"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 3, 2015

Who will prosecute the disciplinary prosecutor - and her counsel?

I just put in a blog post about frivolous and fraudulent conduct in litigation of disciplinary attorney Monica Duffy and the New York State Attorney General and his Assistant Attorney General Andrew Ayers - as well as of Chief Judge of New York State Jonathan Lippman and Chief Judge of the Appellate Division 3rd Department Karen Peters.

If sued, these two will invoke some kind of an immunity and will get the lawsuit dismissed.

Immunity is given based on the promise of availability of attorney discipline.

Monica Duffy, at the hearing in Albany before the New York State Statewide Commission on Attorney Discipline, claimed with a straight face that there is no such thing as selective non-prosecution of prosecutors by her disciplinary committee.

Not only that was a lie at that time, because Duffy blocked investigations and prosecutions against herself as a disciplinary prosecutor before making that statement, and that is on my personal knowledge and documentary evidence on file, but now, in view of her newly found frivolous conduct, yet another question arises:

WHO will prosecute disciplinary prosecutor Monica Duffy AND HER ATTORNEY - the New York State Attorney General.

Will they, once again, block a disciplinary complaint against themselves?

Until and unless disciplinary prosecutors - and their powerful attorney, the New York State Attorney General who is defending unconstitutional conduct instead of prosecuting it, as is his job as an elected public official in the State of New York - are treated equally by the disciplinary process and are equally punished for fraud upon the court, frivolous conduct and acts clearly indicating their lack of fitness to practice law, the whole idea of attorney discipline is void of any meaning.

If the most powerful attorneys, who can do the most damage to people, are not reachable by attorney discipline, the whole idea of attorney discipline is just a sham.

That idea was also CLEARLY expressed in my husband's lawsuit Neroni v Zayas that Duffy had dismissed twice at the district court level, and now had it dismissed on the appellate level, WITHOUT REVIEW.

The interesting part is the described fraud DUFFY, LIPPMAN, PETERS and SCHNEIDERMAN do on their taxpayer-paid time, at taxpayers' expense, and pretending that it is for taxpayer's benefit.

It is for your benefit, ladies and gentlemen, that you are defrauded.

One doesn't need to read Orwell nowadays.

Just read the dissonant claims in different forums of the so-called "public servants".

That is SOME double-speak.

No comments:

Post a Comment