"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.

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Mary Gasparini shows her skills in "dealing with difficult attorneys" by trying to fix the mess by messing the mess.

Here is the masterpiece of my disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini, "Dealing with Difficult Attorneys".

Here is how she is dealing with "difficult attorneys", critics of the judiciary:

(1) by brigning and prosecuting fraudulent charges against such attorneys;
(2) by presenting to the court, without an attempts to correct them, court transcripts containing false statements on material issues of litigations;
(3) by making false claims to the courts regarding the contents of the transcripts through incompetence, malice, inability to read or a combination of these qualities, see also here;
(4) by urging the referees to submit to the court falsified transcripts as if they truly reflect the essence of the proceedings;
(5) by retaliating against attorneys who expose her misconduct and who sue her by criminally prosecuting such "difficult" attorneys;
(6) by choosing for her criminal prosecutions truly stupid (not to mention unlawful) grounds, such as the grounds Mary Gasparini asserted against me, that I waived my own privacy without consent of court and must, opened the already open public proceeding and should go to jail for 30 days for doing that.   

Mary Gasparini had mandatory law in front of her when bringing those criminal charges, clearly indicating that a person may not be prosecuted criminally in New York on such grounds.

 Moreover, Mary Gasparini brought these meritless and clearly politically tainted criminal charges against me in full knowledge that it is attorney misconduct to bring a criminal case against your opponent to get an advantage in a civil case, and attorney disciplinary committees claim that attorney disciplinary proceedings are civil cases.

So, Mary Gasparini tries to get an advantage over me in a messed up disciplinary case by bringing an even more messed up criminal proceedings against me, in retaliation for my lawsuit against her that I brought for prosecuting unlawful disciplinary charges in the first place.   

Brilliant logic.

Try fixing the mess by messing the mess.

The soap opera continues.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment