"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, November 29, 2015

On the physical safety of critics of public officials in New York

At the beginning of November, 2015, Delaware County (NY) District Attorney Richard Northrup ran for a County Judge seat, unopposed - and won, of course.  Since he was unopposed, he needed only one voice - his own - to get elected.  According to the Delaware County Election Board (who has been known to fabricate documents in the past), Northup got several thousand votes.

I have written on this blog many times about Richard Northrup's unethical behavior in several cases.  You can run his name in the "search" window below to see those blogs.

I have some more information to add, about Northrup, his ethics, and about the general safety issue for government critics as revealed in my case.

In September of 2015, I asked Richard Northrup's office to recuse from a traffic case because of a pronounced bias to me as an attorney and against my family.

As one of the reasons, I cited 

  • prosecution of crimes committed against us before I was admitted to practice law (and started to make motions to recuse local judge Becker who was extensively sued by many people, who fabricated certificate of the 2002 election after I pointed it out to him in a motion [my law license was suspended for pointing out Becker's fraud in a motion to recuse that the disciplinary court has "modestly" called "a client matter"] and defrauded voters as to his 2012 election and who has recently "retired" from the bench before his time, suggesting he was given an order to leave or get booted - as Judge Peters recently gave to her very "special counsel" Christina Ryba) and 
  • non-prosecution of a burglary into our home in Delhi, NY that was committed in September 2013 by a known subject, after I started to criticize judicial misconduct - and misconduct of DA Northrup's office

Richard Northrup's office recused from the traffic case, but there was no indication that he recused from the burglary case into our home.

Because the burglary into our home that was located within 5-minutes walk from the DA's office, a violent felony, was not investigated or prosecuted for 2 years, I called Richard Northrup in October of 2015 and asked for the DNA evidence and pictures collected by the Delhi Village Police at the crime scene, as well as incident reports, so that I can pursue a special investigator and prosecutor.

Here is what I got from Mr. Northrup:

1/ that he was unaware (!!!) of the investigation - that is, after my letter in September 2015, a month prior, after which letter his whole office recused, and after I personally went to his office in September of 2013, the very moment I discerned the threatening piece of evidence in my home that also indicated that a burglar was there;

2/ that he cannot give me the DNA back because allegedly NOW they are investigating (obviously to prevent my review what happened with the evidence);

3/ Richard Northrup injected himself into the investigation himself, telling me that he himself will handle the investigation and communicate with me, instead of the police - which in itself shows that what Northrup was doing was simply damage control;

4/  I told Northrup that two police officers who were investigating the crime scene later stopped by us in a police vehicle, voluntarily, without "solicitation" on my husband and my own behalf, when we walked our dogs in Delhi, NY at night, and told us that the subject in question has made a confession that he was in the room where the threatening and incriminating evidence was found (likely, with his DNA on it), and where the location of the room was not made known by us to the subject and the existence of that room was not obvious in the house.

5/  Northrup said he will talk to Delhi police chief.

6/ Then Northrup told me that:

   a) Delhi police does not have a confession and does not have a statement from police officers in question about the confession, and that police officers deny they had that confession;

   b) Delhi police does not have statements from either my husband or from myself (both of us made such statements), and why wouldn't we do those statements again - 2 years down the road;

     When I asked for copies of incident reports, Northrup refused to provide them citing "ongoing investigation" - which was not ongoing for 2 years.

     After I accused Northrup of not doing his job of investigating and prosecuting a violent crime for 2 years, allowing the subject who lived next door to escape to another state and not doing anything to locate him there easily, even though he can be easily located through certain federal records, Northrup promised he "looked into the matter" and then got back to me and told me that "coincidentally", now they actually found the subject in another state and now they need our statements allegedly for extradition of the subject.

     Of course,  at that point I did not have even residual trust in the integrity of Richard Northrup and his office and I fully realized that any statement I provide to Richard Northrup will be scrutinized for inconsistencies (2 years after the fact) with the incident reports that can be honed by Delhi Village police the way they want it.

