"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

NYS Senator Bonacic delegated to his counsel authority to reject oral testimony applications to his attorney Jessica Cherry

I called the office of Senator Boracic today, inquiring how to get an invitation to testify in the confirmation hearing AGAINST confirmation of Janet DiFiore for the position of New York State Court of Appeals.

I was immediately told that Jessica Cherry (Sen. Bonacic's counsel) does not accept applications for oral testimony, only written submissions.

That is not what the public notice for the confirmation hearing of Janet Difiore on NYS Senate's webpage says, right now:

A witness contacted me who told me that the witness talked to Senator Bonacic' office yesterday, including to his secretary Tania and his counsel Jessica Cherry, and that they said that Senator Bonacic has a policy to allow ONLY BAR ASSOCIATIONS to offer testimony at confirmation hearings.

I filed a FOIL request with NYS Senate today asking for a list of things, such as:

I also filed a written submission and request for oral testimony indicating that I am opposed to elevation of Janet DiFiore as Chief Judge of New York State Court as a witness of gross, deliberate and continuous violations of constitutional rights of criminal defendants that I witnessed as a criminal defense attorney when I represented a client in Westchester County in 2014, see also my blog here.

I will report on this blog how the NYS Senate answers my FOIL request.

If all who are allowed to testify in the confirmation hearing of Janet DiFiore are attorneys, they are interested witnesses, because their financial well-being rests in their law licenses, and thus they will be in fear of losing their livelihoods if they testify against Janet DiFiore, while she will be confirmed despite such testimony; so, of course, they will be testifying in support of her, and such a policy of invitations for oral testimony, picking for invitation only those who support the nomination and not those who oppose it, smacks of corruption, Senator Bonacic.

By the way, at about 9:30 am today (when I called Sen. Bonacic' office), the secretary told me that Jessica Cherry will call me back, because at that time she was "on the other line".

3 hours later, Jessica Cherry still did not call me back.

That must be one long telephone conversation - at taxpayers' expense.

No comments:

Post a Comment