"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, December 29, 2015

Disciplinary attorney Mary Gasparini proves she is corrupt as she stalls disciplinary investigation of disbarring misconduct of politically connected attorneys Richard Harlem, Eric Jervis and James Hartmann

At the end of November, a disciplinary complaint was filed against politically connected and powerful attorneys:

1)  Richard Harlem, of Oneonta, NY, son of late Supreme Court Justice Robert Harlem, former Chief Administrative Judge of New York State 6th Judicial District;

2) Richard Harlem's law partner Eric Jervis, also of Oneonta, NY;

3) James Hartmann, of Delhi, NY, husband to attorney Nancy Deming, law clerk to judge-elect Gary Rosa of Delaware County Family Court.

The complaint was accompanied with an affidavit from a witness other than the complainant proving that the above three attorneys committed fraud and fraud upon the court that warrant their disbarment.

During a month that followed, no attempts were made by the disciplinary committee to call the complainant (not me) to investigate, or to verify the essence of the affidavit with its author.

Which brings me to the conclusion that attorney Mary Gasparini of the disciplinary committee who was the addressee of the complaint, is trying hard to earn her salary as a gatekeeper of discipline against powerful attorneys and as a fabricator of evidence to pull law licenses of critics of judicial misconduct.

And, according to my information, Richard Harlem is lying low and is refusing to engage in communication with the person who he has been claiming as a client for 8.5 years in proceedings in two courts, Delaware County Supreme Court and the Appellate Division 3rd Department.

Actually, in the Appellate Division 3rd Department Richard Harlem, his law firm Harlem & Jervis and, thus, his partner Eric Jervis, continue their fraud upon the court, as they continue to claim that they represent the person who already submitted an affidavit (which is the basis of the disciplinary complaint) that he never hired Harlem to represent him in the Mokay action.

Richard Harlem, Eric Jervis and James Hartmann did not even notify the Delaware County Supreme Court or the Appellate Division 3rd Department where Mr. Neroni's appeal is pending, that one of the alleged Mokay plaintiffs provided an affidavit that was submitted to the disciplinary committee claiming that the individal has never sued my husband Frederick J. Neroni, nor did that individual hire Richard Harlem or his law firms to sue him.

That is the height of "frivolous" and fraudulent conduct, and is a crime.

Yet, Mary Gasparini is not doing anything that an honest investigator and prosecutor would have done to verify the essence of the complaint.

Predictably so.

When a prosecutor is caught fabricating court transcript and lashes back at the person she prosecutes asking the court to put that person in jail for exposing her misconduct, one cannot expect that a dishonest prosecutor will suddenly develop a conscience and do her job honestly.

No comments:

Post a Comment