     I asked Northrup to recuse from the investigation and apply for a special investigator and prosecutor - something he had to do a long time ago.

    Northrup sent me an e-mail saying he did apply for such a special investigator and prosecutor.  I never heard anything after that (a month ago) from Northrup, his office or the County court.

    On November 13, 2015 my law license was "coincidentally"  and allegedly suspended (I still was not officially served with that order, 2 weeks after it was allegedly made), where the court blamed me for not appearing in person at the "mitigation" hearing that occurred before the court decided my liability.

    At the same time, the court refused to allow me an open-access mitigation hearing and said that I had to apply for such open public hearing through a motion, even though the law allows me to have such a hearing for the asking (and I asked several times).  Of course, the court denied all my motions without an explanation and punished me for asking for reasoned decisions on motions, so blaming me for not making yet another motion was - the polite legal word is - disingenuous.  The plain English word for "disingenuous" is stupid.

     The disciplinary court refused to disqualify a prosecutor who was the only supporting witness for a failed criminal case commenced by that same witness against me for blogging on issues of public concern.

    That witness, attorney Mary Gasparini, wanted me in jail for criminal contempt of court for 60 days (30 and 30 on two applications).

    I posted with the court indisputable and unrebutted evidence that transcripts of two conferences with a referee were fabricated.

    Under the circumstances where 

  • a burglary with a threatening evidence left on the floor of our bedroom remains un-investigated, 
  • DNA from the burglary likely lost, spoiled or hidden,
  • a confession is lost or destroyed, 
  • our statements are unpreserved and unreported, 
  • incident reports hidden, investigating police officers coerced into saying there were no confession after they told us there was, 
  • after I was denied a public hearing and was practically forced to "choose" whether 
    • not to come to a hearing or 
    • to come and physically appear in a closed room, without witnesses, before judges I criticized, their pet prosecutor I criticized and who wanted me in jail because her tender sensibilities were upset when an audio recording of what really occurred in the conference where transcripts were fabricated was posted on the Internet

Can I be blamed that I chose my PHYSICAL SAFETY over appearance in front of a biased judicial panel?

And, by the way, the NY Attorney General who is supposed to investigate and prosecute crimes, including, obviously, cooking court records, but instead is representing those who cooked the court records, tried to drag me out of my out-of-state safe haven back into the State of New York for a "deposition" - without serving me with that deposition.

And, now the Assistant Attorney General Maria Lisi-Murray has asked - and received - permission from yet another disqualified judge, a magistrate who has no right under the law to impose sanctions (officially disqualified because his court has injected itself as a PARTY PLAINTIFF into a proceeding based on the proceeding where I am still a party and prejudged it as frivolous while it is still pending), to file a motion for sanctions against me for offending her tender sensibilities and to state that I have a good reason to believe she, a public official whose salary I, as a taxpayer, am paying is (1) incompetent and (2) likely has a personal grudge against me that has likely motivated her to make false statements against me in the past (it is documented) and at this time (reasonable inferences may be made from the evidence).

Lisi-Murray wants to have me dragged to the State of New York - where it is not PHYSICALLY safe for me.  Why?  

Once again, based on the above described circumstances, it is not physically safe for me to be in the State of New York, and no court, especially a court that injected himself into the case as a party AGAINST me and my husband, can order me to travel 800 miles in order to put my life and safety in danger.

After all, I read what reportedly happened to a critic of judicial misconduct in New York Sunny Shue - and that murder was still not properly investigated.

Danger in our days, to your safety as well as to your rights comes more from the government than from anybody else, and, as I said before, life of critics of official misconduct in New York and in Delaware County is forfeit.   

So, I will stay away from New York, and recommend other people to do that, too.  

It is yet another way of voting against governmental corruption in New York by leaving the state and taking your tax dollars to another state.

To all of you who are left behind in New York, especially to the critics of governmental misconduct - stay safe.


No comments:

Post a Comment