"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.

Saturday, October 17, 2015

Judge Robert Mulvey grants adjournments to parties who sold their interest in litigation - as long as his ruling is against clients of an attorney who sued him and turned him in

There is bias and bias.

Judge Robert Mulvey has some bias against me that spills over into retaliation against my clients.

I represent a client in a residential foreclosure case brought by a bank.

At the beginning of October this year, when Judge Mulvey knew full well that I was located in the middle of a catastrophic flood in South Carolina, Judge Mulvey "so-ordered" a very interesting letter from the attorney for the bank that initiated the foreclosure proceeding.

It is important to note the flooding because I was unable to get to the post office, my e-mail address was well known to the court and to the opposing counsel, the letter by the opposing counsel was not duplicated by e-mail, but was sent only by mail, I was unable to get to the postoffice due to flooding, and Judge Mulvey whose office is usually very courteous to OTHER attorneys and calls them to verify whether they agree to adjournments, never called me nor sent me an e-mail verifying whether I received that letter or not or whether I consent to any adjournments or not.

But what is the most astounding thing is WHY the adjournment was requested by the bank's attorney.

The bank's attorney asked the court to adjourn the deadline to file the motion for a summary judgment in the foreclosure action because the ownership of the mortgage has changed - but the attorney did not know who is the new owner of the mortgage.

In her letter to the judge, the attorney for the bank clearly stated that her client (the Plaintiff in the foreclosure action) WAS the owner of the mortgage, not IS the owner of the mortgage.

When such a letter comes before the judge, the judge (if he is competent and unbiased) must STAY proceedings and order disclosure who is the owner of the mortgage.

Most definitely an adjournment for the now FORMER owner of the mortgage cannot be granted for any reason, because the FORMER owner of the mortgage has no rights left to prosecute the action, and its attorney is no longer attorney of record.

What Judge Mulvey granted to the FORMER owner of the mortgage is a right to prepare, until December of this year, a motion for a SUMMARY JUDGMENT in an action where the FORMER owner no longer had ANY interest.

Talking about incompetence of the judge here...

But, the circus continued even further.

After I received this extraordinary "so-ordered" letter from Judge Mulvey's chambers, I called the attorney who requested the adjournment - for her client who already sold his interest in the case.

When I called the attorney who has sent the letter to Judge Mulvey about her client being the FORMER owner of the mortgage, the attorney already left the firm - that is, the judge "so-ordered" the letter on a Friday - the attorney left the firm on the following Monday, within 2 days, with a lightning speed.  A coincidence.  Right.

My further conversations with other attorneys in the same law firm revealed that attorneys for the bank are unaware as to who is the new owner of the mortgage, but they are belligerent that they are still attorneys of record in a case where their client no longer owns the mortgage (which is, of course, a frivolous position).

An attorney for the bank explained to me that she has "just got the file" and, for that reason, could not tell me who is the new owner of the mortgage.

I've sent to that attorney an e-mail requesting an urgent disclosure more than a week ago, and I am still waiting for her response.  A week is more than enough time to figure out who you client sold its interest to, isn't it - and that is AFTER the bank's attorneys submitted to the court a letter saying that their client DID sell its interest, but they do not know to whom. 

Had I filed such a letter, I would have been sanctioned by now, because the minimum duty of due diligence and candor to the tribunal requires an attorney to instantly verify with the client who is the new owner the client has sold its interest to - and report it to the court and the opponent, as well as the fact that Plaintiff can no longer proceed with the residential foreclosure action.

For a judge to grant an adjournment to an attorney who is NO LONGER AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD (since it represents a client who has sold its interest in the mortgage and/or the note) - and without consulting the only remaining legitimate attorney of record - is quite incredible and shows an extraordinary level of bias.

Of course, I am turning Mulvey into the New York Commission for Judicial Conduct.

When a judge cannot control his bias against an attorney (who sued him in the past and turned him in in the past) to the point that he grants for the asking ANYBODY's request for ANYTHING, including the request for adjournment from an attorney who is no longer an attorney of record in the case by operation of law - keeping such a judge on the bench presents a serious jeopardy to public safety.

No comments:

Post a Comment