"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, November 17, 2015

No Rule 11 motion against Judge Lippman, Judge Peters and NYS AG Schneiderman today. I guess, they must be happy for their handiwork

Today was my deadline to file a Rule 11 (sanctions) motion against Judge Lippman, Judge Peters and NYS Attorney General Schneidrman for having my husband's case dismissed, and then promoting my husband's ideas from the dismissed lawsuit in the "Final Report" of the NYS Attorney Discipline Commission.

As you know, in New York, as in other states, the judiciary (with Judge Lippman as a Chief judge) controls attorney licensing.

So, before I could file the Rule 11 motion, my license was revoked.

That reminds me of how attorney Doris Sassower's license was suspended - when she filed an appeal challenging constitutionality of cross-endorsements in judicial elections in New York.

Moreover, today the NYS Attorney General intimidated me by claiming that I am engaged in unauthorized practice of law because I filed a motion to recuse and vacate on behalf of my husband (and myself) in another federal case.

The intimidation came - that is funny, really - through e-notification, served upon me "by ECF only" by the NYS AG Maria Lisi-Murray (who lost her previous lucrative job in Levine, Gouldin and Thompson because of her incompetence in a case where I represented Plaintiffs suing the Chenango County Department of Social Services).  

That case, by the way, is scheduled for trial on February 29, 2016, having overcome all hurdles of motions to dismiss and for a summary judgment.

I, of course, advised my clients in that case of suspension of my state law license and they reported to me that, so far, ACLU in Albany refused to recommend any attorneys to replace me in that case as soon as they heard that the case is against Social Services.

Yet, e-service is only allowed against clients represented by attorneys.

So, in the same breath, the "legal talent",  NYS Assistant Attorney General, who recently "resigned" from Levine, Gouldin and Thompson within 10 days of denial of a motion for a summary judgment where Lisi-Murray asked the federal court to decide triable issues of fact (an "F" in 101 Civil Procedure) in favor of her client, the Chenango County Commissioner of Social Services and her employees, did two diametrically opposite things:

1) she served me as if I am an attorney; and
2) she claimed I am not an attorney and I am engaged in UPL by filing on behalf of a client.

At least, Lisi-Murray is consistent in her incompetence.  Kudoz to Levine, Gouldin and Thompson for getting rid of her.  But now, we the taxpayers, myself included, are saddled with feeding the incompetent attorney picked up as a "consolation prize" by the NYS Attorney General's office (see also my recent blog about another "consolation" hiring by the State of New York of yet another attorney - an unethical one, who, what a coincidence! also was in the past a NYS Assistant Attorney General).

I published recently a report about incompetence and unethical conduct of yet another three NYS Assistant Attorneys General - 

  1. Kenneth Gellhaus (I will add a blog about Gellhaus shortly), 
  2. Michael Danaher, see here and here, and 
  3. Andrew Ayers (former law clerk of the now-U.S. Supreme Court justice Sonya Sotomayor), see here, here, here and here.

It appears that, same as the policy of NYS to hire police officers, to not hire applicants with an IQ over a certain level to prevent "rotation" of work force, same the NYS AG's office is picking attorneys who are incapable to survive in private practice outside of the NYS AG's office, who are not only unethical, but also lack the very basic competence.

And we the taxpayers are saddled with the task of feeding them.

And, by the way - these klutzes will NEVER be disbarred like my husband was - without a hearing - on bogus charges of fraud upon the court.

Because they are covered with absolute immunity for fraud upon the court.

And they will never be suspended - like I was - for being sanctioned for "frivolous conduct" for making a motion to recuse a judge - because they REPRESENT all judges they appear in front of, and because they will NEVER be sanctioned for frivolous conduct by their judges-clients, no matter what they do.

They will continue to saddle you, ladies and gentlemen, New York taxpayers, with their inflated salaries and benefits, and those of their families, no matter what they do.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the whole reason why attorney regulation is not protecting you.  It is protecting them, and their ability to milk you for their salaries.  And I bet, their salaries and benefits that are milked out of you, are better than yours.

As to Rule 11 motion today - I did not file it.

But I did file a letter explaining to the court that I did not file it BECAUSE I was intimidated by the State Defendants, two top judges of the court and by Defendant Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General who orchestrated revocation of my law license right before my deadline to file a motion for sanctions against them, and who drove home to me that the not-so-subtle threat that they will consider my filing of the Rule 11 motion against them today as criminal conduct.

No comments:

Post a Comment