"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.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Mary Gasparini: violations of constitutional rights are remedied by pleas of mercy

Imagine a prosecutor telling a criminal defendant:  yes, you were not given a trial, and I admit that.

But the decision not to give you a trial (even though you are entitled to it by law) was made, and, therefore, all your claims that you are entitled to a trial are now moot.

And - after all, you have a remedy of addressing the court at sentencing, so you were not deprived of any rights.


Sounds insane?

It does.

Yet, here is what my disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini stated to the court in her May 15, 2015 affirmation, under oath:

That is exactly the same as the insane hypothetical above - Mary Gasparini believes that, if a court ordered not a judge, but referee Sirkin, to hold an evidentiary hearing, if Sirkin refused to do that, thus defying a court order and engaging in a crime of contempt of court (with Mary Gasparini's whole-hearted support) - and because Sirkin refused to do what the court ordered him to do, in Mary Gasparini's opinion, the issue of whether I am entitled to the evidentiary hearing and whether the court has authority to proceed when no such court-ordered hearing was held, is somehow "moot".

This is my response to the court to Mary Gasparini's above learned contentions.  I think Mary Gasparini is incompetent, not to mention that her demonstrated willingness to commit fraud upon the court and unwillingness to diligently do her job should forever bar her from wasting taxpayers' money and from any public employment.

No comments:

Post a Comment