"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.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

One more question of public concern - is Otsego County DA a drinker?

I wrote in two previous blogs (here and here) about the outrageous reversal in the People v Michaels case - outrageous because the case was not supposed to ever see the insides of the court, it was legally insufficient to begin with and was never to be brought.

I also wrote on this blog about John Muehl's and Otsego County Judge John Lambert's tactics to coerce criminal defendants into pleas on legally insufficient cases - by dragging them to unnecessary conferences (where they were not allowed into the chambers, where John Muehl and his crew of witnesses already sat inside the chambers when defense attorneys enter the chambers, and never leave those chambers when defense attorneys leave it, conferences held off record), by denying all motions without pre-trial hearings, by harassing and intimidating defense attorneys.

I also wrote on this blog that Judge John Lambert, before coming to the bench, was DA John Muehl's deputy, the Chief Assistant District Attorney of Otsego County.

What I did not write about was John Muehl's apparent habits that John Lambert as John Muehl's subordinate cannot claim he did not know.

I appeared in Otsego County court since 1999 when I came into this country - first, accompanying my husband-attorney, and then as an attorney myself.

I remember John Muehl since he became a DA.  I remember his ruddy face with the facial color that I normally saw on my husband's DWI clients.

It was previously reported by a blogger that John Muehl, before he became a DA, left the scene of an accident because he was drunk.  John Muehl, as far as I know, did not sue that person for defamation.

And whether a DA has a drinking problem or not is a BIG issue of public concern.  

First, if John Muehl does have a drinking problem, he should not be investigating and/or prosecuting cases because his judgment may be clouded by alcohol.

Second, he has no moral right to prosecute felony DWIs where he himself is absolved from such investigations and prosecutions, being put by his position above the law.

And here is John Muehl's picture, a close-up.  A ruddy blotchy face, blood-shot clouded eyes.  The question is, how can such a man be trusted with prosecutions of people, putting people away for years?

The public has a right to know - does DA Muehl or not have a problem with alcohol?

You know who should be asked about it?

Judge Lambert.

First, he should know from his experience in the DA's office.

Second, Judge Lambert regularly sits in close proximity to DA Muehl during the back-room court conferences.  It is a closed space.  He must be able to see - and, possibly, smell - alcohol.

If he knew as an attorney and did not report DA Muehl's drinking - that's attorney misconduct.

If he knows as a judge and does not report DA Muehl's drinking - that's judicial misconduct.

And third, an investigation of John Muehl's possible drinking habit can be easily done based on review of his purchasing history.  I doubt that, if he has a drinking problem, he always pays for his drinks in cash.  There should be tracks.  There should be witnesses, abundance of witnesses. 

But a public authority with a power to investigate the powerful DA should do that.  Because, otherwise, he will lash against citizen investigators as stalkers.

So, will authorities in New York finally take their heads out of where they are and investigate John Muehl?

1 comment:

  1. I wish I knew how to bring this guy down, he has been the prosecutor of my son-and has not seen him for who he is, just as another notch on his belt