THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"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, April 19, 2015
Disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini rewrote state and federal law to help herself
My disciplinary prosecutor outdid herself in her own stupidity.
In addition to the previously filed criminal charges for contempt of court - for violating my own privacy - Mary Gasparini filed additional purported criminal charges, of course, without following any formalities required for that by the criminal law.
Now Mary Gasparini wants the court to additionally punish me for criminal contempt of court for the following:
1) because criminal charges against me appeared on this blog (criminal proceedings in New York are public and there was no sealing orders in criminal proceedings);
2) because the "Decision" of Referee Sirkin appeared on this blog (decisions that are without authority to make may not be deemed part of court proceedings, and Referee Sirkin had not authority to make decisions in my disciplinary case);
3) because Mary Gasparini's own conduct prosecutable as a state crime (attempted fraud upon the court and conspiracy to commit such fraud upon the court) and as a federal crime (RICO, wire fraud, theft of honest services of a public official) was reported on this blog.
Actions of a public official which are outside of his or her authority and which are criminal (which is per se outside of his or her authority) may not be officially deemed part of any proceedings.
To crown it all, Mary Gasparini acts as the main complaining witness in the same criminal proceedings proceedings which she purports to bring as a prosecutor, violating all possible rules of prosecutorial ethics, as well as constitutional law requiring public prosecutors to be impartial - and how much impartiality can you expect from a complaining witness trying to avenge exposure of her own criminal misconduct?
Well, I did know that attorneys who are part of or represent attorney disciplinary committees in New York are so drunk of their own power and the feeling of impunity that they completely forget that they are not immune from criminal prosecution - and Mary Gasparini is simply asking to be criminally prosecuted and put behind bars, hopefully federal bars, where she belongs as the criminal that she is.
Unless, of course, committing fraud upon the court and submitting to the court falsified transcripts have suddenly become legal.