"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.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Richard Harlem at his sleaziest...

Received a letter today from attorney Richard Harlem, son-of-a-judge representing plaintiffs in the Mokay litigation, see my blog post "the Mokay saga", you can also word-search this blog for "Mokay" and "Richard Harlem".

It appears that Mr. Harlem is nervous as to the upcoming trial at the beginning of April of this year.

Because with his letter, Mr. Harlem returned to me witness checks that I provided together with service of subpoenas on Mr. Harlem's clients and one employee (now a former employee) in 2012, when the trial was scheduled for August 2012.

Then Judge Becker recused, the trial was scheduled for November 2013.

Then Richard Harlem's "trial counsel" allegedly got sick 3 weeks before the jury trial date, but I got notified only 3 days prior to the trial date.

The trial was adjourned without a date over my vigorous objections.

The trial was then scheduled for May of 2014.

Once again, right before the trial Richard Harlem's "trial counsel" allegedly got sick again, and again, over my vigorous objection, the trial was adjourned without a date - and that is, after my husband and I were sanctioned for delaying litigation!

Mr. Harlem was not even supposed to have witness checks for his clients, he should have passed them over to his clients and to the employee at the time of service back in 2012.

For 3 years he keeps the checks that were not meant for him, and on the eve of trial, returns them to me with a claim on behalf of his clients called as hostile witnesses, and even on behalf of his former employee, that the checks were not cashed (naturally, since Richard Harlem withheld them from their addressees), that they are "stale" now and that  I need to re-issue new checks now.

It is interesting actually to ask Mr. Harlem a question - why did he withhold the checks?

Why did he return the checks to me, especially the check meant for Richard Harlem's former employee, one month before the trial while the trial date was set in early January?

Why did Mr. Harlem never notify me before the trial dates in November of 2013 and in May of 2014 that the checks were never cashed?

And, by the way, why does that matter?

The law provides for giving the witnesses the money for mileage, and I did.  If the witnesses chose to throw that money into the garbage or not to cash the check - that is their problem and certainly does not entitle them not to come and testify, or for a re-issue of the checks now.

And if those witnesses do not come to testify claiming the "stale checks", I will certainly move to hold them in contempt of court - together with Mr. Harlem who was apparently actively trying to filibuster their testimony.

No comments:

Post a Comment