"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.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

A summary judgment in a criminal case? We'll see...

I wrote on this blog that my disciplinary prosecutor (in the case which is claimed civil by New York law) also brought a criminal proceeding against me, for opening my own disciplinary proceedings to the public, which is what I am absolutely allowed to do by law.

In that criminal proceeding for contempt of court Ms. Gasparini - who has the audacity to lecture to attorneys about legal ethics during her taxpayer-paid time as a disciplinary prosecutor (by the way, her position is not supported by existing law) - acts as a prosecutor, as the sole complaining witness and as the alleged victim, which constitutes gross prosecutorial misconduct.

Now Ms. Gasparini, who has absolutely no clue as to criminal law and procedure, asks the court for a summary judgment without a hearing in a criminal case, where no such thing is available in criminal law.

We will see whether the court will "do the right thing", apply the law and toss Gasparini's self-interested and incompetent ravings - or violate the law, punish me for violating my own privacy.

I won't be surprised if the latter happens.

After all, several courts, since January 2013, disregarded court records clearly indicating that I was fraudulently prosecuted for an insane charge - for NOT practicing law without a license in 2008 (for not committing a crime).

After all, the disciplinary court pretends it is unaware that I have a right to open proceedings to the public and that Judiciary Law 90(10) that is used to seal documents in such proceedings may only be used as a shield for the attorney who is the subject of the investigation and never as a sword (the way Mary Gasparini is attempting to use it against me).

Throughout these proceedings, disciplinary prosecutors from two appellate divisions acted as if they have no clue of the applicable law or rules of evidence - not to mention of the attorney disciplinary rules requiring of every attorney, including a disciplinary prosecutor, elementary competency.

So - we will see whether the court will grant a summary judgment in a secret criminal case brought by the alleged victim/witness/prosecutor Gasparini to punish me for violating my own privacy.

It gets loonier and loonier by the day.

On the other hand, this case clearly highlights the problem that we have in New York (and in this country) not only in attorney disciplinary cases, but in all cases - the rule of law is dead, because justice is not blind.

Judges are actively considering status of who is asking for relief, and not legality of relief asked or legality of procedure followed.

Status trumps the rule of law practically every time in the courts and in front of judges of New York two appellate divisions that I am familiar with (3rd and 4th Departments).

The same is true with many lower court judges where I appeared as an attorney over my legal career.

Reports in the media and social media show that this situation is pervasive throughout the U.S.

Welcome to the Star Chamber where we will remain until we, as citizens of this country, undertake to introduce effective measures to address rampant misconduct of public officials, including and especially the judiciary and prosecutors - whether "civil" or criminal prosecutors.

No comments:

Post a Comment