"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.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Judge Lippman continues to parade his incompetence. Now it is the presumption of innocence that the judge does not seem to be aware of.

I wrote on this blog before about lack of competence of Judge Lippman who ascended to be the Chief Judge of the State of New York through influence of his now-indicted buddy Sheldon Silver.

In his addresses to graduates at law school graduations Judge Lippman calls graduates who yet have to sit for the bar and obtain a law license "lawyers".

Yet, New York criminal statutes make it a crime for anybody without a license represent him- or herself as being a lawyer.

I guess, for a judge the law is different.

Moreover, in his decisions at the Court of Appeals level Judge Lippman picks and chooses which constitutional violations are substantial and which are insubstantial, even though there is no such distinction under the U.S. Constitution that he is sworn to uphold and protect.

I made a whole series of posts about Judge Lippman's "State of the Judiciary" address in 2015, self-praising judges and paying no attention in his speech to the rampant judicial misconduct permeating state courts and the culture of fear that is spread among attorneys who are afraid to raise their voices against such misconduct for fear of retaliation from judges, against themselves and their clients, to the point of losing their licenses, reputations and livelihoods.

You can simply word-search the word "Lippman" on this blog to see my previous posts about Judge Lippman's accomplishments.

Yesterday, Judge Lippman made yet another blunder that shows just how unprepared this judge is for the job he is doing.

In an interview pertaining to the new system of issuing tickets instead of summonses for possession of small amounts of marijuana in New York City, Judge Lippman was quoted by the media to have said the following:

“These are people who are not hardened criminals, they are normal people.  They have jobs, they have families and there has got to be a way to treat them with respect and dignity and get them back to their lives.”

Last time I checked, presumption of innocence equally applied to ALL criminal defendants, whether charged with possession of "small amounts of marijuana" or - and especially - those who are charged with murder.

The more serious the charge - the higher the risk for the criminal defendant - the more seriously presumption of innocence must be handled and treated by the court.

Yet, to Judge Lippman, the Chief Judge of a large state no less, people who are ticketed are "normal people" and "not hardened criminals" - as opposed to whom?  Defendants charged with felonies?

Isn't it included into every jury instruction that a court must deliver to a criminal jury that even an indictment for a felony - no matter what kind of felony - is not evidence, and lay candidates for trial juries are eliminated for failure to understand the concept of the criminal defendant's presumption of innocence.

When the Chief Judge of the State of New York has no understanding of that concept, and instead, publicly professes an amateurish belief that people must be treated differently based on what they are charged with - that is downright scary.   


No comments:

Post a Comment