"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.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Porter Kirkwood serves up hamburgers really well and plays God with people's lives through the "surrogate decision making committee"

No, I am not joking.

This was offered "on a personal note", as a qualification of a judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood for the position of a Family Court judge - as opposed to Judge Gary Rosa's statement in his election campaign that he is always "on-call" as a judge for criminal arraignments and orders of protection.

Porter Kirkwood obviously endorsed his qualification by posting his "personal note" on his Facebook campaign website:

It is not only that Porter Kirkwood is a perfect hamburger server 4 days a year during Fair-on-the-Square in Delhi (happens every Friday in July), he also volunteered in DelYouth Soccer (where his son was), Boy Scouts (where his son was) and Youth Court (again, in the school where his son is).

Wow - what a public service, to participate in extra curricular activities of your own child.  

Now, Glenn V. Cole Jr. advertises Porter Kirkwood "professionally speaking", reiterating the tired fairy tale about the allegedly 3,000 cases allegedly handled by Porter Kirkwood - an absolutely unlikely and unverifiable claim.

Moreover, Glenn V. Cole Jr. is not an attorney:

has no verifiable legal training and certainly cannot pronounce a "professional opinion" as to how good Porter Kirkwood is as an attorney.

I am an attorney, I do have a legal training, I participated in cases where Kirkwood appeared - both in Family Court and in federal court - and I can attest that Kirkwood lacks basic competence and ethics.

How Kirkwood was "instrumental" in forming Drug Treatment Court and Family Court is also (1) unverifiable, since information about that court is not public, and (2) raises all kinds of conflict-of-interest and ex-parte-communication issues, because the alleged "creator" of Drug Court in Delaware County (who was re-elected in 2012 on the same fairy tale), Carl Becker, presided over child neglect proceedings while communicating with Porter Kirkwood in "creating Family Treatment Court" and "Drug Treatment Court" - and that is in addition to their ex parte communications behind the courthouse that were visible, and those likely ex partes by phone and in person that were not visible or verifiable.

Mr. Cole also indicated that Porter Kirkwood was allegedly recently appointed to the Surrogate Decision-Making Committee by the New York State Justice Center for Protection of People with Special Needs.

Sounds wonderful and honorable.  Right?  Let's look into what the alleged Committee does and how what the Committee does fits with what Porter Kirkwood does in his public employment and private practice.

Here is what the Committee does:

Even though SDMC claims legal support in a 2012 New York Legislation, the powers of the Committees and their functioning is clearly unconstitutional, since they sit in "panels" in substitution of courts and have authority to make, on behalf of incompetent individuals, major decisions involving major treatment and even end of life.

There can be no constitutional basis for medical and especially end-of-life decisions to be made, for an incompetent individual, without a court-appointed legal guardian and outside of court procedure.

It is no wonder that this program is "unique" for New York only - no other states authorized such an extraordinary setup that can be potentially used for elder cleansing and cleansing of people with disabilities - outside of the court system, with not judges, but "panels of volunteers" deciding issues of people's major treatment and even lives.

For Porter Kirkwood to wield such a power is especially horrible, since Porter Kirkwood, while being a social services attorney for Delaware County,  recently represented, for money and during taxpayer-backed county time, defendants in a civil action accused of elder abuse and wrongful death of an elder.  

Moreover, Porter Kirkwood is the last person who should be appointed to such a panel, since he tried to have concocted a mental health diagnosis of a child, by a hired expert who never saw the child, in order to label the child and thus diminish the child's credibility against Porter Kirkwood's own son in a potential court proceeding.

It is interesting that Kirkwood was appointed to this particular "death squad" panel when Delaware County Surrogate's Court was litigating the shenanigans of his clients, a social worker and the ex-Commissioner of Social Services, who self-dealt specifically with an end-of-life patient, a 89 old lady, and played with her will. 

One thing I can say about Kirkwood - while Judge Gary Rosa "simply" serves the public straight as a 24-7 on-call judge, Kirkwood is engaging in "projects", one shadier than the other.

Good grief - end of life decisions, out of court, by Porter Kirkwood as a member of a "panel".  Gives me creeps.

No comments:

Post a Comment