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, January 13, 2016

11 out of 23 NYS Senators on the Judiciary Committee, about to vote in confirmation of Janet DiFiore as Chief Judge of NYS Court of Appeals, are disqualified by personal interests, as licensed attorneys, officers of the court and market players in the market of legal services that Janet DiFiore, if elected, will regulate



Here is the list of the NYS Senate's Judiciary Committee that is about to vote on confirmation of Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore as the Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, with the exclusion from oral testimony of those who oppose such confirmation.

According to my preliminary research today, out of 23 members of the Committee, 11, including the Chairman, are licensed attorneys who are market players in the market of legal services regulated by New York State Courts, officers of the court, whose licenses, reputations and livelihoods are in the hands of New York judiciary and who are thus disqualified from voting in the confirmation hearing.

It is very likely that participation in voting regarding confirmation of judges, if done by market players such as senators, in furtherance of helping themselves in regulating the market from which they and their family members derive income:

  1. Bonacic;
  2. Boyle;
  3. Breslin;
  4. Croci;
  5. Hoylman;
  6. Lanza;
  7. LaValle;
  8. Nozzolio;
  9. O'Mara;
  10. Ranzenhofer;
  11. Venditto - are not only acts of public corruption and ethical violation (at the very least), but are also violations of civil and criminal antitrust statutes.
Voting by senators disqualified by personal interest was, is and is going to be, my personal expert opinion, void.

I will provide a fuller analysis of conflicts of each of the senators in a separate blog.

Stay tuned.


No.
Name
Attorney or not (Yes/No)
1
John J. Bonacic, Chairman
Yes
2.
George A. Amedore, Jr.
No
3.
Tony Avelia
No
4.
Phil Boyle
Yes
5.
Neil D. Breslin
Yes
6.
Leroy Comrie
No
7.
Thomas D. Croci
Yes
8.
Ruben Diaz, Sr.
No
9.
Martin Malave Dilan
No
10.
Adriano Espalliat
No
11.
Kemp Hannon
No
12.
Ruth Hassel-Thompson
No
13.
Brad Hoylman
Yes
14.
Andrew J. Lanza
Yes
15.
Kenneth P. LaValle
Yes
16.
Michael F. Nozzolio
Yes
17.
Thomas F. O’Mara
Yes
18.
Bill Perkins
No
19.
Michael H. Ranzenhofer
Yes
20.
Diane J. Savino
No
21.
Sue Serino
No
22.
Toby Ann Stavisky
No
23.
Michael Venditto
Yes


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)