"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, June 19, 2015

Delaware County Supreme Court/ Judge Kevin Dowd continue to deny me access to trial exhibits upon which Judge Dowd based his decision in the Mokay case

On May 22, 2015 Kelly Sanfilippo, Court Clerk of the Delaware County Supreme Court denied me access to trial exhibits admitted by the court on April 7, 2015 in the Mokay trial, and of the list of exhibits created by herself that she said she had, but did not file waiting for the decision in the case.

Prior to that, Richard Harlem's office "allowed" me access only under supervision of his paralegal, to be paid by my client at over $100/hour (review required at least two full days - it was two full boxes of certified records claimed to be from the Delaware County Clerk's office).

I asked the court to compel Richard Harlem to file the records allegedly certified by the court's clerk Sharon O'Dell with the court where such certified records belonged.  The court did not indicate to me whether the judge was on a vacation or not at the time of my inquiry, but Claudette Newman indicated to me that the judge may not grant orders based on letters. 

Judge Dowd did grant orders based on letters before and after my letter, only to Richard Harlem and NYS Attorney General, Judge Dowd's own counsel in a case where AG's office represents Judge Dowd sued in his individual capacity.

Access  to trial exhibits was denied to me by Sanfilippo on May 22, 2015 despite Sanfilippo's admission that exhibits were on file in her office and despite my request to review exhibits under supervision of court personnel.  Sanfilippo also could not conclusively state that the judge was going to be at the courthouse on my requested review date, so there was no indication that I would interfere, by reviewing the trial exhibits, with the judge's work on the decision.

Nor was there any indication that I would be able to tamper with exhibits, since the request was made to review the exhibits under supervision of Sanfilippo's office and Sanfilippo was willing to provide such supervision and made an appointment for me initially (until she talked to Judge Dowd, called back and cancelled the appointment).

Sanfilippo advised me that there was no written order from Judge Dowd denying me access to the file or sealing the exhibits, when I asked for a written order.

The decision in the case arrived yesterday.

Today I called Sanfilippo's office once again.

First, I was put on hold by Sanfilippo's assistant for a long time.

Then, Sanfilippo's assistant told me that Sanfilippo was busy and will call me at a later time.

When I asked the assistant to deal with the issue of access to exhibits directly, since the decision in the Mokay case is already in, she said she will consult Sanfilippo.

After consulting Sanfilippo, the assistant told me that Sanfilippo still denied me access to exhibits.

I've sent an e-mail to Sanfilippo demanding access to exhibits upon which a court decision and judgment have already been made, exhibits ALLEGEDLY admitted into evidence by the court on April 7, 2015 ("allegedly" - because (1) the stenographer was a Facebook friend of the judge's law clerk who was subpoenaed as a witness in that case, because (2) a court observer from the public was misled by the court personnel into believing that the trial was over when the trial proceeding, thus precluding her from observing the trial, and because (3) my access to trial exhibits was blocked before and after the decision was made after the ex parte trial).

Stay tuned as to what, if anything, Sanfilippo will answer.

No comments:

Post a Comment