"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.

Monday, November 2, 2015

Porter Kirkwood and his experimental program of sex offender treatment of "juvenile sex offenders" in foster care - credentials of the "treater"

I covered in my two previous blog posts illegality of the so-called "sex offender treatment" of foster children adjudicated as juvenile delinquents, and multiple conflicts of interest of judicial candidate for Delaware County Family Court (NY) Porter Kirkwood in masterminding and executing such a program (and those are the conflicts I know about, who knows how many other conflicts are still undisclosed).

I would like to concentrate in this blog post on one issue: 

  1. credentials of "Dr." Richard Hamill who was invited into the rural upstate Delaware County to run his "experimental program" of "treatment" of "juvenile sex offenders"; and

Kirkwood referred in his meeting with voters in October of 2015 that he was lucky to lure a Dr. Hamill to Delaware County to devise and run a treatment program for "juvenile sex offenders" in foster care.

Here is the obituary for Richard Hamill were people usually say the best thing about the dear departed.

According to his obituary, Hamill was a psychologist, not a medical doctor.

Hamill was a "consummate shopper" - and such habits must be fed with money, and a lot of money.

Hamill was also a "connoisseur of Scotch whiskey", and, please, don't tell me that such "expertise" comes without alcohol abuse.  

As a husband, he "emerged from a crucible of marriage with a soft glow" - which is an enigmatic way of saying, in my perception, that he did not want to be constrained by marriage and could be a philanderer.

Here is what his obituary says about "Dr." Hamill's professional career:


For 30 years, Richard was Founder and Director of Forensic Mental Health Associates and consultant to St. Anne Institute. He creatively and tirelessly promoted community safety and best treatment practices in local and national arenas, and was a leader in the creation and management of numerous community task forces, service boards and programs, and professional organizations, such as the START Children’s Center and the NYS Alliance of Sex Offender Service Providers. He was consultant to various entities within the criminal justice system and adjunct professor at Union and Sage Colleges.



Imagine that 

  1. a consummate shopper;
  2. connoisseur of Scotch whiskey;
  3. a man who emerged from a crucible of marriage with a soft glow;
  4. a consultant to "various entities within the criminal justice system" (an expert to prosecution at sex offender criminal trials - which requires neutrality);
  5. a promoter of community safety (an advocate - doesn't mesh with expert neutrality);
  6. a leader in creation and management of:
    1. community task forces;
    2. community service boards;
    3. community programs;
    4. professional organizations - one of them was a child victim advocacy organization "Start Children's Center"

So, the man 

  1. ascertained convictions for sex offenses by his testimony, thus cornering his market for treatment;
  2. got to treat convicted sex offenders on probation - and got to send those who did not want to get treated (because legally they were not sex offenders or because they could not afford treatment at $600 a pop from the "consummate shopper" "Dr" Hamill);
  3. got to treat "child victims" of sex offenders.

One can emerge not only out of marriage with a soft glow with business opportunities heaped up upon you by "various entities within the criminal justice system".

According to Kirkwood, Hamill was the ultimate authority and the best expert in the far and wide of the State of New York on the issue of treatment of sex offenders.

Yet, there are sources that would disagree.

In 2009, the New York State Court of Appeals reversed a criminal conviction of a doctor from Albany, New York because of "Dr" Hamill's testimony.  The sentence that was overturned because of "Dr" Hamill's inappropriate testimony was 48 years (!).

Reportedly, a defense expert  in the above case basically called "Dr" Hamill, a "child advocate/expert for hire for the prosecution/treater of resulting convicted sex offenders" as a charlatan whose feet need to be put on fire.

Imagine that you are choosing a healthcare provider for treatment of your child.

Will you use for that purpose:

  1. a spender (here your fee for "services" is skyrocketing);
  2. a drinker;
  3. a philanderer;
  4. and an unscrupulous man who peddles his alleged "neutrality" while drumming up false convictions to get to treat both the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim

I doubt it.

But that is the man who Porter Kirkwood enthusiastically invited to continue the glorious history of human experimentation on vulnerable populations in this country, and provide illegal and unnecessary "snake oil" to a captive audience - children committed to his client the Delaware County's foster care.

Do you really want Porter Kirkwood to be your Family Court judge for the next 10 years?

And I did not even start to describe the actual sex offender treatment that Porter Kirkwood subjected foster children to - at taxpayers' expense.

No comments:

Post a Comment