"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.

Monday, May 11, 2015

Dumber and dumber...

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
  • divorce, 
  • seduction, 
  • abortion, 
  • rape, 
  • 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment