THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"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.

Monday, September 21, 2015

Can a corrupt prosecutor make a good judge?

I was informed incorrectly this morning that Richard Northrup was disqualified from Barbara O'Sullivan's felony criminal trial.

 He was not.

 He was only asked by Judge Lambert to leave the room where Barbara O'Sullivan's defense attorney's motion to withdraw was argued, but he was not asked to leave the case.

 And that is a shame.

 As I said before, Richard Northrup was disqualified from prosecuting Barbara O'Sullivan because the complaining witness is a nephew of Richard Northrup longtime employee Jeff Bowie, and because that same nephew, Derek Bowie, committed a crime against Barbara O'Sullivan 2 weeks earlier than he fabricated criminal charges against her, and Richard Northrup refuses to prosecute Derek Bowie both for the vehicular assault and for fabrication of criminal charges (because that charge will obviously include Richard Northrup as a co-conspirator).

 When Richard Northrup, under such circumstances, obtained an indictment not against Derek Bowie, but against Barbara O'Sullivan, that is corrupt behavior. 

 Richard Norhtrup is running for a judge now - unopposed, which means that he needs only one vote to be elected, and that vote is his own.

 Because of Richard Northrup's corrupt behavior, Barbara O'Sullivan suffered the following injuries:
  • the perpetrator of a vehicular assault upon her, police officer Derek Bowie, was not prosecuted;
  • Barbara O'Sullivan was put in jail on false charges, in a jail that was run by the employer of Derek Bowie who, knowing that Derek Bowie committed a vehicular assault upon a resident of Delaware County, kept him on the job;
  • the Sheriff's Department employing Derek Bowie, perpetrator of a crime against Barbara O'Sullivan blocked her counsel (me at that time) from visiting Barbara O'Sullivan and giving her legal advice unless I would allow search of my privileged attorney files, which I, of course, refused to do
  • Barbara O'Sullivan had to pay over $7,000 so far in legal fees to her defense attorney Tyner (who withdrew from the case without making a motion to dismiss the indictment while knowing about disqualification of Richard Northrup) while she was prosecuted for a legally void indictment;
  • Barbara O'Sullivan was an object of nasty articles in the press and harassment in the social media based on an orchestrated leak from the Sheriff's Department which did not appear as an official press release;
  • the felony prosecution initiated by the disqualified police officer Derek Bowie and continued by the disqualified prosecutor Richard Northrup and his office, continues, so Barbara O'Sullivan must continue to be under the stress of possibly be locked up for 7 years for the crime she did not commit and that was fabricated by perpetrator of a crime against her, Derek Bowie, and Derek Bowie's uncle's employer Richard Northrup.

The case against Barbara O'Sullivan should not even have been brought - by the police or by the prosecution.  Her loss of health and, possibly, years of her life lost because of this fabricated corrupt prosecution cannot be undone or returned to her.

 It is clearly a political case, especially when you consider that Derek Bowie was not prosecuted for a crime committed against Barbara O'Sullivan, for intentionally backing up his police vehicle into her while she was videotaping his misconduct on her property.

Derek Bowie had no authority to appear on Barbara O'Sullivan's property on September 18, 2014, the day charged in the indictment against Barbara O'Sullivan.  Derek Bowie was disqualified from acting  in his official capacity in investigation or prosecution of Barbara O'Sullivan on September 18, 2014 by his crime against Barbara O'Sullivan committed on September 5, 2014.

 Richard Northrup had no authority to prosecute that crime because, on to of Derek Bowie's disqualification to file such charges, Richard Northrup was disqualified to prosecute such charges, because he employed Derek Bowie's uncle, for years.

 When a prosecutor engaged in corrupt behavior, he is immune from civil lawsuits - but not from criminal liability.

 Will Richard Northrup be prosecuted for his conduct in Barbara O'Sullivan's case?  I highly doubt that.

 If people do not act to stop it, corruption will continue and will be elevated from the prosecutorial position to the judicial bench when Richard Northrup elects himself, unopposed, to become a County judge in Delaware County, presiding over criminal cases while he was just caught in corrupt behavior in one of them.

 Thus, the question remains, a rather rhetorical question - can a corrupt prosecutor make an honest and good judge?

 And - is it because corrupt prosecutors already made it to the judicial seat, in droves, why prosecutors involved in wrongful convictions in this state are not prosecuted, and New York State Senate has to create a new commission (see Bill S24) to address prosecutorial misconduct through a separate public body.

 This situation has to stop.

 Petition the Governor to impeach and prosecute Richard Northrup, the Delaware County Attorney and a judicial candidate for the seat of the County Judge.

 Because a corrupt prosecutor will not magically become a good and honest judge once he gets into a black robe and on that bench.  He will get only worse - to your detriment.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)