"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, February 16, 2015

Judge Tormey has a distinct tendency of discriminating against females working in the court system. I wonder when finally the State of New York will clean the bench of Judge Tormey's presence.

As I indicated in my previous blog post, Bobette Morin sued Judge James Tormey in 2007, won a denial of a summary judgment, and obtained a $600,000 settlement in 2011 on the eve of trial.

Her claim against Judge Tormey was discrimination and retaliation after she refused to do his bidding and spy on a judge and judicial candidate in the upcoming at that time judicial elections.  Judge Tormey, according to Ms. Morin's affidavit filed with the court, retaliated against her by demoting her, inconveniencing her by assignments requiring her to travel hundreds of miles, assigning her to moldy rooms, etc.

Nancy Rodriguez-Walker (Walker) is suing Judge Tormey now, for discrimination against her and practically for conspiring with his buddy and law school roommate Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick to block Ms. Rodriguez-Walker's assignments as an interpreter to criminal cases which provided to her 95% of her livelihood, according to her lawsuit filed in federal court on January 15, 2015.

In my own case, even though I am not a court employee, I am an attorney and officer of the court, Judge Tormey relentlessly pursued me and sanctioned me, even though it was pointed out to him that he was absolutely disqualified from presiding over a case where my opponent asks Judge Tormey to sanction me, in part, for suing Judge Tormey himself in federal court.

What is amazing  - that with all affidavits of witnesses available, Judge Tormey was never pursued criminally for engaging court employees in political espionage, for theft of honest services of a public official.

It appears to be a pattern that Judge Tormey does not like women working in the court system - especially women who challenge his misconduct.

He engages in relentless campaigns to discriminate against such women and reduce their livelihoods or deprive them of their livelihoods altogether.

And in our day and age, this is intolerable and should not be tolerated any further.

No comments:

Post a Comment