"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, March 9, 2015

The referee did exactly as Mary Gasparini told him to do - filed a false report claiming there was a hearing and I had a "reasonable notice" of it, and accompanied it with a falsified transcript

The referee filed a report in my case which is practically a word-for-word copy of the disciplinary prosecutor's "Proposed Referee's Report", urging the referee to falsely tell the court that there was a hearing in the case on "reasonable notice" to me, which never happened (and that's why the disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini attempted to commence a criminal proceeding against me, for catching her red-handed in offering fabricated court transcripts to the referee and urging him to present that transcript as true to the court).

Compare the "Proposed Referee's Report" by Mary Gasparini

and the actual Referee's Report dated February 17, 2015 and, according to the letter of the clerk of the court, filed with the court on February 19, 2015:

The referee falsely presented to the court, as Mary Gasparini urged him to do, that the transcript of the January 12, 2015 conference claiming that it was a hearing where I appeared as a witness and testified, is a "true and correct" copy of what occurred during that appearance.

I already posted here the two recording of the "scheduled pre-trials", of the pre-trial conference of October 23, 2014, and of the pre-trial conference of January 12, 2015.  The recording of the October 23, 2014 conference clearly shows that I ask the referee whether the next appearance will be a "hearing", and he clearly answers me (which was not reflected in the transcript of that conference) that it will NOT be a hearing.

Yet, the referee submitted to the court a transcript of the next appearance, that occurred on January 12, 2015, which said it was a "hearing" where I was "called as a witness" and "testified" (without a reference, on whose behalf I did that, and without direct or cross-examination).

Apparently, since the court imposes no discipline on its referees and no discipline on disciplinary prosecutors committing fraud upon the court, such cooking of the transcripts and presenting false evidence to the court will continue.

It is interesting to mention that at the very same time that the referee called the January 12, 2015 appearance "a scheduled pre-trial", the referee has made "findings of fact" without holding any evidentiary hearings (trials, not "pre-trials"), and that was exactly as the disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini has frivolously and fraudulently urged him to do, in complete defiance of court order of September 30, 2015 directing the referee to "take proof", meaning "to conduct an evidentiary hearing", on notice to me - and that never happened.

So, this is one more count of successful fraud upon the court by disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini.  Apparently, when there is no control or oversight over actions of such public officials, misconduct is, as is expected to be, rampant.

No comments:

Post a Comment