"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.

Friday, December 4, 2015

The mask of hypocrisy as to the purpose of attorney regulation in New York is off as of November 2015

On November 13, 2015, a law license of an attorney (mine) was pulled for "frivolous" criticism of a judge (and a prosecutor, and the Vice-Chair of the New York Commission of Judicial Conduct drumming favors from a judge dependent on his favors) in several motions to recuse (motions made in order to ensure my client's constitutional right to an impartial judicial review).

On November 30, 2015, a judge of an attorney-licensing court, Judge Sheri Roman of the Appellate Division 2nd Department, testified in front of the NYS Judicial Compensation Commission, and in her testimony, extended, on behalf of the state judiciary, a "resounding thank you" to a law firm and several named attorneys of that law firm for advocating in favor of judicial pay raises, pay raises for those people who hold in their hands licenses and livelihoods of those same attorneys (see interlinked transcript of Judge Roman's testimony, pages 40-41, see also full analysis of her testimony here).

So, in the month of November, year of 2015, the New York judiciary finally threw to the winds its mask of hypocrisy and openly stated to the people what exactly attorney licensing in this state is for:  

1) to fight the whistleblowers of judicial corruption and make sure that they cannot earn a living in their own state, or anywhere else they choose to go from the glorious State of New York; and

2) to encourage corruption of the government by the legal elite, as a quid pro quo for keeping their licenses intact, keeping them in business and, no doubt, ruling in their favor.

I wonder if law schools will assign Judge Roman's testimony to law school students as a required reading in their Ethics class - because, as I said before on this blog, brown-nosing the judiciary is THE ONLY rule of "ethics" New York State attorneys need to survive in their "noble profession".

No comments:

Post a Comment