"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.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Proposed clear rules against violators of constitutional rights make clear sense. Legislators, any implementation?

The recent blog of an outstanding contributor to the blog on issues of constitutional rights, George Leef, is about knowing violation by a president of a State University of the State of Georgia (Valcosta State) of a student's free speech rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

George Leef rightfully questions why the $900,000.00 settlement and legal fees pertaining to obvious misconduct by the State University's president, in obvious violation of the student's constitutional right, must be borne by taxpayers and not by the violator.

A commentator to George Leef's blog proposed this rule as to government actors who knowingly violate people's constitutional rights, with an addition to the rule by George Leef:

So, the proposed rule, as stated by a member of the public plus a venerable commentator, is:

If you knowingly violate (let's take it more broadly) people's constitutional rights, you are fired and you are made to indemnify (let's take it more broadly, too) the taxpayers and the victims of your misconduct out of your own pocket.

There mere possibility of being hit in the pocket will drastically reduce constitutional violations, that's a guarantee.  

Another recent settlement came to mind, of $600,000 that New York taxpayers had to pay in the case that lasted 4.5 years and involved clear misconduct of several high-ranking judges and their assistants in retaliation against a court employee who refused a judge's bid to engage in political espionage against another judge and Democratic judicial candidate.

That is the case of Bobette Maurin v James Tormey et al.

New York taxpayers also had to pay for the obvious misconduct of a judge, and the judge was, for some inexplicable reason, represented at the expense of taxpayers, even though his actions for which he was sued, were nowhere near his judicial authority.

That's why I would pose the question broader - why public officials who knowingly violate people's constitutional rights are not fired and are not made to indemnify victims of their misconduct - both the direct victims and the taxpayers who are made to pay for the misconduct?

And why the laws that condone, support or promote such a travesty of justice are not yet repealed, in our democratic society?

Will any legislators be bold enough to propose a bill repealing any and all absolute immunities of any and all public officials, and to leave, if even that is unconstitutional, only qualified immunities, to be tried to juries.

Tormey did not lose either his job or his license as a result of his shenannigans, and is now used by the court system as the ultimate "closer" of lawsuits against judges, as I found out, because he was assigned to three lawsuits (Bracci v Becker, Neroni v Zayas, Neroni v Follender) that I brought where a defendant is either a judge or claimed being part of a court (as a member of an attorney disciplinary committee - which made no sense because a member of the court may not investigate and prosecute under the doctrine of separation of powers), whether he was sued for what he did as a judge or not.

Tormey engaged in an ex parte communication in Bracci v Becker (the NYS Court Administration concealed that evidence, refusing to release to me courthouse videos in answer to my FOIL request under a laughable pretext), punished me for suing his own valuable self in federal court in Neroni v Follender, with an illegal anti-filing injunction and sanctions, and while misrepresenting the record, and dismissed Neroni v Zayas on "lack of service" where service was waived.  A true closer.

I did not expect anything less from a judge whose level of integrity is as low as is described in the Maurin v Tormey lawsuit.

Since Tormey was not made accountable for his misconduct in the Maureen v Tormey lawsuit, he continued his shenanigans, and is being sued once again at this time, with taxpayers paying for his legal representation once again.

Tormey who, as I already wrote on this blog, has a distinct tendency of discriminating against women, is not unique in his misconduct.  Other public officials, knowing that the state attorney general will represent them at public expense, and that federal courts will bend over backwards to absolve them of any liability, stretching the unconstitutional concept of immunity illegally created by judges beyond its declared logic and beyond any point of rationality, do whatever they want and think that they are the law because nobody can question or contain them when they are out there to strike in retaliation.

Only hitting them in the pocket will help.

It will not take much to send them a message that their misconduct is not tolerated.

Just issue the law repealing all kinds of absolute immunities, and make the law requiring that, when qualified immunity is asserted, it must be decided by the jury, not the federal judge - as any mixed issues of fact and laws should be decided - and that will be it.

I would also repeal all the laws allowing public officials to be represented at the taxpayers expense when they are sued for knowing constitutional violations.

People will then be more cautious when they run for public office.  It will not reduce influx of real talent, but it will definitely reduce the influx to public office of unscrupulous crooks who come their to do their business with their friends and to wield revenge against their perceived enemies, at taxpayers' expense and in violation of state and federal constitutional laws.

No comments:

Post a Comment