"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.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Readers Digests for judge Kevin Dowd

I received the transcript of the Mokay trial that was held in an ex parte and secret manner on April 7, 2015 - see my blog posts from end March and beginning of April on the topic.

There are many interesting things to report from the transcript, and I will run several blog posts about how that ex parte secret trial was held.

Before I go into any in-depth analysis though, it is interesting to mention that trial counsel for the plaintiffs in the Mokay case considered it necessary to give Judge Dowd summaries of pleadings that they claimed to be the basis of their claim of damages (wholly consisting of legal fees of Harlem & Harlem and Harlem & Jervis law offices).

Richard Harlem, in his sworn testimony, called one such summary a "Readers' Digest" version of what he is going to testify about (Richard Harlem's words, not mine).

Richard Harlem also calls the "Readers Digest" summaries of what he was testifying about as "posters":

The "posters" summarized the "legal activitity" of the Harlem & Harlem and then Harlem & Jervis law firm in the Mokay case.

Of course, given the level of misconduct of Richard Harlem, his father and their law firms in the Mokay case that I already wrote about and that I am going to write about based on the transcript that I received, activity of Harlem & Harlem and Harlem & Jervis law firm can hardly be called "legal"...

Richard Harlem claimed that the charts ("posters") of his two law firms' "legal activity" in the Mokay case will assist the court in "following" his testimony.

Apparently, Judge Dowd needs "Readers Digest" version of pleadings to follow the testimony at trial, and attorneys who know the judge know it.

The judge was appreciative, and, as the scan above shows, received the "Readers Digests" into evidence without question.

The judge was, in fact, so appreciative of Richard Harlem's efforts that at the end of trial, when Richard Harlem acknowledged that he failed to provide to the court what he is asking for in treble damages, the court humbly requested Richard Harlem to, please, provide the breakdown of what he is asking AFTER the trial, and apologized to Richard Harlem for inconveniencing him.

I will remind the readers that Judge Kevin Dowd is the judge who ranted about somebody building a urinal in his honor during discussion of custody and visitation of a child in divorce proceedings, so he may be completely off upstairs.

Evidently, Judge Dowd needs "Readers Digest" versions of the testimony to be able to comprehend and follow it, and attorneys who know him openly state that on record.

And this is the judge who holds in his hands property rights, custody rights of children and liberty of litigants appearing in front of him.

If that is not a condemnation of the farce that the New York judicial system has become, I do not know what is.

No comments:

Post a Comment