"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.

Saturday, February 7, 2015

What happens to people who file false criminal charges in retaliation for civil lawsuits filed against them? Depends who files such false criminal charges?

Mary Gasparini attempted to charge me criminally for violating allegedly three "mandates" of the court:

(1) an order of December 17, 2014 that "sealed" my disciplinary proceeding pursuant to Judiciary Law 90(10) which protects, according to the case decided by the same court in 2009, either the complainant in such a proceeding (and in my proceeding there was no complainant) or the attorney who is subject of the disciplinary proceeding (and I expressly waived my privacy and confidentiality in these proceedings); I already wrote that Mary Gasparini (the disciplinary prosecutor) is uniquely trying to put me in jail in punishment for violating my own privacy - an outrageously stupid and incompetent move, but I did not see anything but stupid and incompetent moves from Mary Gasparini in these proceedings;  such a "mandate" may not be legal, as explained here, and a criminal contempt of court for this mandate does not lie;  see also the list of papers that the court has "sealed" under this order which shows just how laughable a "sealing" order under Judiciary Law 90(10) is;

(2) this letter by the court clerk dated December 31, 2014 and written when the court was not in session, explaining to me that I need to provide to the court a "good cause" to waive my own privacy in my own disciplinary proceedings; a letter of a clerk is not a mandate of the court for purposes of criminal contempt of court proceedings, and criminal charges for violating the "mandate" of a "letter" of a court clerk may not be used, in my legal opinion  after diligent research, to start a criminal proceeding against a person;

(3) this letter by the court clerk dated January 9, 2015, see my blog post here.  The court pretended to have sent it to me to my unplugged fax machine on January 7, 2015.  The prosecutor Mary Gasparini had delivered to me personally on January 12, 2015, acting as an agent of the court and further disqualifying herself. 

The letter was written when the court, and written to me similarly when the court was not in session, invites me to make a motion to disqualify the referee.

Neither of the letters may be considered as a "lawful mandate of the court" for purposes of a criminal contempt proceeding.

And I remind my readers that Mary Gasparini has filed the false criminal charges against me after and appears like in retaliation, because I sued her on December 10, 2014 for fraud upon the court and blogged about the filing of the lawsuit the same day.

But - since a disciplinary prosecutor is bringing this crap, excuse my French, she will probably be allowed to proceed, and even win.  She has never lost before, no matter how frivolous, fraudulent, stupid and outright insane her claims were.

We will see what happens.  Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment