am an attorney and I should know how to do legal work. I am an attorney and I know my business, only there are no rules applicable to how to do my business in attorney disciplinary proceedings, and that's why I asked the referee - what rules will he apply when there are no rules?
Here are the issues I wanted to raise at the pre-trial scheduling conference:
As you understand, it would have been a very interesting hearing if I was given a true due process opportunity to show to the Delaware County public (where I reside and have my law office), why exactly I am prosecuted by the disciplinary commission, and how exactly crooked the local and state judiciary system and certain individual judges and attorneys are.
But - referee Sirkin got scared to allow the public to see how he is protecting the public from me.
I hope the the NYS Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court would accept this outrageous and unlawful case for review.
Even if they do not and even if my law license is taken - I reflected enough in my blog for the public to see that it was taken in the most crooked fashion, which suggest the most crooked motives of those who have taken it.