"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

Appellate Division 4th Department - Oh, what a tangled web they weave when first, second, third, etc. time they practice to ... mislead and discriminate against litigants the court does not like

Here is what I received today from Appellate Division 4th Department:

The letter is in direct contradiction to the previously issued directive to the Grievance Committee to file an Affidavit of objections to open proceedings to the public.

Before Ms.Gasparini filed her affidavit and before I had an opportunity to respond to it, the court already made a decision - through its clerk Ms.Carafell, and refused to produce to me an order of the court refusing to open court proceedings to the public, in compliance with New York State Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 4, subsection (b) (requiring that all decisions of an appellate court must be made not by its clerk, but by a quorum of four appellate justices with a concurrence of three appellate justices).

So, in the 4th Department it is the clerk making orders and interpreting the applicable law.

Interestingly enough, the 4th Department allows Mary Gasparini, an employee of that same court, to continue prosecuting the civil disciplinary case after Mary Gasparini filed a botched-up criminal proceeding (that the court had to dismiss before the initial appearance date, it was so bad), where Mary Gasparini was the prosecutor, sole complaining witness and the alleged victim, making Mary Gasparini absolutely disqualified from prosecuting the disciplinary case.

Obviously, the court is ok with this situation.

The only thing that the court is concerned about is how to keep the public and the press away from my disciplinary proceedings so that it does not witness a hearing of the PROSECUTION's motion to confirm that FABRICATED referee's report based on UNAUTHORIZED "decision" by the referee and upon FABRICATED court transcripts - which is uncontroverted.

After dismissing the criminal proceedings sua sponte on May 11, 2015, the clerk of the court has the audacity to tell me that I "voluntarily" decided to make my motions to disaffirm and for other relief on submitted basis, and not because I was forced, by the fact that Mary Gasparini's fabricated criminal charges against me, to "choose" whether to appear on the civil motion and at the same time run the risk of being arrested and locked up for the crazy charge of violating my own privacy - and possibly die in jail, because nobody at this point can guarantee my safety when in the custody of the New York State government, or whether to make the civil motions on submitted basis.

It is a real choice, I know.

After having taught Mary Gasparini how to properly file criminal charges against me - which Mary Gasparini, in view of her utter incompetence, failed to do anyway - the court now tells me that because I "chose" to make a motion to disaffirm on submitted basis, I cannot now ask that the proceedings, whether on submitted basis or otherwise, be open to the public.

The court does not recognize that the prosecutor MAY NOT make a motion to CONFIRM the referee's report on submitted basis, that such a motion can be done ONLY with a due process hearing in view of due process issues of my interest in my livelihood and reputation involved.

So, apparently, a hearing on the prosecutor's motion TO CONFIRM is a must - with the respective request to open that hearing to the public, even if the court chooses to exercise selective blindness and claim that my pending cross-motions were "voluntarily" filed on submitted basis only, even though I was forced to do that by Mary Gasparini's frivolous criminal charges - dismissed sua sponte before the initial appearance on those charges when I started to press the court to open all proceedings, including the criminal proceedings, to the public and the press.

We'll see what the "honorable" court will do next.

Stay tuned.

PS  By the way - note that this letter dated May 13, 2015 does not bear the usual stamp CONFIDENTIAL on top of it - so the proceedings are now open to the public, even though Ms.Carafell is pressuring me to jump through additional hoops to have the proceedings open to the public, even though the only thing the law requires of me is make a request to open and waive my privacy (which I did numerous times)?

No comments:

Post a Comment