"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, December 17, 2015

Preet Bharara's fight with corruption and contrary exploits of his boss

For many New Yorkers, Preet Bharara is a hero.

After all, he brought and successfully prosecuted criminal charges against the two heads of New York State Senate - the Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and the Majority Leader Dean Skelos.

Yet, apparently, the same conflict of interest applies to Mr. Bharara's office as it does to NYS Attorney General's office - which is the ultimate reason as to why NYS Attorney General, as the legal advisor of the same Silver and Skelos did not prosecute his own clients for corruption.

I reviewed the opposition by the U.S. Attorney General, on behalf of Glenn Suddaby, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, just out of interest - what kind of opposition can their be to completely unconstitutional and quite likely corrupt conduct of the previous judge Sharpe who imposed an anti-filing injunction upon my husband for contents of his correct constitutional civil rights arguments.

I learnt a lot.

The U.S. Attorney General and his "of counsel" attorneys acted as if they are not sworn government officials required to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the law, but mercenary privateers whose aim is only to win the case, at any and all costs.

The U.S. Attorney General's office, among other things, committed the following attorney misconduct in opposition to my husband's appeal of anti-filing injunction based on his civil rights actions:
  • misrepresented the record, 
  • misrepresented procedural history of cases, 
  • implied that interlocutory appeals in the underlying cases are final appeals (makes a difference for a jurisdictional review),
  •  tried to minimize or deny obvious misconduct of their client,
  •  omitted to mention new mandatory authorities which were contrary to their position;
  • claimed that meritorious constitutional arguments are not "worthy of response" and "meritless";
  • argued that notice of grounds for anti-filing injunction provided backwards (a year after imposition of anti-filing injunction), including through secret policies of the court, is a proper notice and opportunity to be heard.

But, to crown it all, the U.S. Attorney General's office relied upon a case where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit claimed that an anti-filing injunction against a civil rights litigant is proper to prevent the litigant from gaining publicity of issues he is raising and because some reporters called the litigant "nuts", "weirdo" and a "menace to society" (based on hearsay statements of unknown reporters).

Very "professional" behavior, I must note, for a court to call a litigant names based on contents of his civil rights actions.

Thus, the U.S. Attorney General advanced a view, obviously shared with federal courts, that any civil rights plaintiffs is a potential "nut", based on the issues he is raising and based on the way he is presenting those constitutional issues to the court.

That is the ultimate unconstitutional content-based regulation, curtailing of protected speech and access to court based on the impact of its message upon society if it hits the press.

Bravo, the U.S. Attorney General.   

Making tiny steps in showy fighting of corruption through Mr. Bharara's office, while maintaining "business as usual" and protecting corrupt federal judges and their decisions that, in turn, protect corrupt New York State officials. 

I will later post my husband's Pro Se Reply Brief in opposition to U.S. Attorney General's frivolous arguments on behalf of Chief Judge Suddaby.

In his Reply Brief, Mr. Neroni described in detail discriminatory policies against civil rights defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and the U.S Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (including its policies of negligent review of civil rights appeals by near-octogenarian, restricted-authority judges).

It will be an interesting reading, I promise.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment