"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.

Friday, January 16, 2015

With the two new judges on the New York State Court of Appeals with such "stellar" credentials as Leslie Stein's and Eugene Fahey's people of the State of New York will now be royally screwed

Oh, the law of coincidences.

In October of 2014 Governor Cuomo recommended to the NYS Court of Appeals Judge Leslie Stein of the Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, under circumstances presenting an appearance of corruption, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Now Governor Cuomo nominated to the NYS Court of Appeals judge Eugene Fahey of the Appellate Division 4th Department who (1) denies constitutional motions without arguments; (2) imposes, without notice or opportunity to be heard, anti-filing injunctions on litigants who ask for reasoned court decisions; and (3) refuses to open court proceedings pertaining to litigants' fundamental constitutional rights, even when litigants waive their right to privacy, see here and here.

Two judges who, coincidentally or not, engaged in misconduct in my appellate cases and are trying hard to have me disbarred without looking at the record or law in front of them, for public criticism of rampant judicial misconduct in New York State court system in general, and in their courts in particular.  Two judges who were rewarded, immediately after they ruled against me, with the highest judgships in the State of New York.  A coincidence?  It remains to be seen...

Eugene Fahey called the nomination "humbling".  It would be more humbling for me if Eugene Fahey is taken off the bench for his incompetence and misconduct.  Such arrogance in dealing with constitutional arguments and civil rights as Judge Fahey demonstrated in my case comes only with years of practice, so there must be many more cases that Judge Fahey decided in a similar fashion, with complete and total disregard of the record and the law, including constitutional law, with the only eye at political benefits that his decision will bring him in favoring a politically connected party or the government.  It paid off, as we all now see.

Please, note that New York State Court of Appeals has an extremely restricted jurisdiction, and the only "as of right" appeals that New York state litigants can file there are appeals for violations of constitutional rights.

This particular judge, who rejected constitutional arguments at the previous level without an explanation and punished a litigant for as much as asking for a reasoned explanation with an anti-filing injunction is, certainly, a perfect choice for the job to deflect those pesky litigants from EVER being able to get through the judicial system and to have their constitutional arguments heard anywhere in New York courts.

People of the State of New York!

Remember my prediction.  If these two judges are appointed to the NYS Court of Appeals, you and your civil rights will be truly, completely and royally screwed.

No comments:

Post a Comment