"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 22, 2015

Unauthorized practice of law and "public-private partnerships" with Unified New York Court System, all with approval of New York Chief Judge Lippman and Chief Administrative Judge Marks

An anonymous donor paid 1 million dollars to finance the crime of unauthorized practice of law in New York City.

New York Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and New York Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Mark are condoning and encouraging the crime of unauthorized practice of law and hope it will spread.

Good gracious.

Why the practices described in the article about "Legal Hand" operations is likely criminal?

Well, because, according to Judiciary Law 90(2)(b), the following behavior is unauthorized practice of law:

And, because I was put through hell when my husband was disbarred and the State of New York asked me whether he works in my law office in ANY capacity, even as a secretary.

Well, in offices of "Legal Hand", there is only one attorney on-site and 40 "volunteers" who "screen out" cases and make sure that they do not go to court.

First of all, that is NOT a public service, and screening out cases so that they DO NOT reach the court, may not be in the interests of the indigent clients who come to such organizations.

Second, New York law does not allow non-lawyers to give legal advice, even when the Chief Administrative Judge and the Chief Judge of the State of New York sit there beaming and approve and encourage behavior that is pronounced as criminal by statutory law.

Third, every client who comes to this "Legal Hand" is committing a crime of criminal solicitation and aiding and abetting of unauthorized practice of law, if UPL laws are to be applied equally to all New Yorkers.

Of course, by introducing such operations and claiming that it is a step forward in helping New Yorkers obtain "affordable" legal advice - albeit through what is now criminal behavior in New York - New York acknowledges that regulation of the legal profession is what prevents New Yorkers from obtaining free or affordable legal advice in the first place.

After all, the 40 "volunteers" per office of the "Legal Hand" are not attorneys.  They are "like" nurse practitioners who "prepare" clients to see a doctor.  Only a similar graded scheme as exists in New York for practicing medicine does not exist in New York for practicing law.

The strictures of the criminal law and attorney are easily avoided though - when you have available an "anonymous donor" who is willing to finance an operation that is otherwise criminal in New York, and approval of top state court officials.

And, as to anonymity of the donor, I am making a Freedom of Information request to end that anonymity.  Why?

Because "Legal Hand" is a program of a "public-private" partnership of the so-called Center of Court Innovation with - guess! - The Unified New York State Court System!

Here it is, zoomed in:

A public/private partnership between a non-profit and New York Court System?

And what kind of business organization is this so-called "Center for Court Innovation" if it is not listed in the database of corporations of the New York State Department of State?  I checked, right now.  I also checked on listing all non-profits in America.  It's not there either.  

What is a partnership between the court system with an unknown private entity that does not appear to be registered as a non-profit, and thus, does not appear to be abiding by any laws governing non-profits in the state of New York and in the United States?

There may not be anonymous "donors" of partnerships with the state government, so this "anonymous donor" thingy definitely is subject to Freedom of Information Law of the State of New York.

Nor is it clear who and on what grounds authorized such a "partnership" between an unknown private entity and New York Unified Court System.

Moreover, when this Center runs its declared "court-based" programs, in partnership with the actual court system, judges who preside over cases in the program are - who are they?  Business partners?

So, Judge Lippman and Judge Marks, beaming in the picture introducing a "program" of this "public-private" partnership financed by a 1 million dollar donation of an "anonymous donor" are at the top of this business partnership?


Under such circumstances, judges are not neutral adjudicators, and validity of their adjudications is questionable.  

I will try to get the particulars of this "public-private" partnership and will report the answer to my FOIL request on this blog.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment