"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 25, 2015

Self-dealing in New York State Legislature goes unaddressed by authorities

A gay legislator is paraded by the press for pushing through a pro-gay legislation.  There is no mentioning of a disqualifying conflict of interest, abstention from vote - no, NYS Assemblywoman Deborah Glick is paraded for "helping that law pass".

14 New York State Senators, licensed attorney with private practices, vote on legislation making it a crime to practice law without a license - thus protecting their own market and income.  There is no mentioning of a disqualifying conflict of interest, no abstention from vote.  On the opposite, licensed attorneys are "co-sponsors" of such legislation.

Another senator attorney, Senator DeFrancisco, drums up legislation that helps his own and his son's private practice.  There is no mentioning of a disqualifying conflict of interest, no abstention from vote.

Is the NYS Attorney General reluctant to investigate and prosecute these legislators for self-dealing in office because, by law, the NYS AG is also those same legislators' legal representative when they are sued for misconduct in office?

And the conflicted statutory scheme protecting the legislators (and other members of the New York government) and preventing New York State Attorney General, an elected public official, from prosecuting misconduct in office, is created, in yet another act of self-dealing, by the same New York State Legislature.

No investigations, no prosecutions for the self-dealing means encouragement of the same conduct at present and in the future, at public expense.

I understand that Preet Bharara only has 24 hours in a day and 365 days in a month to address corruption in New York State government, but Preet Bharara should not be the only messiah able to rescue New Yorkers from this corrupted mess.

No comments:

Post a Comment