Here is the argument of disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini of Syracuse, NY that attorney disciplinary proceedings - and criminal proceedings that she concocted based on such disciplinary proceedings - should not be open to the public.
Mary Gasparini does not know what all 1st year law students know - that in criminal cases the prosecuted person is a Defendant, not a Respondent. By positioning a criminal Defendant as a Respondent, Mary Gasparini attempts to confuse the court and shift it toward civil standards of proof and civil procedure, and away from constitutional protections required of all criminal cases.
Judiciary Law 4 provides:
§ 4. Sittings of courts to be public. The sittings of every court
within this state shall be public, and every citizen may freely attend
the same, except that in all proceedings and trials in cases for
- assault with intent to commit rape,
- criminal sexual act,
- bastardy or
- filiation, the court may, in its discretion, exclude therefrom all persons who are not directly interested therein, excepting jurors, witnesses, and officers of the court.
There is a rule of statutory interpretation that is drilled into law students from day one of law school - if a statute contains a list of exceptions, that list is exhaustive and nothing else may be added by interpretation.
Attorney disciplinary proceedings are not part of exceptions where, by New York statutory llaw, the court is given discretion to CLOSE proceedings to the public.
Yet, such a trifle as statutory law will not deter Mary Gasparini.
She stubbornly wants me in jail for breaking my own privacy and confidentiality.
This is what Mary Gasparini argues to the criminal court:
To coerce the court to impose upon me a criminal conviction secretly and without a hearing,Mary Gasparini cites are cases in civil criminal contempt where summary judgments are allowed.
Mary Gasparini also argues that publicly discussing issues of public concern - issues of prosecutorial misconduct and of HER OWN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY (using cooked cooked court transcripts) should be punished because the issue there is that I breached "confidentiality". Whose? My own, of course - New York State Court of Appeals clearly indicated that confidentiality protected in attorney disciplinary proceedings are designed to protect the attorney who is the subject of those proceedings.
First I was charged in a "civil" attorney disciplinary proceeding and prosecuted for NOT committing a crime of practicing law without a license - and 5 courts ignored that issue.
Now I am charged in a criminal proceeding for violating my own privacy and confidentiality.
We live in an increasingly Orwellian world - and the court will only persuade me what I already know if Mary Gasparini's request for a secret contempt of court finding on papers against me for violating my own privacy... I know for a long time that, at least in New York courts and in federal civil rights litigation the rule of law is dead.
Post a Comment