"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, February 6, 2015

It is illegal to jail an attorney for talking about her own disciplinary case - but when did the illegality of what she is doing stop attorney Mary Gasparini?

In 1978 the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case, Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978) that invalidated the law restricting publication of confidential records
of judicial discipline proceedings on the basis of 1st Amendment and the public's right to know about issues of judicial misconduct discussed in those proceedings.

My disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini was admitted to the bar in 1992.

Attorneys in New York get admitted to the bar at the age of 25-26 y.o. (a New Yorker graduates from high school at 18 + 4 years of college + 3 years of law school plus half a year until admission to the bar in January of the next year after graduation), so that puts her year of birth at around 1966. 

Mary Gasparini was approximately 12 years old when the U.S. Supreme Court case-on-point Landmark Communications Inc. was decided, Mary Gasparini did not even graduate from high school yet, but already learnt how to read (even though the way she acts suggests she lost the skill by now).

And, following the glorious traditions of disciplinary prosecutors in the State of New York, Mary Gasparini apparently lacks intellectual curiosity or due diligence to read applicable cases before attempting to charge people criminally.

May Gasparini attempted to charge me for "criminal contempt of court" for talking about my own disciplinary case on the blog, which is, according to Mary Gasparini, in violation of a court order based on Judiciary Law 90(10) which deems all records of attorney disciplinary proceeding "sealed".

Of course, it is technically impossible to seal all the public records upon disciplinary inquiries and proceedings against attorneys are based, see my blog post here listing mutliple exhibits from my disciplinary cross-motion which are "deemed sealed' by the same court order that Mary Gasparini claims I violated by talking about my disciplinary proceedings.  All of the "deemed sealed" papers remain in open access to the public, and custodians of such papers remain happily unaware that the papers are actually "deemed sealed".

Moreover, the same court where Mary Gasparini practices, NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division 4th Judicial Department, recently held that Judiciary Law 90(10) has a dual function and protects confidentiality of:

(1) the complainant if there is one in the proceedings (there is no complainant in my disciplinary proceedings, the petition was directly filed by the Committee for Professional Conduct without a complainant, plus the Petition is available on since the case was removed by me to a federal court and was not sealed by the federal court when it was remanded back to the state court) and

(2) the attorney who is the subject of the disciplinary proceeding, and I have expressly waived my own privacy, as any competent adult in the State of New York can do without any permission from anybody, and requested the court to make my proceedings public.

Yet, despite a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court on point which was decided before Mary Gasparini graduated from high school, and despite a precedent on point from her own court, the 4th Department, decided 6 years ago, Mary Gasparini rages on in her desire to punish me for violating my own privacy.

Of course, to put me in jail for violating my own privacy is beyond stupid, but when did that stop any government from acting, no matter how stupid and unlawful the action can be?

I guess, my privacy will be better protected in jail - thank you, Mary Gasparini, for your concern about me and my privacy, it is touching...  Even though, as I said before, let me sugar-coat the word a little bit - it is disingenuous (which in legalese means "stupid").   

No comments:

Post a Comment