THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"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
Steven Zayas booted again - after I blogged about his employment
Zayas stubbornly insisted on prosecuting me for this fraudulent charge.
Up until he was booted from the disciplinary committee for falsifying time sheets.
No discipline has befallen him, though.
On the opposite, he was picked up by a powerful law firm that employees senators, former judges and law clerks and that "serves" in multiple organizations that organize backroom meetings with judges to discuss, no doubt, how to promote the excellence of the legal profession.
In 2013, before his disgraceful departure from the disciplinary committee, my husband Frederick J. Neroni sued Zayas.
The court, Judges Kahn and Peebles, first allowed the litigation against Zayas to proceed, and then, when the potential drinker Gary Sharpe (the then Chief Judge) interfered and imposed an anti-filing injunction upon my husband based on the still pending Zayas case, Kahn "changed his mind" and dismissed the claims against Zayas.
Then, things got messed up.
A Commission for Attorney Discipline was created and made a report that was tracking the very same complaint in my husband's case that was dismissed as "incoherent".
A New York court made a decision exactly tracking what Mr. Neroni (and I on his behalf) said in the lawsuit and Judge Kahn claimed it was unreasonable to say that.
I filed a motion to vacate the dismissal of the lawsuit against Mr. Zayas on October 1, 2015.
On October 11, 2015 I posted a blog about Mr. Zayas' interesting employment with a powerful law firm that hires public officials as live shields - by the way, a criminal trial against one of such live shields is going on in Albany as we speak (the Sheldon Silver trial).
Then, at the end of October 2015, I requested and was granted by the court an extension of time to file a Rule 11 (sanctions) motion against Mr. Zayas.
Today, I checked out Mr. Zayas' attorney registration.
Guess what - Zayas is no longer with the "live shield firm". The firm got rid of the ballast.
He is now toiling in the New York State Department of Temporary & Disability Services, possibly, falsifying his time sheets there now, so instead of the partners of the "live shield" firm, us the taxpayers are now saddled, once again, with the upkeep of Mr. Zayas.
But my question is - why was Zayas booted so quickly after I filed the motion and ran a blog? Because exposure was hurting his employer's reputation? Or, because the court that favors the employer by having it sitting on various out-of-court "committees" and other organizations where judges of the court and court personnel are participating as "officers" made a direct order to boot him?
And when will the disciplinary committee finally permanently disable Zayas' law license for his fraudulent investigations and prosecutions - fulfilling the promise of the 3rd Department's disciplinary attorney Monica Duffy to the NYS Statewide Commission of Attorney Discipline that her committee does not engage in selective non-prosecutions of prosecutors...
I am waiting.