"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.

Friday, May 15, 2015

19 seconds per exhibit! Judge Kevin Dowd makes record speed in accepting multipage exhibits at the ex parte secret trial without looking at them

I obtained the "non-jury trial minutes" from the Delaware County Supreme Court for the trial that was held by Judge Kevin Dowd (subpoenaed witness in the case) ex parte, after Judge Dowd diagnosed me without seeing me and rejected my doctor's diagnosis as being "without merit" and deeming me not appearing at the trial without good cause (of course, an immigrant female attorney may not have a good cause not to appear at Judge Dowd's trial, even with a properly diagnosed medical injury, it is only American-born male attorneys who are given adjournments for medical reasons for the asking by Judge Dowd).

The non-jury trial minutes copy of which I received directly from the Delaware County Supreme Court Clerk, did not have a stamp that it was filed officially with the court, and the index of the case Mokay v. Mokay did not have an indication, as of yesterday, that the non-jury trial minutes made (allegedly) on April 7, 2015 were filed with the court:

The "non-jury trial" (jury was dismissed because Judge Dowd deemed that I waived jury trial for my client by injuring my back and not appearing for that reason) started at 10;39 am and evidence was closed at 1:24 pm, with a lunch break from 11:57 am to 1:15 pm.

Thus, the net time of the trial for receipt of evidence was 1 hour 18 minutes before noon and a whopping 9 minutes in the afternoon, for the total of 1 hour 27 minutes.

That is, ladies and gentlemen, 87 minutes of the court's valuable time that was spent on the trial.

During those 87 minutes of the court's valuable time the court (Judge Dowd) accepted: 

  • 273 documentary exhibits, of those 240 exhibits were accepted, without any foundation testimony, at the opening of the trial
  • 22 exhibits were received during testimony of Richard  Harlem, Esq., in a peculiar manner - the exhibits were first received and only then offered to Richard Harlem for identification
  • Then, the witness on the stand offers 7 exhibits without foundation testimony, and they are received, and then
  • Richard Harlem identifies 2 "business records" (billing records" and they are received.

I have to say that Judge Kevin Dowd, probably, made it into the Guinness book of records in the speed with which he accepted 273 documentary exhibits contained in several large boxes, during the time period when the judge was not able to even read those exhibits and see whether they are relevant to the trial.

87 minutes to accept 273 multi-page documentary exhibits.

That is, 19.12 seconds per exhibit.  Record speed! Way to go, Judge Dowd!

Of course, the judge did not care whether anything Richard Harlem offers is relevant to the trial, Judge Dowd would have accepted against my husband anything at all, whether relevant or not, as long as it was against my husband.

It is not surprising that Judge Dowd instructed court security to mislead the public that the trial was concluded when the jury was dismissed, so that nobody would see the particulars of how the judge DID NOT read what is offered in evidence to the court - because he COULD NOT read multi-page documents at the speed of 19.12 seconds per each, it is simply not physically possible.

We will see what kind of ex parte decision the ex parte non-public trial produced.

That, ladies and gentlemen, was a definition of a "speedy" trial - I only wonder why Judge Dowd bothered to come to conduct it.  He could just as well have ordered Richard Harlem to deliver boxes of evidence into his chambers, he accepted additional evidence in his chambers from Richard Harlem anyway.

But the Attorney Hartmann, a seasoned lawyer, actually asked the court what Attorney Hartmann knew the court had no authority to give to him - a continuation of jurisdiction over the trial on damages, after the trial on damages was over, to submit evidentiary materials post-trial and to hold additional hearings on damages post-trial.

I am holding my breath whether Judge Dowd will grant that request.

Nothing is impossible for Judge Dowd when he is trying to bend over backwards for a son of a judge Richard Harlem - and to exact revenge against my husband for suing Judge Dowd and exposing him as incompetent, which this trial only confirms tenfold.

No comments:

Post a Comment