"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.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

It is an official big secret - I am not guilty of criminal contempt

Here is what I received today from the Appellate Division 4th Judicial Department.

What was surprising is that the decision to deny the "motion" for criminal contempt was made on May 11, 2015, before the initial appearance on May 26, 2011, sua sponte.  It shows just how bad Mary Gasparini's "motion" really was that the court saved her the embarrassment of having to argue her screwed up case.

As you can read in the order denying the "motion" for criminal contempt, the order itself and papers upon which it was made is a big secret and it is confidential, so forget you ever saw what you saw on this blog post.

But know that when judges and prosecutors screwed up, they try to hide it by sealing what cannot possibly be sealed - a criminal proceeding.

As I recall, recently a couple of judges and a prosecutor begged a court to destroy evidence of their misconduct (texting during a criminal trial), and wanted their texts made on cell phones that were issued and paid for by the government, to be sealed as private.

And they lost.

Here, the court conveniently uses the pretense of power to seal a proceeding that the court knows it cannot seal because of my waiver of confidentiality - as to disciplinary proceedings.  The criminal proceedings can never be sealed in this state.

Of course, to say that the dismissal of a criminal proceeding is confidential under Judiciary Law 90(10) is laughable, because Judiciary Law 90(10) does not make civil disciplinary proceedings confidential due to my waiver of confidentiality and applicable law, and Judiciary Law 90(10) does not apply to criminal proceedings, especially to proceedings contested on jurisdictional grounds (with which jurisdictional challenges the court apparently agreed).

And, of course, if the court had no jurisdiction to review the criminal contempt proceedings to begin with (not being "the court of record" and for many more jurisdictional deficiencies pointed out in my Memorandum of Law, upon which the court relied in denying the "motion" for criminal contempt), the court has no authority to seal the proceedings either, especially for no good cause shown.

Anyway, the court has cast me a bone so far, saying - here, calm down, we are not putting you in the Monroe County Jail for 30 days per pop, as Mary Gasparini asked us to do, and there were approximately 7 or 8 pops that I counted, so Mary Gasparini asked the court to put me for 8 months in jail for exposing her misconduct, incompetence and outright fraud, fabrication of court transcripts.

Am I glad?

It is too little and, possibly, too late.

The court cannot give me back my nerves, health and money spent on fighting the frivolous criminal charges.  I will not be the same person and the same attorney again, not after being charged with a crazy charge of violating my own privacy - and having to fight it for months!

My trust in integrity of our court system was forever destroyed in how the courts were handling my disciplinary case, including the criminal case that was fabricated as part of it - and the order denying the criminal contempt, but sealing itself, does not restore that trust.

It is a bittersweet victory since the "motion"  had to be dismissed sua sponte when it was filed, as clearly having multiple jurisdictional defects, plus it was brought by a prosecutor-witness-alleged victim, which was unacceptable by any canons of due process of law.

Moreover, the denial of the motion came conspicuously only after I demanded that the fabricated criminal proceedings, as well as the already prejudged, premature and fabricated attorney disciplinary "mitigation hearing" that is to be held without a judgment of liability, and without a court-ordered evidentiary hearing be open to the public, and after I demanded that the court should provide to me names of judges who authored "directives" referred to me as if coming from the court by the court's clerk and the court's appellate attorney.

So, the bone that was cast to me has strings attached and is actually an implied admission that the court screwed up - badly, and an implied request not to press farther - and I will.

Of course, the best course of conduct that I would undertake, had I been in the court's shoes (if I would be the counsel advising the court), I would dismiss the entire disciplinary petition of the Grievance Committee, as fabricated and unconstitutional, because then I would have an authority under Judiciary Law 90(10) to seal documents in such proceedings.

Otherwise, all of the court's shameful shenanigans in my disciplinary case will continue to be public.

No comments:

Post a Comment