"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, August 27, 2015

Integrity of Judge John F. Lambert continues to slide

At this time, the Otsego County Judge John F. Lambert is presiding over two cases: 

  • the civil case in the Delaware County Supreme Court of Barbara O'Sullivan against officer Derek Bowie of the Delaware County Sheriff's Department (where Judge Lambert regularly rules in favor of Bowie no matter even though the law favors the Pro Se Plaintiff Barbara O'Sullivan), and
  • the criminal case in the Delaware County Court of People v. Barbara O'Sullivan brought against Ms. O'Sullivan instead of against Derek Bowie by the employer of Derek Bowie's uncle, the Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup.
While Judge Lambert could at least pretend that he did not know of the disqualification of the Delaware County District Attorney before August 24, 2015, after he was served with Richard Northrup sworn admission that Jeffrey J. Bowie is, indeed,

(1) the prosecutor's own employee, and
(2) the main witness's and the alleged victim's uncle,

Judge Lambert cannot pretend lack of knowledge any longer.

Here is the cover letter that accompanied Richard Northrup's verified Answer to Barbara O'Sullivan's Petition for a writ of prohibition in the NYS Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department:

After having received a sworn statement by a prosecutor in a case indicating that the prosecutor has the appearance of representing the PRIVATE interests of the Bowie family in a criminal prosecution against Derek Bowie's victim, the allegedly Honorable Judge Lambert had and still has the power to:

(1) recuse from the case;
(2) dismiss the indictment sua sponte (on his own motion) as being brought by a disqualified prosecutor.

Judge Lambert did not do either of those two things.

He staunchly and now knowingly continues to preside over a case that heads for trial and may have a potential of putting an innocent disabled woman and a victim of misconduct of a close relative of the prosecutor's employee in prison for 7 years, and at the time when that same prosecutor refuses to prosecute that same relative for an earlier assault on that same innocent disabled woman.

Unlike often gigantic District Attorney's offices in more populated counties, in Delaware County, the District Attorney's office counts 3 lawyers, two secretaries - and investigator Jeff Bowie.

The entire office is contained in a small "suite" that consists of Richard Northrup's very small study, a room with office equipment outside that study with two desks for the two secretaries, and a 2nd-story loft with two tables for the other two prosecutors, John Hubbard and Marybeth Dumont.

It is an extremely close relationship, office personnel is closely bonded and Richard Northrup depends on investigations of Jeff Bowie in his daily work.

It is apparent that Richard Northrup does not want to upset his valuable employee and, likely, a friend, with a prosecution of his nephew that may end the nephew's career in the police force, brand him as a violent felon and, potentially, send him to prison for many years.

It is apparent that even an appearance that Richard Northrup's discretionary decisions not to prosecute his employee's relative and instead to prosecute that relative's victim are dictated by Richard Northrup's feelings toward his employee and his desire to preserve harmony in his working relationship with that employee, should have immediately disqualified Richard Northrup from the case.

Nor does Judge Lambert, a former recent prosecutor out of Otsego County who, likely, is also in a friendly relationship with Richard Northrup, a prosecutor from an adjoining county, want to undermine his friendly relationship with Richard Northrup over Barbara O'Sullivan.

It is apparent from Ms. O'Sullivan's two cases currently pending in front of Lambert that fairness falls through the cracks in Judge Lambert's courtroom, the rule of law falls through the cracks, and the only thing that matters to both Judge Lambert and Richard Northrup are, apparently, the old boys' ties.

I encourage the public to petition the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct to investigate Judge Lambert's behavior in Barbara O'Sullivan's two cases and to have him disciplined for having the two cases to be ruled, instead of the rule of law, by the law of connections, further undermining the already disappearing public trust in the integrity of judiciary in New York State.

If you think that Barbara O'Sullivan's case does not concern you, New Yorkers, it does.

Judge Lambert is young and can remain on the bench for another 30 years or so.

If he continues on the bench, his misconduct will only get worse, while he is getting up on the administrative ladder.

You never know when you may have appear in the future in front of Judge John F. Lambert, in a civil or criminal matter - John Lambert is also an Acting Supreme Court Justice, presiding over a variety of civil cases, and a Family and Surrogate's Court judge assigned to cases in several counties.

So, it is not entirely unlikely that Judge Lambert will at some point be assigned to your case, or cases of your friends and relatives - and, naturally, he will act the way he acts now and will apply to you and your loved ones the same "law of connections" as he is applying to Barbara O'Sullivan.

He needs to be stopped now, before he, and his old boy buddies whom he favors, ruin more lives - possibly, yours included.

No comments:

Post a Comment