"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 26, 2015

Education is no help when there is no integrity

Recently I blogged about judges in upstate New York justice courts who do not have to have legal education or, in fact, any level of formal education.

I raised that issue as a denial of equal protection and due process of law to criminal defendants prosecuted in front of such judges, as compared to criminal defendants prosecuted in front of County Judges, where, to be elected, a judge has to be an attorney with 10 years of experience.

Yet, all such educational requirements for any public official or licensed professional presuppose one thing - integrity.

Without integrity, one can be super-educated, and yet commit atrociously unfair, unjust and unlawful acts.

Like my disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini, of the Attorney Grievance Committee, Appellate Division 4th Judicial Department, 5th judicial district.

First of all, existence of attorney disciplinary committees is not supported by statute, and thus what Mary Gasparini is doing she may be doing completely without any authority - and I pointed that out recently to the United States Federal Trade Commission in a separate petition.

Yet, even without such a jurisdictional problem, people who are put in charge of protecting public safety while dealing with such fragile issues as people's livelihoods and reputations and investment of a lifetime into a profession, such people should be carefully chosen and must possess highest degree of competent in the applicable law and a highest degree of integrity.

And what must be included into the concept of integrity for a public prosecutor is - number one - ability to recognize, admit and correct mistakes, especially those mistakes that can do injustice and destroy livelihoods of the whole families.

And, competence may be considered part of integrity - if the public prosecutor simply does not know the record, does not know the applicable law, he or she must either research and learn both the facts and the applicable law BEFORE the prosecutor brings any charges, or not bring them at all.

Or, if obvious mistakes in the charges are pointed out to the prosecutor in the course of proceedings, civil or criminal, the prosecutor's ethical obligations, as well as constitutional obligations under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution upon which the prosecutor took an oath of office when he or she was elected (for criminal prosecutors) or appointed (for disciplinary prosecutors) to the job absolutely require him or her to correct the mistakes before the injustice is done.

What Mary Gasparini is doing in my case is the opposite.  In full knowledge of several grievous and obvious errors making charges impossible, fraudulent or unconstitutional, knowing full well that several significant procedural steps were skipped in my disciplinary proceedings so far, Mary Gasparini did not correct her mistakes at all, or, as to one charge that she withdrew after she was sued and after the referee made a "decision" covering several charges on the basis of that charge that was perched as the first and most important one.

On the very opposite, Mary Gasparini tried to make sure that my proceedings, fraud, skipped procedural steps and all, should be held in secret until the very end when there will be no opportunity to change anything, even though I waived my privacy several times, and my waiver is all that is needed under New York State law to open attorney disciplinary proceedings to the public. 

To ensure that no misconduct, her own or of the court who favors her at every turn and bulldozes toward a pre-judgment made months ago, judging by the court's conduct, be disclosed to the public, Mary Gaspraini had the audacity to try to intimidate me with now several filed criminal charges for "criminal contempt of court" - for exposing her own and the court's misconduct in such proceedings on this blog.

The most interesting part is that Mary Gasparini appears in these criminal charges as BOTH the only complaining witness, complaining about harm done to her personally, and a purported public prosecutor of the case - which stinks already, not that Mary Gasparini cares that what she is doing is absolutely illegal.

Mary Gasparini, apparently, does not care that criminal contempt of court has, as an element to be proven beyond the reasonable doubt, that the court order that I allegedly violated, must be lawful.  A statute, Judiciary law 4, a New York State Court of Appeals precedent on point, and several U.S. Supreme Court precedents clearly state that as soon as I waive my own privacy and confidentiality, my proceedings are open to the public.  The law gives me control of whether proceedings that can potentially take my law license be open to the public or not.

The court, without any explanation as to its reasoning, took that statutory and constitutional right away from me, which, based on applicable law, is not a "lawful order of the court" and cannot possibly be proven beyond the reasonable doubt, or even by preponderance of the evidence.

Yet, for Mary Gasparini, the law is not important.  The result is.  So, Gasparini is pushing to win her case, and the law be damned.  And she is doing that allegedly to protect the public from me, while all she is doing is depriving the public of the only attorney in a large rural area who is willing and capable to sue the government on behalf of people whose constitutional rights are violated.  That is a clear disservice to the public.

To conceal that Mary Gasparini is actually hurting the public under the guise of protecting it, Mary Gasparini insisted to the court that the very public she is allegedly seeking to protect should not be allowed into my court proceedings to observe the "protection process".

Moreover, Mary Gasparini aggressively asks the court, repeatedly, and despite knowledge that her arguments have no basis in the law or fact, that I should be criminally punished (by jail time and high fines no less) for making my own proceedings public, which the law allows me to do by a simple waiver of privacy, without any motions, and especially for exposing her misconduct and misconduct of other public officials involved in my disciplinary proceedings, to the point of fabricating of court transcripts, proven by audio recordings that do not match such court transcripts.

"Kill the messenger" is a very old principle of those in power.

Only when those in power kill the messenger of the inconvenient truth about themselves, and they make sure the public should not be able to be the witness of how the murder occurred, they lose their legitimacy and their right to claim that they are actually killing the messenger to protect the public from that messenger instead of protecting their own backside from the public's legitimate rage as a reaction to the message.

And that backside stinks.

No comments:

Post a Comment