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.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Jonathan Lippman's l"egacy of social justice" - NYS Associations of Court officers sues Lippman for violation of their constitutional rights

I wrote in my previous blog that I will cover lawsuits against Jonathan Lippman as part of his "legacy".

 Here is the list of lawsuits available on Pacer.gov against Jonathan Lippman.

Lawsuits against Lippman at trial level (Lippman is listed as "dft" - Defendant or "res", Respondent):






 Lawsuits at appellate level:

A missing date in the "Date Closed" column indicate a pending lawsuit or appeal.

 There are two pending appeals and 5 pending lawsuits, according to this table.

 The reporting by Pacer might not correctly reflect the true status of the cases.

 For example, when a Rule 60 motion to vacate is filed based on new evidence, the case is still reported as "closed", even though litigation continues.

 Therefore, there is no way, without going into all of docket reports of these cases (and paying for it, which I cannot afford), to learn whether motions to vacate based on new evidence have been filed in any lawsuits against Lippman claimed as "closed" on Pacer.

 Here are some statements from the lawsuit New York State Court Officers Association v Hite, Case No. 1:12-cv-532 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Lippman is one of Co-Defendants in that ongoing lawsuit.





  
That's right, while advocating for 10 more years of his own "service" on the Court of Appeals, and even trying to have the New York State Constitution amended to give him those 10 more years of enhanced pay, while advocating for pay raises of the already inflated judicial salaries during ongoing budgetary crises and "justice gap" crisis when majority of New Yorkers cannot afford an attorney, Lippman at the same time cut benefits of his own "lesser", non-judiical employees - and got sued for that. 

The lawsuit is still pending while Lippman is leaving his office.

I do not see mainstream media commenting on that lawsuit as part of Lippman's "legacy" at the time he leaves his office.

As I mentioned above, there are more lawsuits pending against Lippman and many more dismissed on his requests that they are "meritless" (like our Neroni v Zayas from which he plagiarized his ideas for new attorney rules) or on the basis of "sovereign immunity" that New York waived in 1929 through Court of Claims act, or based on "absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts" that New York waived by enacting Judiciary Law 14 that strips jurisdiction from a judge with personal interest in a case (and malice and corruption is the ultimate personal interests).

I will try to cover some of the other lawsuits against Jonathan Lippman, too. 

Stay tuned.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)